To All Agnostics

Lib I thought you were a strong atheist, not an agnostic atheist?

 

Yes. I am a staunch atheist, but I also consider myself (now) an ANTI-THEIST.

I don't put "faith" in Atheism. I can't.

But, I do see no reason to believe in a self-refuting, self-contradictory, absurd notion of some supernatural bullshit that has been used and re-used to fill the gaps of science and nature since forever ago.

THERE IS NO GOD. Never has been. Never will be.

All you knuckleheads can call nature "god" if you want. Hell, you can call your dog's asshole "god". I don't care, but that doesn't make it so. You're only masturbating with words and fantasies just like a sexual fantasy.

There is NO EVIDENCE of a fucking "god" and NO REASON to even consider the POSSIBILITY.

 

There is no reason to consider the possibility?

Is there likewise no reason to consider an infinite universe a possibility?

After all there is absolutely no evidence that the universe extends in all directions for an infinite amount of space.

 

I am atheist in addition to being agnostic. Because most people don't claim trolls, pixies, or goblins exist or question their existance, I don't need to either.

How can I be atheist in addition to being agnostic?
In knowledge I am agnostic. Agnostics operate on what they know, and they don't know God exists, but they don't know he doesn't exist either, so they can't act upon it.

I'm atheist because in belief I don't believe that there is a God. Material dialectics is what I know; however, it doesn't disprove the existance of God. All it does is show that humans have the capacity for creating God, but even if humans did create God, that doesn't mean that he/she/it/they doesn't/don't exist.

Adopting this stance allows me to be both open and tolerant of religion and possibly excepting, and it also allows me to operate on what I know and don't know, instead of what I believe.

 

I didn't say don't consider the possibility. I said there is no REASON to.

Lack of evidence and mystery may allow for ANYTHING, but they are not to be considered as evidence for a supernatural force.

Give me one good reason besides an "argument from human ignorance" and I'll take it back. I'll say there is at least ONE REASON to consider the possibility.

I consider an infinite cosmos (universe...multiverses..etc) a possibility because a fundamental precept of science is that energy/mass cannot created or destroyed, but only change form. Thus, I can easily consider the possibility that SOMETHING (energy/mass) always existed in SOME FORM. And that everything is something (i.e. energy/mass). No mystery to that. That's a SCIENTIFICALLY BASED POSSIBILITY, not some fairytale.

 

Libertine serves a purpose to show the absurdity of doubting the one consciousness beyond time/space and in all time/space... it is just as absurd as agonostism, as all the religions, as mystical knowledge of it, of quantum mechanics knowledge of it...

It is all absurd... Libertine has not yet gotten the cosmic joke... Libertine can't know God, because one of the first reactions of knowing there is a god, is fear of what god will do to one's body... protection is sought from god by the deepest most engrained part of our nature... the lightness of the cosmic joke is that recognizing god, seeing the horrible beauty, and bowing humbling oneself before oneself in the all is one sense of it... you gain protection... keeping that relationship with god keeps the protection... and being in the right place at the right time...

From Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey

"There no other place to be then...
right here
There is no other time to be...
then right now!"

I just ended up crying in such incredible bliss after seeing this movie got the cosmic joke again... thanks everybody... we win!

 

Green

And all you know.. is that u dont know if there is or is'nt a god.
Athiesm is a desired position.. not a required one.

Occam

 

GP

U made all that up..and u know it. What 'god' in reality 'do u speak of?
None

Occam

 

Thank you Occam, once again you've better articulated the point I was trying to make. I've never been good with words.

It reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw: "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you."

 

AYE

LOL

This little black duck is gonna put on a neat 'dark' suit.
Shine his shoes.
Put on a calm and concerned face. And go door to door
asking all if they have found the 'rational position'.

That only the 'rational position' can save ones eternal soul.
lol
militant agnosticism

 

haha thats a pretty damned funny sticker.

 

bugs me when poeple argue symantics, comunication is not just about the words you use but there intent, and to purposfully ignore someone point to agrue the "accepted" meening of word is counterproductive.
whats worse is where talking labels here, and to debate the meening of a label is an odd thing for "hippies" to do.
If i was filling out some questianare i would mark agnostic, I believe it's likely there are noncoporeal intelegences.

 

Occam, I know that I know of... one thing I know is that "I" made all of this up... you, gp, all form, the formless... all is me, all is my creation... I percieve this through countless subjective forms, not to mention transedent form and formlessness... and on and on it goes. There is a very real process that you will one day find out about... perhaps it will be at your moment of death.

 

GP

When u learn to convey concepts..let occam know.
So far, statements like the one quoted mean nothing.

Occam

 

FU'd american

Occam is always disturbed when people think such has anything to do with what the person has to say.
It's like 'fat people are stupid' or 'ugly people should stay indoors'
This forum is for thinking minds.
Not self empowering ego trips

Or are u one of those people who think the way someone dresses or speaks has any import on the validity of their words?

Occam

 

occam cracks steffan up sometimes

 

the names we invent for things are the names we invent for things.
none of them require anything to exist or not exist.

all of these names you've mentioned are just things poeple have called nontangable things they don't know about in order to immagine that they do. just like gods in that sense. which is of course why i do not draw any such 'line'.

all sorts of things can and probably do exist.
none of them have to bear the slightest resemblence
to the lore we've invented about them.

a nontangable being that is greater then ourselves is a god or hemisemidemi whatever you want to call it. one that isn't is what all those other things you've mentioned refer to.

you know people like to invent and tell stories
and there is something enjoyable about that sense of mystery too
and really there's no reason all sorts of things can't exist.
the only thing objectively observable is that if they wished us any real harm
we'd be in a lot of trouble more then we are
and that most if not all of the trouble we are in is our own doing
is objectively observable as well

so this doesn't prove that anything can't exist.
what it does suggest is
only that whatever does, isn't for the most part,
all that hostile or sinister

(the UPI? only "u.p.i." i've ever heard of is united press international. is that what you were refering to, or do those letters also now stand for something else i've yet to hear of?)

=^^=
.../\...

 

The element of mans intelegence is undoubtable one of infinte ignorance, but as Socrates and anyone with common sense has noticed teir own perspective within in an existting life source. Not even buddhist's can deduce that their being is not being at all. It just doesnt make sense. So this being proves a being.In this obvious proof the lines are drawn between, by what we can phycisally idnetify with as existing and what we cannot. this is where scince comes into play.

 

Zion

And how does science come into play?
Not being a smartarse here.
wanting to know your LINE
between good ideas
and reality

 

No God. It's just your imagination.