To All Agnostics

I am what you call a Atheistic Agnostic. I dont see agnostic logic as being silly at all. I would say, in response to the leprecaun analogy, that i believe there is a very low probability in the leprecauns being in my garden. You cant say that you ahve to believe or not believe. Like if I ask you if, i Dont know, the USA will invade iran, and you might say, i bielieve in a 70% probability or something. I just apply that to gods.

Im sure people responde to this months ago but meh

 

Agnostic agnostic: One who who thinks god an interesting idea. But thinks if the idea is reality, then such a being will have little interest in what we silly humans do.

And the apparent lack of godly intervention in human history seems to support this.

Occam

 

It's absurd to make your own.

You recognize here the concept of a higher power of which everything is a part of. That is a theistic belief.

If you see evidence to suggest that such a higher power exists, you are a theist.

If not, but you still believe, you are a theistic agnostic.

 

hijack

aha cool man

i remember suspecting you were australian for some reason but it was just a feeling so never adressed it

unhijack

 

though i dont think these issues have a discernable numerical value, its sorta more about logical possibilities than numerical probabilities, dontcha think?

 

All is absurd, don't you remember the cosmic joke dude!

Sorry those catagories are like dust on your feet, oh great guru, stop fooling yourself and admit you know what I speak of...

Those catagories you want to push on me... nothing but the babblings of psychosis that has overtaken the earth...

I will make my own and reject that which is written... call me a sinner against the status quo if you must.


Note: I am not PUSHING my trip on you... I am simply stating fact as I know it... feel free to disagree with me... You are free to make up your own catagories or use mine... I love you no matter how psychotic you are, right now, at least... I admit I have my moment when hate overtakes my ego and I get upset at those off the bus... but it is a fleeting series of thoughts and emotions.

 

Eh, fair enough.

Still, I do think it is absurd to "make up your own" when you already classify as one of those categories.

Whether or not you consider yourself a "mystic with knowledge," ... let's take a look at what that means for a second.

A mystic is clearly a spiritual person, usually they believe in other / higher realms, no?

A person with knowledge would be a person in "gnosis," or "gnostic."

If this is true, you wouldn't be agnostic.

And if you believe in a higher power or higher realm, you would be theistic = having belief.

Thus you would be a theist.

This discussion is relevant to agnosticism and theism.

If you take a look at the spectrum of possible classifications, they include the four categories desribed earlier.

If you fall into one of them, it seems a little weird to "make up your own" when there is no need.

That's all I meant, sorry if that came off differently.

 

Gp

No.. All is neutral.

Occam

 

This is where "god" debates are flawed, because there is a difference between Sky Daddy and god. God in my belief is a force, a drive, a one love/consciousness. Sky Daddy, is basically the demiurge, aka Enlil from Sumerian beliefs. Now that, I dunno if I can beleive in, but it would make sense as to why the world sucks because Enlil has notoriously hated humans and is a vengeful being. Now, the one love, one consciousness, which is what i call god, I think we all might be able to agree on.

As for UFO's, who is to say these aren't the cronies of Sky Daddy aka Enlil?

 

So is calculus without the prerequisite learning.

 

I second this point.

Nothing is beyond the realm of understanding, as long as the capacity for such understanding is there.

The human capacity for understanding is very limited on a grand scale -- but also, it continually increases -- moreso now on an exponential scale than ever before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

 

the universe runs on strict rules that cannot be broken nor bent, we cannot understand even a fraction of these laws yet logic and experience tells us they do exisist.
am i an agnostic? hell im not even sure what that label meens, i am however open minded, always searching for the truth and never getting even close, yet i search because in a sence it justifies my existence.
proof of god? i dont realy see the point, because even if i did discover proof that the universe was aware of itself that would in no way prove a religon or that said universe has any human attributs whatsoever.in fact i find it somewhat ludricous that an itellegence that vast would difienciate humans from any other animal, any more than we differenciate omebas from bactieriam
fairies and such? well from fossils remains we know that at times in mans past we have coexisted with humanoid creature that fit every one of there discriptions, at least to a point, but are there brownies in the woods? well if there are than the kelt belief that they are not of this dimension must be the case, because nature is simply not wastefull and if it were posible to have a relitivly high inteligence with a brain that small we would not be burning up 20% of our energy running the one we have
bow to the posibilities and go with what works

 

I'm agnostic because I'm open minded about well reasoned religions.

The important part is the reasons and whether I view them to have a strong enough backing for their views.

I see no religion as having a strong claim for full belief as many either support reasons for dictatorship or encourage people to be ignorant of their own flaws.

Ideas like, god being an equilibrium of 'life' as an entity, is to me, quite possible, because i'm optimistic

'God' being a bloke with a big beard and wanting my to pray to him every night so I can end up in bored on a cloud without humour is far from believable from my agnostic point of view. It doesn't make any sense.

"intangible leprechauns aren't dancing in my yard every night", Has no backing other than it can't be dispoven. So I see no reason to give it a portion of my belief.

If I was to say "I'm an Athiest" (which I used to believe) I would now see myself as ignorant as full on BELIEF in no existance of any form of 'god' removes a lot of spirituality from life.

Being open minded is important for avoiding arrogance, but reason is important to avoid being niave.

 

To all Agnostics:

There is no "God". Only nature. Only energy. If you want to call that god, go ahead, but you are merely masturbating with language to make yourself feel better.

Pussy.

 

haha, The 1st name for it I heard was 'God', I'm just following the trend.. infact no, I BLAME PEER PRESSURE!

 

Rofl.

Call it what you will, as long as it's pleasureful it can't be bad, right? Better to be accused of masturbating than other things.

Still, there are other concepts of god that are not God with a capital G. I feel that nobody can dismiss "god" but anyone can easily dismiss "God."

 

Can you explain to me how making a statement like that doesn't involve a leap of faith? You are putting all of your stock into the construct of human rationality.

 

Sure. I see nature. There is nothing that isn't energy. These are fundamental precepts of science.

Secondly, theism is a belief. Atheism is disbelieve. Belief requires evidence--some reason to believe. Atheism isn't a belief. I don't BELIEVE there is a not-god. I just don't see any reason to believe in a god.

 

Right, and as an agnostic, I don't see any reason to believe OR dis-believe that there is a "God". Furthermore, I don't see any way that one could make the CLAIM that there is/isn't a "God" (which you did) without making a leap of faith into one's own rationale or into a man-made doctrine/protocol (science). Either way, it involves putting your beliefs into a human construct.