• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Aggressive Agnosticism

I've always said I'm a follower of the Mystery and the great unknown. Agnosticism makes sense to me.... although its foundation is based on doubt, which is the opposite of faith. I have faith that universe does guide me in mysterious ways, and that there is more going on here than we really understand. Agnosticism admits that there could be nothing, or there could be something. It's sort of a toss up. I don't think it's that uncertain for me.

I've seen and experienced too many odd things for me to rule out a greater power. I just wish science would start investigating non-physical phenomena, because I want answers for some of my experiences.
 
rangrz said:
Science does investigate "non-physical" phenomena. It calls these branches of science things like "Psychology" "Sociology" and "Computer Science".
Click to expand...

Not to mention Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, Systems Theory, Metrology, Taxonomy, Economics, Statistics, &c. When viewed this way, science is shown all the more clearly to be a well-honed method of inquiry, not some fossilizing agglomerate of research findings and stodgy professors.
 
Science, in it's many forms, from particle physics to psychology and artificial intelligence, brought about the internet as we know it, so that postmodernists could post nonsensical rants about how everything is equally valid.

I suggest if that's the case, they ought to be able to make one too, by deconstructing gender roles that pollute ion beam implantation used in semi-conductor manufacture and the racism inherent in network topology.
 
For instance perhaps we are actually just individual parts of that entity becoming aware of itself
Click to expand...
to me and many others, this is fact

not proved, but verified by our convincing experiences

don't look any further, you're on the right path

but... why the fuck does everyone want to call this "god" ???

this is not a god, this is the universe
the word god has a historically loaded meaning
what is the point of trying to change its meaning?
the word's been taken already
let's just dismiss it once and for all

there's no relation between what 99% of people understand by the word "god" and the universe's emerging consciousness

as for aggressive agnosticism, i prefer militant atheism :D
 
rangrz said:
Science, in it's many forms, from particle physics to psychology and artificial intelligence, brought about the internet as we know it, so that postmodernists could post nonsensical rants about how everything is equally valid.
Click to expand...

Completely off-topic, but I thought I'd share some Althusser with you. His linguistic diarrhea made my day.

I shall therefore say that, where only a single subject (such and such individual) is concerned, the existence of the ideas of his belief is material in that his ideas are his material actions inserted into his material practices governed by material rituals which are themselves defined by the material ideological apparatus from which we derive the ideas of that subject...Ideas have disappeared as such (insofar as they are endowed with an ideal or spiritual existence), to the precise extent that it has emerged that their existence is inscribed in the actions of practices governed by rituals defined in the last instance by an ideological apparatus. It therefore appears that the subject acts insofar as he is acted by the following system (set out in the order of its real determination): ideology existing in a material ideological apparatus, describing material practices governed by a material ritual, which practices exist in the material actions of a subject acting in all consciousness according to his belief.
Click to expand...
 
How is accepting that there is no evidence of a Deity hubris?
Furthermore, how is an aversion to harm caused by organised religion and dogma hubris, or negative at all?

Just trying to see where your coming from as you seem like an intelligent enough fellow
 
on either side it is the hubris of considering one actually has some grasp of an ultimate truth which is way beyond one's reach.

there are plotholes in both belief and disbelief enough to make unquestionable committment to either be foolish and misguided. this is a question of a persons own private position, not so much one of the impact on society, so the harms of organised religion is another subject. religion, like many things, can cause both harm and healing, depending on the application of it. but like i said, the question over the belief of a deity is not essentially tied to organised religion. it can relate but not essentially. there are as many paths as there are people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top