Agnostics are Atheists

But the truth of the problem is: 'we know for work': what do we know? the ordinary Life of a citizen. 'we work for understanding the way of living'; what is it to be alive in a country that couldn't care less about why you are. But really no offense IS meant: we had no choice to have or not have a Job. Take reality TV: we share our jobs because THEY SAY SO.

 

What it is like for me in the country I live is I am as rightly devoted to the extent those are devoted to me. To a country that does not care then, not at all. My entire social contract is precisely equal to my relationship to the person standing next to me, whoever that may be. I call no man father and the earth is the womb for all of our agreements in creation.

 

willedwill:

No, no, and no. That's not thrice to be nice. Finalities are always due. There's no vote for the self. Possession is accumulative.

Humanity is godless. I can explain this, but who'd want me to?!

Love won't, but it can. The declaration of an elf. "Equality" and "justice" are at best only by-ways of the wee-folk, at worst they're obstructions. Ultimately we place no stock in them. What we have stock in is utterly effable. Ultimatums have never become us and never will.

thedope:

Love is condition through and through. Everything ( everyone for the sake of getting the better of all character assassination ) hungers after a type. Its own, for its best expression. We don't want our wills willed, unless we ourselves our willing.

 

Are hunger and love the same?

 

Na..ah, the ostensible human condition is not the Actualized or self-actualized human nature. You like my user name. All I'm saying is the WILL is not in itself independent of that human social value in the world which is towards the ever contestable there within.

Take Schopenhauer; I'm sure you remember the irrational worldli-ness all things within.

 

The ostensibility of the human condition is just that. Human nature belongs to actuality, and self-actualization is on-going. Certainly the will is not independent of what proceeds therein.

Love is desire to all appearances, and why should we be deceived by human appearance after all? With respect to ourselves? For the sake of agreement? If there is the will to put our heads together, I feel certain we can avoid their collision. Open collusion. lol

Irrationality is the birthplace. ( This statement is to be 'treated' as poetic for all time )

 

I find love and gratitude more familiar with each other than love and desire.

 

Stop boasting! I'd be grateful if I were you. Or willedwill. Or even me, which I am.

I'm still hungry though.

The degrees of familiarity are innocent, and I burn for this to be understood, for all understanding.

 

That is what I mean by without condition, unreservedly.

 

I'm afraid we all have eachother in reserve, which is to say I'm not afraid at all, even though words can be thought to hurt. Are we all keeping ourselves from eachother for eachother? Is this the thought that can make a loving one despair and give way to the madness of 'the age'?! Not to think too hard, or too much of myself, and yet who else could?! lol

Perhaps our being true to life, as inevitable as that may be, will find resolution in our collective discovery that there is no sacrifice to achieve through death. Perhaps sacrifice itself is only ever an artifact of our coming to understand the meaning of forgiveness.

 

Ahh. I used to be on alert because might might take my right
Now I'm greatly relieved to discover I had been mistaken about everything

 

Agreed; I agree with you if it be construed that we accept that we get what we deserve; justice really is the way of the times: even in some Iraq. We should have kept Saddam Hussein; then the injustice would be from the true imperialist conditions (Francis Bacon).

 

I like the Richard Dawkin's Scale:

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

Agnostics arent athiests at all. An Agnostic is an individual that believes in a philosophical ideology or a "higher power" but dont hold to the system religiously.

Athiests just straight dont believe in dirt.

 

I know for a fact that there is no greater lifeform in the universe.

I was sitting around watching the game having a beer when god told me that he dosnt exist. I said to him thats crazy I can here you now. He replied thats all on your imagination. Who knew?

 

I have always used the term agnostic when in mixed groups where Christians may be lurking. They get so offended when you say you are an Atheist. I suspect they see it as an insult if you don’t drink their flavor of cool aid.
To me being a strong Agnostic or a Humanist run hand in hand with being an Atheist. We might not be the same exact thing, but we are so close the chance of conflict is almost zero.

 

I believe agnostics are atheists BECAUSE if you don't know if God exists, you don't have any passion in your religion(i.e, the one-God religions of the West) and so you in-effect are living without relation to God and so you are for all intents and purposes an atheist.
In other words, people who need religion and God NEED religion and God, and if you say I don't know, then it just shows you dont need [Western] religion/God and so you are in the same existential reality as atheists, who don't need [Western] religion/God.

 

I think you have Agnostic and Deist mixed up. I am married to a Deist who will tell you she thinks there is something bigger than she is, but not sure if it is a god or not.
I, on the other hand, am an Atheist, and I know for a fact that dirt exist, but don't think a god exist.

 

I disagree. My problem is with the term "know". Nobody "knows". They just think they do. When I call myself a Christian, I'm describing how I choose to live my life. It's not irrational or contrary to the available evidence, and there's enough evidence that a reasonable person could decide to bet on it. It's the core of my sense of meaning, and I'm pretty passionate about it. But I can't "prove" it. Likewise, when I say I believe in evolution, I mean that it's the scientific theory that best fits the available evidence, not that life "really" developed that way. It's rational and scientific, not necessarily true. That's good enough for me. I think, unfortunately, Christianity has traditionally placed too much emphasis on intellectual belief in a set of doctrines instead of a "joyful bet" (Luther) to live one's life by.

 

I am an enthusiast.