Atheism the ultimate stupidity ?
- Thread starter GlorytoGod
- Start date
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Sure. The position of "I don't know" is more intellectually honest than saying unequivocally "I know!" It leaves room for doubt, room for exploration, room for consideration...it allows the mind to continue considering, nothing is static and settled, all things can in turn be considered for their own merits.
Whereas the "certain" atheist is every bit as self absorbed and closed to further consideration as any fundamentalist follower of *any other* religion or philosophy. They "know" it already, even when it is obvious they truly haven't a clue. The agnostic, by contrast, is more willing to accept they might have strayed for a moment down a blind alley or dead end, and are more willing to back up and try again without any shame.
The pursuit of knowledge demands the student be uncertain in order to learn. Unlearning something in order to relearn something else is far more difficult, whereas making room for all considerations means not being certain of any one in particular.
Were it not for the very few certainties in my experience, I would consider myself agnostic.
Whereas the "certain" atheist is every bit as self absorbed and closed to further consideration as any fundamentalist follower of *any other* religion or philosophy. They "know" it already, even when it is obvious they truly haven't a clue. The agnostic, by contrast, is more willing to accept they might have strayed for a moment down a blind alley or dead end, and are more willing to back up and try again without any shame.
The pursuit of knowledge demands the student be uncertain in order to learn. Unlearning something in order to relearn something else is far more difficult, whereas making room for all considerations means not being certain of any one in particular.
Were it not for the very few certainties in my experience, I would consider myself agnostic.
I'm sure you feel the same way of agnosticism in most of its forms no? Or is it case specific (such as moral agnosticism)? An atheist in fact may not truly know if a god exists beyond the concept and deny it (as god clearly does exist in the minds of those that cherish him/her/it), but an aethiest doesn't surround himself around fantasy and delusional thought nor need a reward to do what is right. Doing the right thing is reward in itself, so i'd have to suggest in a way an aethiest (or those in general not believing in heaven/hell) is capable of being more virtuous then a typical theist whereas an agnostic just seemes rather clueless and isn't sure what the right thing is perhaps without guidance from established laws. I'm more then open minded in regards to religion, i'll even concede that god is the powers that be that brought us into existance for the sake of debate and i'll even agree with the misogynistic point of view that god is a man (for reasons that elude me, i'd prefer to call god "it").
I'm not exactly an aethiest (a deist with atheist tendencies perhaps), just that is what i'm labelled, and i lean and tend to think form their perpsective wanting proof before justification of an immaculate, benevelont being, that i'd just rather say it doesn't exist (even though humans have shown to be hardwired for a belief in god, whatever form it takes scientifically)... i'll even work in the framework of someone elses god, their dogma, and try to reach the same conclusions, the key is to be open minded, not adamant in your beliefs. While the agnostic might be percieved to be open minded in regards to god by abstaining from the conflict, how solid is the concept as a whole? You've written in your earlier posts that murder is wrong, what would a philosphical agnostic suggest? Agnosticism can only go so far without making a fool of itself, their are clear boundaries, pedophilia as i'm sure many of you would agree with me on these forums is wrong, as is rape... suggest this to a true agnostic and they won't take a side, but will be open minded about it, lacking a conscience, being far too cerebral and deluded by such to take a stand about what is and what isn't permissable. Their are those that are mostly good, their are those that are mostly evil, and their are those that just don't know (intellectual limbo).
I do agree with you on many aspects, god has occured in many cultures so it is relevant to all sides even those that don't believe in god, at least not like most people do, however not believing in something because theirs no evidence of it besides hearsay and fantasy i think is the stronger position. Does cthulhu really exist as described by the cult of cthulhu or is it entirely contrived (it exists of course within the realm of thought and concept as one clearly knows what cthulhu looks like from a myriad of artists renditions), for that matter what of the merits of scientology comming form an agnostic point of view? I just don't see where your comming from that is where you and i differ (all though i find it very enjoyable discussing this with you).
While you see an atheist as saying i know unequivocally, you fail to show how they arrived at their conclusion, thinking it just popped right into their minds without laborious deliberations and consequences (their are many consequences), whereas an agnostic is as i consider it, lazy for not making the effort to deliberate and arrive at a conclusion whatever it may be. Flip a coin. An athiest is one side, a theist the other. The agnostic is the intermediary spinning before it lands if you will. Heads? Tails? Either way you win. I think of agnosticism as an intermediate belief system, a transitional belief system good at developing more ideas, and finding one that works for you, but most certainly not a good choice for sustained belief.
I'd be a full on atheist if someone else could explain how we can get something from nothing. Very contradictory in terms of everything... everything needs a predecessor it is how everything is based; the universe, matter, infinite expansions and detractions and big bangs, collapses what have you... but where did all this stuff come from? It's a paradox if you will and logically leads to some form of a god, but not much else to defining characteristics, philosophy, law, etc.. a hardcore atheist tries to utilize string theory, and parallel universes, but evades the fundamental question of how anything can exist without a predecessor, which brings about god... but a god of a god of a god? Another paradox. Oh, ok, god has existed for all time; another paradox. No one has all the answers.