To whom it may concern (The religious)

I'm going to start a thread about agnosticism in the A&A

 

You asked if I did not have a rigid definition for good. This is it. Love is without condition. Indomitable liking.

Everything is either love or the call for it. There is no criteria to meet.

It has been my experience that everyone strives to have their good according to their model of what that good is. I don't take offense by this.

 

i stand corrected by meagain. apparently, agnosticism is a belief: the belief that the existence of a god or gods is unknowable. i do not believe this, so i guess i will have to find another label for you.

 

'Love is without condition' does not make sense to me. What is asserted about the subject (love) contradicts the definition provided by the English language.

The meanings our symbols represent do not match. Please define this word. We can call it love 2.0

If you have a good, you must have a bad, right? We name things to express differences. I don't take offence to everyone striving to have their good according to their model either, but we are social creatures, and models of 'good' can disagree with one another when both models aren't based on something that we DO share.

Edit: What i do take offence to, is a blatant disregard to my beliefs that are acted on.

Do you believe we share the capacity to understand the universe?

 

I understand that they do not. I have offered an alternate definition. Love is without condition. It does not require reciprocal consideration.

No we do not need bad to have good. Creation is a law without opposites.

I see that we share our thoughts.

 

well, whadayaknow. i found something pretty close: nullifidian. probably won't be using it much, but there it is.

 

oooooh even better!

nothingarian

didn't even know these words exist.

 

They want to separate from what? Because from where I'm looking they're trying to cornhole everyone into believing what they believe. They force us to declare that we are one nation under god, they demand prayer in school and this piece of crap state of Texas just rewrote history texts with their Christian Conservative leaning bullshit.

I'm the one that wants to separate myself and my children from them and their control mongering tripe.

 

The observable universe, (and sometimes) logic and reason.

Religion is not naturally understood, it is an institution that has to first be asserted, and learned. They are separating themselves from us and not the other way around, because what we believe is self evident (when our calculations are correct).

 

In this moment it is your own rhetoric that posits separation. Who is "we" and who is "they?"

 

I am talking about already established groups. I did not invent religion or science but I am subjected to the effects of both.

Which do you think I disagree with? If it were even possible to disagree with universal constants, we would not be having this conversation.

 

I vaguely recall reading something about physical constants actually changing in proportion to the age of the universe. Any thoughts?

 

I am introducing new aspect. It is not that I think you disagree. If the problem is the desire to separate based on distinctions of inequality then the solution is equal dispersal. There is no such thing as antagonistic relations even though that appears to be the case. We exist in a world of condition that takes two to manifest. Combatants are both equally involved in a singularly directed thrust called war, conflict, or disagreement. We are never, in a wholly symbiotic and emergent world, "separate."

 

Like killing a robber as well as the person who was being robbed?

Slavery? What kind of behavior is oppression?

And both sides are always fighting for something, right?

The universe doesn't change, only our understanding of it changes.

 

No, like no personal property.

Oppression is oppressive.

Their good yes, based on their model of what that is.

We can change our mind about the world.

 

heeh2- "the universe doesn't change, only our understanding of it changes"

i definitely don't disagree with this.

 

Not sure i'm following you

Antagonistic behavior can be basic 'predator - prey'

splitting hairs here.

So neither side is correct in their actions?

Who is "we"? The religious?

 

No personal property, no robbery.

Not sure I'm following you here.

How do you measure an event. Where does an action start and where does it end. Is neither side correct? Knowledge is, being shared.

Any one who is dissatisfied.

 

That might be true but people would still seek to acquire things through force if the motivation for robbery wasn't removed.

Mouths still need feeding, private property or not.

You said theres no such thing as antagonistic behavior.
Predator - prey

Events are measured by observing them. The event of performing a backflip begins when the brain sends signals to the body that applies the force required to perform it.

An action is an event that does not have a defined time or place.

Its particular to the situation.

Is that all war is?

Dissatisfied with what? The undesirable or negative qualities of the other "good"?

Thats what bad means.

 

Irminsul has the right idea.

Also why does the OP choose to separate himself? We all stand inside a camp. It's unavoidable.

I don't disagree with science. I just accept the problem of induction as real.

You also seem to assume that all religious people are intellectually naive. Why?