Extremists

Occam proposes that theists and atheists.
Are the 'extreme' left and right of the central position called 'agnosticism'

And whenever you get control of things..people die by the million.
This exactly mirrors the events of human history.

Occam

 

Welcome back, Occam. :H

I have to agree.

 

Hey Hiky

Nice to hear my friend...
Got REAL tired of saying the same thing for the 200th time...

needed a break

Occam

PS..Love the sword..I've been playing 'mount&Blade' Real cool 1st/3rd person rpg.
http://www.taleworlds.com/
Occam would have you at his back brother, as said before.
Like Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

 

Now there's a man who makes sense.

I tend to agree.

 

What the trick is - the secular humanists are now calling anything decisive 'Extremist'.
Before, you had to be a raving fundamentalist cult member but now anyone who is simply unwilling to have a soft and uncommited opinion is an 'Extremist'.

In fact, where people have had commited ideologies it has made the world a better place.
IF its a worthwhile Ideology.
Hitler had a flawed and destructive ideology (well if you were a Jew I guess) and so commitment to it was ultimatley destructive.
Not so with his opponents very determined commitments to Liberty, Democracy and Human Rights.
Their commitment ended up stopping Hitler after all.

But.. I suppose by the standards trying to be reset today - Winston Churchil would be considered an 'Extremist' if he started 'forcing his beliefs' on people today.
Bush is even considered an 'Extremist' now.

Commitment is respectable.
Its not 'extremism'

Meh.. Simpsons are on.
Later

 

Erasmus70
Was speaking of theism. atheism and agnosticism.
Not political ideologies.

Is it not a general perception that agnostics are 'uncommited'?
That to say 'i dont know' is just not good enough when it comes to
the question of god?
Do you think occams agnostic position is an inabillity to commit to
a belief?
Occam proposes that he is far more commited to the agnostic position
than any theist or athiest he has ever met.
Decades of rational thought and analysis. A constant questioning of
his own position and the methodology used to hold it.
A solid chain of logic/reason can be shown to support the position
"insufficient data" [agnosticism]
A claim neither theists or athiests can make in their positions of
belief or non-belief.

To occam..Thiests and athiests are committed to someone elses
interpretation of reality and what does or does not exist in it.
They "truley" believe [ or disbelieve].
But cannot actually explain WHY
[ i just know theres a god!!!!] [or not]
When NONE can actually KNOW such a thing at all.

To borrow from socrates...
Agnostics admit that they, and humanity, know only one thing.
That we know nothing.

When we stop lying to ourselves. We take one step up the ladder
to maturity.

Occam

ps
Occam was once told.
"you dont believe in anything do you, like god or whatever."
"should i?"
"yeh.. i mean, it's all gotta mean something..life and such"
"it does"
"but you said you didnt believe in god"
"what has god got to do with meaning?"
"well god made everything..he must have had a reason"
"what fool told u god made everything?"
"who else could have"
"everything might have already been here..and always will be"
"uhhh. what?"

Thats just about how far most 'believers' can get before they fall
away in confusion.. Thats the price of 'BLIND COMMITMENT'

 

In other words - you cant make up your mind yet.
Thats cool.
As long as the problem is simply that you have not yet found the evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt.
If its just you not being able to think things through then thats an internal problem I suppose.
Cant help you there.

 

Erasmus

Actually, my method to understanding will not allow me to believe
or disbelieve in an entitity 'god' that appears entirely the construct
of human minds.
God is a hypothetical.
As any who can detatch their desire from their reason will understand.

Occam

 

Detaching desire from reasoning anddddd....
Nope.
Objective evidence exists which argues for the existance of a God.
Is it evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?
Thats where it gets difficult for people who have trouble 'thinking things through'.
Thinking things through is quite a bit a different thing than being knowledgeable.
You have to be able to weigh and balance a bit.
I suggest some art and grace is required as much as data and calculation does.

But anyways - its interesting that you have solved the mystery and I guess you can only hope others can be as brilliant as you ar.. LMFAO.. SOrryy hahhaa.. I couldnt pull off that last sentence with a straight face LOL!
I swear I really tried lol!

Hey, has it ever crossed your advanced mind to question your 'method of understanding' and/or your requirements?
Just curious?

 

I disagree with your (I am referring to you, Occam, not this "Occam" person) original assertion that theists and atheists are extremists. At least no more so than anyone else. Not every theist or atheist claims to know God exists; many of us simply believe one way or the other. Just as you believe you can't know. All three are beliefs, all three have proponents who argue tirelessly to no avail, so who are the extremists? Simply believing or not in a God does not make you liable for all the deaths caused by people who have wanted control over an issue throughout history.

I think you're wrong to say that theists and atheists are commited to someone else's interpretation of reality. It is our interpretation, just as agnosticism is yours. I don't think there is much argument to be had there; it is simply a chosen position on a subject. What you are saying is that your position is absolutely correct (and you speak of control?), when you can't know for certain that your position is absolutely correct. I can explain why I believe adequately enough for you: My mind is programmed to believe. There is scientific evidence to support this. Are you saying that I'm not a good enough person until I have a doctor cut out the section of my brain that makes me believe in God? What if that same section controls my eyesight? Do you even care if I go blind? Thanks a lot, Occam.

You can only believe you know nothing. You can't know you don't. So take one more step up that ladder of maturity. Though, myself...I don't believe this ladder even exists. Where is it? Am I to believe in unicorns next?

 

I would put forth that there are only belief and absence of belief. an agnostic is one who has insufficient data to make a decision. to one for whom belief is absent, they are not the victim of someone elses' thinking, they merely have no evidence to believe. Does insufficient mean that you have some but not conclusive or does it mean none at all?

 

Pop

Incorrect..Said my method to undersanding does not allow belief
in that which is not sustainded by phenomena in reality.
This method of course is occams.. not yours.
And in the decades of his life..Occam has met few that have any
such method at all..Most believe what others believe.. because they
cannot or will not question it.

Much indicative evidence exists for a direction behind reality.
This is obvious in the very antientropic nature of life.
The intricate ballance of objective laws that allow increasing
dynamic complexity withing a framework of descending energy
systems.

However..it is only indicative. And can only be used to underpin belief if
ones method or lack of it, allows such.

Do YOU believe based on 'heresay'.?
Because to occam..That is all human religion and theism IS.

Occam

ps..Do you really think the human race is mature?
If you do..then you are not.

 

Mati

Insufficient= not enough.
But then again..having none at all in no way means that a thing does not exist.
Which is the logical destruction of athiesm.
And ironically..the logical support for theism

Occam

 

'my method to undersanding does not allow belief
in that which is not sustainded by phenomena in reality.
This method of course is occams.. not yours.
And in the decades of his life..Occam has met few that have any
such method at all..Most believe what others believe.. because they
cannot or will not question it.' Occam
I agree wholeheartedly, and I can and will question... up to and including the Pope, The Queen, The President, The Dalai Lama, Stephen Hawking, The Aga Khan, and even God, if I felt that it was appropriate.
My method is far from perfect, but I am very pleased with the current version of it. I am quite alot like Occam in my perspective, my method is mine alone... it is quite unique, or as some have said, eccentric, crazy, evil, and often 'wrong'. I am unsure how they can be so certain my way is wrong for me... maybe it is not for them... but it works for me. I trust my senses, which can be fooled, and often are. I trust others, and often, am lied to. And I trust my gut. My heart takes precedence over my brain. That last one is quite a new amendment, necessary due to my brain's miserable record. The change has been a success so far, my heart is a better bet so far, which I wish I had learned 25 years ago... But logically, my brain should have been a better choice, which was likely the belief which led to my mistake. If most people believe it, usually it's correct. Not always. Sometimes one person opposes everyone, and everyone is wrong. I question all. I can't help it. I do not ascribe to herd mentality, going with the flow, blindly accepting the authorized and officially accepted answer. Respect for any person, or authority must be earned for me to have it. I do not accept the word of anyone, no matter how highly qualified an 'expert' they are. In fact, I have disagreed with the 'experts' more than once, despite their attempts to convince me of their position. Anyone can teach me, and they do, from toddlers, to seniors, from homeless panhandlers, to University Graduates with 100's of millions of dollars. But I don't just accept their word. In my own way, I ponder the validity and relevence of the point in my life, and if it is something I feel is worth caring about, I will choose my answer. And I will change that answer only if offered a more acceptable one.
It is all meant to be for me alone, though, I choose for me. Others are free to think for themselves, in my world, and I like the same back.

 

Van Fraasen holds a similar belief, only he also refuses to believe in explanations that are empirically adequate, and for good reason, I suppose, although I am no constructive empiricist. The trouble with believing in even empirically adequate hypotheses lies in the underdetermination problem, or the Duhem-Quine problem. For any theory T, there is a potentially infinite number of empirically adequate, rival theories, all of which being inconsistent with T. Take Newton's Laws of Motion. Newton happened to believe in absolute space, meaning that space has a position regardless the positions of the bodies that lie within it. However, he also realised that it could be the case that the entire solar system is moving at a constant velocity in any given direction, in which case motion would appear absolute but would, in fact, be relative. For this reason and a few others, Van Fraasen claims that suspention of judgement is the proper epistemic attitude of science.

I don't buy it, either. Nevertheless, the Duhem-Quine problem is the most threatening challenge to scientific realism ever posed.

 

considering you've made 50 other posts in 4 days and haven't replied to this thread, I'd say you got your cross stuck in the cookie jar now didn't you! LOL

 

I am content to state I don't know. Reality awes me beyond imagining, and is far stranger than I ever thought it was. And the most surprising thing to me is that time only adds to the wonder, rather than lessening the mystery. I agree with the concept that the more I learn, the less I know. It is reasonable to speculate that if God was real, for God to present absolute proof of that would be improbable. Once definitive evidence appears, then we could no long choose whether or not to believe. I feel that this is rightly described by skeptics as 'pretzel logic'. It is pure conjecture, and as such, is easily dismissed by non-believers as a convenient answer to why no proof exists. It is more logical to suppose that the lack of proof is due to there being no God.
I believe in many supernatural phenomena, but none of them indicate to me that there is a God.
But, I am not at all concerned either way, because I imagine that God is beyond human comprehension, if real, anyway. And if there is no God, I see no problem either.
Some say that I am ignorant and apathetic, but I don't know that, and besides, I don't care.

 

hey blackgaurd...haven't even read your post above yet. I just wanted to post quickly and point out that I was speaking to Erasmus with my challenge not you.....

but thanks for the contribution. I will read it and respond later after getting to work!

 

just read the post.....glad to hear you admit that you can't "know"

I never said there was a god, I never said there wasn't.......I said I CAN'T KNOW

Thats not ignorant or apathetic.......its called being agnostic like me!