The site is called agnostic.com however I'm an atheist not agnostic .. I say that bluntly because I don't support the ideology behind agnosticism in regards to religion ... When I say I'm an atheist I'm saying I don't believe in any of the ideologies presented by any of the religions imposed by the past on us today or any time and age. Therefore I don't believe we were created by any force ... I totally understand evolution and refuse to give any spirituality to any entity other than what has been explained by scientists to me ...
Even pre-shaped ideologies I don't care how much they are supported by history or advocated or endorsed by whoever, I DO NOT support anything without questioning and examining both pros and cons unless there is an undeniable evidence that cause a threat to an innocent human being's life or basic rights to exist.
If I say I'm a feminist I mean I'm a 100% for freedom and empowering women not a man hater or a blind supporter of a woman who uses the system to her advantage on the account of the freedom or the life of an innocent human being.
I stand strong by women's right and enforce women's duties in even the urge to end the double standards of women's rights and duties in our society as a culture not the law... I refuse to accept that women should submit being victims and realize their power and take matters by their own hands. Which requires sharper position on for example the new liberals .. who seem to defend any but not a white straight man to do and say what they want in the name of freedom of choice even if it means it's a muslim man marrying off his daughter or putting a head scarf on his child's head... or allowing him to walk with a face covered woman not considering that she's is too scared to express her own opinion against what he is forcing her to do or say because he or her family can simply kill her.
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
7 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I'm good with everything you said but I would make one refinement for you to mull over. There are many Agnostics on this site who don't believe in any religion because there is no evidence. We also don't believe in the natural creation of the universe YET because, like religion, there is insufficient evidence to support it. I understand the Big Bang, Inflation (see link 1), and the many Multiverse theories (see link 2), are possible Cosmology scenarios. But since these are hypothetical and not facts, we are waiting right there on the edge of reason.
kensmile4u
Level 8
Apr 16, 2019
1
@TheAstroChuck I understand some data has been collected (i.e., CMB) through measurements with the planck spacecraft which verifies some of Guth's predictions. But problems remain. For example, no physical field has yet been discovered that is responsible for this inflation. Such a field would be scalar and the first relativistic scalar field proven to exist, the Higgs field, was only discovered in 2012–2013 and is still being researched. Another problem is the lack of understanding with the singularity. Models based on general relativity alone can not extrapolate toward the singularity beyond the end of the Planck epoch. With that said, the origins of the Universe are still largely hypothetical due to lack of connected abductive reasoning from T=0 IMHO. I'd be happy to learn if you've got any recent info to advance my understanding.
I'm sure you've seen and probably taught these theorems but I'm posting a link for general community edification.
@TheAstroChuck The definition of Scientific Theory I'm using is prescribed in the attached links. IMHO the origin of the Universe does not meet the definition of Scientific Theory because it lacks the necessary criteria of having empirical data or abductive reasoning. Perhaps we are just talking semantics here but in the definition of abductive reasoning, there is only room for a remnant of uncertainty. IMHO there is a lot more than a remnant of uncertainty when it's widely agreed that a new set of physical laws is needed to explain a singularity.
"One cannot predict what might come "out" of a big-bang singularity in our past, or what happens to an observer that falls "in" to a black-hole singularity in the future, so they require modification of physical law."
@TheAstroChuck I agree with all of that except the singularity. What happened from time equals zero through Planck time? No matter how small comparatively, that part is all hypothetical! There is no data and no abductive reason in that period of time. Most of us want to think it's likely natural. It might not be. Right there is where I'm waiting!
@TheAstroChuck I have corrected a mistake in my last comment. I meant to say "through Planck time" in the first sentence. I have attached a link to the chronology of the universe. We are both in agreement regarding the series of events. You said, "I agree that for times <1 minute are highly speculative". You also said
"I make a big distinction between definitions of hypothetical and speculative." Now we are really getting into semantic muddy waters. I make a big distinction between scientific theory and speculative theory. Per my previous link on Scientific Theory, speculative theory is a layman's theory. In fact, in my opinion, it is the same thing as a hypothetical because no abductive reason and no observable predictions are possible. Therefore IMO the time from zero through Planck time is hypothetical. I have enjoyed our conversation but I don't wish to argue semantics. Best Regards...
I try to take the larger view of religion. Of course all religion is empty of reason and only "the opiate of the masses", but the difference between the religions shaped history and we have to see the difference between the "Mandarin" type religions of the east, the "Mother Earth" religions of the New World and Africa, and the "Stoic-mysticism" of Europe and the Middle East and all their variants. They all oppress their subjects but all formed some sort of function in their society, partially useful, some benign and much detrimental. I often wonder how farther we would have advanced without religion. I wouldn't take too much inference to the word "agnostic".com, pretty sure that was the only word left to use, there are many atheist sites. The intro clearly allows a person the designate their preference in belief or non-belief.
clarkatticus
Level 7
Apr 16, 2019
1
I agree with much of your post, but next time, please try some paragraph breaks. It will make your post more understandable and encourage more people to read you, which I hope they will, as you are intelligent and with much to say.
TomMcGiverin
Level 8
Apr 15, 2019
5
I'm an English teacher. Oh how much I agree with you!
Sorry i tried my best to finish my thought before i got high but i couldn't make on time lol
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.