MickinEngland

Og quote - Theists/atheists are the cowards.
---------------------------------------------



Ha ha ha, it's some atheists and ags who may be the cowards.. ;)
They'd like to be christians but they're afraid of what their pals would say, I mean, they'd lose their street cred wouldn't they..

Og

I know there are LOTS of people who actually believe. And that's what I'm saying. Reducing it to a matter of belief in literal fact misses the point of mythology. It's the connotations, not the denotations.

Why believe in christ's virgin birth? Why not believe in buddha's virgin birth? Both stories claim status of the son of god. It's just unfortunate that so many folks are brought up in traditions that never grow up. Taking the stories as literal truth may be good when you're a kid (like santa), but at some point, you get to join the human condition. Then the symbols become transparent to brahman. (as a side note, buddhists don't believe that the buddha's birth was really a virgin birth. The story indicates that he was born out of his mother's side at the level of her heart. This is very telling in the hindu tradition of a spiritual birth in the same fashion as the virgin birth in mesopotamia).

But unfortunately, that doesn't happen for lots of people.

Point is that theists say: "This is literally true" (i.e. belief)
while atheists say: "This is literally false" (disbelief)

Myself, as an agnostic says: "You guys miss the point."

So maybe it's not that atheists/theists are pussies. Maybe it's just that they haven't grown up and awoken to the reality of the power of a symbol when it impinges upon the human psyche.

I think I was just trying to turn the argument around on the people who call agnostics fence sitters. Theists/atheists spit across a fence grounded in some literal interpretation of myth as fact. Myself, at least, as an agnostic, transcends that and feel zero compulsion to go in either direction.

My direction can be scary to some people because it's a world of the unknown. There are some things that we don't understand. But the power of agnosticism is being able to acknowledge that. That's why it transcends the pairs of opposites.

It's like symbol of jesus on the cross. One mean spirited thief on one side and on the other side is a thief with compassion. These pairs of opposites are not what it's about. Jesus was in the middle transcending both. He transcended heaven and hell, good and evil.

There's so much beauty in the myths of man across history and the face of the earth. So many similarities and co-emerging ideas. That so many people are tied up in the literal facts associated with one religion is unfortunate.

And I don't mean to imply that the religion has less value to me when belief is not involved! Certainly not.

Old chinese proverb:

He who knows that he knows, does not know.
He who knows that he does not know, knows.

Fire Legion

Agnosticism is not a 'mid point', or even a lack of belief. It is a strong, well thought out belief that there is no evidence for either viewpoint. When you theists and atheist realise that, we can at last have an intellectual debate.

Og

What would you debate if the atheists/theists realized this?

Fire Legion

The weighing up of the 'evidence', why I choose to be an agnostic, the links to religious beliefs and morality... many religious topics.

Og

The adam and eve story does have great connotative value. There is reality. The nature of the human condition is such that our consciousness fragments the ideas into good and evil (i.e. the fruit of the tree that they ate from).

There is only what the nature of the universe is as it unfolds. Weighing of the evidence can only lead towards this realization.

That's not a debate though Weighing evidence is not up for debate. Evidence just is. If debate is required, that just means you need more evidence.

Fire Legion

What about in moral debates? Moral evidence can often be put up for debate as to whether or not it's valid.

Og

What, exactly, is moral evidence?

Fire Legion

Evidence... based on moral values...

Og

Evidence of what? Morals are agreements between people. They are structural concepts for the stability of a society.

Evidence isn't based on moral values. You make conclusions based on moral values.