Agnostics are Atheists

Okie:

It's funny, I see us atheists as wanting something more, really something more, as opposed to mere talk of it, which is what all religion seems to us at last. I don't see any great difference between human beings, any divide in life itself that cannot be bridged by love. Love can incorporate any 'kind' of itself. I'd go so far to say it can incorporate any 'blind' force as well---- and yet that remains to be seen!

Are we all a subspecies of ourselves? If we are, then I know what we should do!

I feel so wicked! Is godlessness our greatest potential?!

 

Perhaps when one turns away from love(because it burns), in order to continue existing in the loveless world one now inhabits, one has to turn to God as a consolation.

This could have been what happened in my case

 

Good move. I hope it's rekindled a kind of love that nourishes you and enables you to love the loveless. You've tapped into an energy source that can resurrect a loveless world.

 

What an amazingly silly, unintelligent post.

 

It's amazingly silly, but it's not unintelligent.


Roorshack:

You're not sure what you believe as an "atheist agnostic"? How can this be?!

 

Who'd want to resurrect a loveless world? Turning to 'God' is a kind of turning away from Self.

Love burns?! Bring the kindling!

 

Ha, ha; but that's how to vote for the conservatives when the world, in otherwise the expectation of equality of wealth for the worker and the bourgeois capitalist. That's a chance to see the romantic illusion be just that: of a loving world.

A loveless world is portrayed by the fact of the conscience. The good conscience is for the World of exploitation of the agnostic restart of freedom for inequality that really is the matter about the explained world, the world of essential socialism, and non-responsibility for God created Earth as much as the Godless uncreated mankind <Bertrand Russel>.

Yes; I could want a loveless world of constantly plausible resolution for justice and equality. The conservative voting is to hide from these observations THEY even initially make. Love will solve equality and justice. Keep propagating that fairy tale of Stephen Spielburg. Good God; he must be a conservative.

 

Love is without condition, everything else is respiration.

 

Thereby the world is respiration for the injustice of the Called separation of the IS from the OUGHT. But you guys always wish to make the IS merge with the OUGHT.

Hegel says: the history of the world will not tell. <I can't remember the abstract concept just for NOW>

 

that last word should be infatuation

 

Is or should be, there is no condition but rides upon the breath.

We are not in fact separate but we can feel that we are, separate from each other or separate from our good. I don't think there is a difference between is and ought, but there is confusion as to what is and consequently to what ought.

 

That which is, is that which is not is not. Is not that it?

 

The famous one from Nausea, eh? Do you exist? I ask that in all indifference, form your own point of view.

 

Thou art that

 

Not separately and I have no point of view that is not shared. I had to look up your reference to Nausea, "The best-written and most interesting of Sartre's novels."

Is it worth reading? What is his answer to your question, do you exist?

 

Oh, okay. Sartre maintained that the concepts of authenticity and individuality have to be earned but not learned. We need to experience death consciousness so as to wake up ourselves as to what is really important; the authentic in our lives which is life experience, not knowledge.

An incomplete equation.

Knowledge is, being shared.

 

Actually, there is a view from the outside to consider since his alienated subject of the pre-II world war period. I could say I exist for a Job nowadays: because they SAY SO. Tends to be a reversal of sorts on this computer awareness THING. In all indifference, I do exist for the lazy concern. I felt I had good faith, I wrote "form" by mistake. Thus they built a bad computer at me.

 

I don't understand. You really think He (Sartre) was trying to care for IS being OUGHT. We earn by taking up the TASK of POSSESSING.

The book was a failure for Aristotelian consumption. Not worth reading.

 

His disparity is in separating the two states, being and knowledge, when they shared. Is in the formula, is current emergence. We don't earn as much as we are in a constant state of becoming, but never less than we are. On the other hand neither are we more, save for our novelty, novels, novellas.

 

I mean my thoughts are not unknown. We share our thoughts and there is no condition that transpires for us without our agreement.