Why do agnostics promote God?
- Thread starter GodLied
- Start date
Originally posted by GodLied
Why do agnostics promote God?
Because they don't gno any better?
Last edited by a moderator:
Agnostics don't say anything about God.
But,
You say that God lied to you.
If it is true, then God is real and really shit on you.
If it is false, then you are a liar.
If you are an atheist, stand on your own legs and refute God's existence rather than hanging on God's balls.
Last edited by a moderator:
Everneo, post to other threads.
Everneo, if you do not like my threads, stop posting to them. If you do not like the strange way sciforums interprets posts in my threads, stop reading my threads.
With your own freewill you need not post to my threads.
Use it to your advantage.
GodLied.
Everneo, if you do not like my threads, stop posting to them. If you do not like the strange way sciforums interprets posts in my threads, stop reading my threads.
With your own freewill you need not post to my threads.
Use it to your advantage.
GodLied.
Agnostics are not indecisive about god. One can be a christian and be agnostic or atheist and be agnostic. If asked if there are non-observable-purple-people-eating-monsters running the US government it could be interpreted as an Agnostic view to say – we may never know
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
TO MICHAEL:
YOUR STATEMENT: "Agnostics are not indecisive about god. One can be a christian and be agnostic or atheist and be agnostic. If asked if there are non-observable-purple-people-eating-monsters running the US government it could be interpreted as an Agnostic view to say – we may never know"
Good point, Michael. I am not an athiest or an agnostic, but I can see that your statement has merit. I try to convince no one of my beliefs. Nonetheless, I truly believe, with all my being, that God is. I always have. Church does not interest me much, but I am not angry with anyone.
Another thing, as there are so many variations, or explanations of people's attitude toward spiritual things, how can we break it down into three lables. I believe that oftentimes they overlap.
So far as agnostics promoting (conversations about) God. Athiests do as well. Example: Nietzsche.
Some did mention, (on another subject) ~Pantheism. Are you familiar with Spinoza's writings? If so, have you read anything from his THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE?
Fundamentalists have nothing, and want nothing, to do with Spinoza; non-believers, on the otherhand, have no reason to care what he thinks about the Old Testament, or God. The exceptions are, of course, students and those who read because of curiosity or for the sake of arguement, -and people who have no set agenda, like me.
Attracted to his gentle spirit, dedication, and strength of character, I found a friend in thought, at least inasmuch as I understand. He cannot be called an agnostic, can he? Yet, he is a lot more than most anyone's definition of Pantheism. He was not a Christian, as defined by Christianity, nor was he an Athiest.
It is not necessary to agree, but respect is nice.
P. M. Thorne (Mickey)
YOUR STATEMENT: "Agnostics are not indecisive about god. One can be a christian and be agnostic or atheist and be agnostic. If asked if there are non-observable-purple-people-eating-monsters running the US government it could be interpreted as an Agnostic view to say – we may never know"
Good point, Michael. I am not an athiest or an agnostic, but I can see that your statement has merit. I try to convince no one of my beliefs. Nonetheless, I truly believe, with all my being, that God is. I always have. Church does not interest me much, but I am not angry with anyone.
Another thing, as there are so many variations, or explanations of people's attitude toward spiritual things, how can we break it down into three lables. I believe that oftentimes they overlap.
So far as agnostics promoting (conversations about) God. Athiests do as well. Example: Nietzsche.
Some did mention, (on another subject) ~Pantheism. Are you familiar with Spinoza's writings? If so, have you read anything from his THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE?
Fundamentalists have nothing, and want nothing, to do with Spinoza; non-believers, on the otherhand, have no reason to care what he thinks about the Old Testament, or God. The exceptions are, of course, students and those who read because of curiosity or for the sake of arguement, -and people who have no set agenda, like me.
Attracted to his gentle spirit, dedication, and strength of character, I found a friend in thought, at least inasmuch as I understand. He cannot be called an agnostic, can he? Yet, he is a lot more than most anyone's definition of Pantheism. He was not a Christian, as defined by Christianity, nor was he an Athiest.
It is not necessary to agree, but respect is nice.
P. M. Thorne (Mickey)
Teh Wiccan
Registered Member
One might also say, why do agnostics promote Atheism? because they are indecisive about his existence, of course. He may not exist, after all.
agnostics can pretty much do whatever they want. they can believe whatever they want, be it complete atheism or complete devoted judaism....as long as they tack on the disclaimer: agnostic. it's the only way to be. anything goes.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Angelus:
Are you sure about that?
PMT
Are you sure about that?
PMT
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Angelus: Thank you responding sincerely. I could not ask for more.
PMT
PMT
Agnostics don't promote god.
The agnostic stand is not to promote god, but question the knowledge of his existence. Which is to say, agnostics don't claim one way (God exists) or (God don't exists) Agnostic claims that the human race will never reach a conclusion wether god exists or not. The question is unknowable.
I'm not an agnostic, or at least label my self as one, however I tend to agree with the notion that there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of such a deity. My beliefs is what makes me an atheist, I don't believe in god.
Though that is not a proper sentence either "I don't believe in god" for to claim such a belief, I would have to know what god is, I've not an explanation of what god is, I however have an explanation by biblical claims of what god is not. God is unknowable, they claim. So how do they know?. God is that which you are not, they claim. But how can they claim of what god is?.
god: to me is just an empty word with no meaning. A word used to explain the unexplainable.
The agnostic stand is not to promote god, but question the knowledge of his existence. Which is to say, agnostics don't claim one way (God exists) or (God don't exists) Agnostic claims that the human race will never reach a conclusion wether god exists or not. The question is unknowable.
I'm not an agnostic, or at least label my self as one, however I tend to agree with the notion that there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of such a deity. My beliefs is what makes me an atheist, I don't believe in god.
Though that is not a proper sentence either "I don't believe in god" for to claim such a belief, I would have to know what god is, I've not an explanation of what god is, I however have an explanation by biblical claims of what god is not. God is unknowable, they claim. So how do they know?. God is that which you are not, they claim. But how can they claim of what god is?.
god: to me is just an empty word with no meaning. A word used to explain the unexplainable.
Re: Agnostics don't promote god.
The first part is true however, agnostic may promote god (ex: Christian, Muslim, etc...) or may be Atheist.
I agree and this is basically how I feel about it. Although, I certainly wouldn’t believe in any. There are an infinity of unknowable questions, so that’s not such a big deal.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
God is, or is not??
G0DLESS:
Bless your heart. At least you were not nasty.
There are those who would swear that only the weak, or the moronic would believe in a God. There are others who think only the world's children of disobedience would deny that God is.
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God," according to the Bible. The philosopher, Spinoza, contends that it is "innate in man to believe in God."
We who are not so sure, or not so well educated in human history, may not be so convinced one way or another, and therefore may spend a good part of our lives wondering, doubting, --trying to believe, --trying not to disbelieve.
You will laugh at me, but sometimes I find myself amazed at the audacity of man. Man! Humankind, if you prefer. Who is he? Made of clay, flawed, disagreeable, fooling himself with acquisitions, and what we call progress, progress that often ruins, and engaging in wars that ruin progress! We are in a world that clutters and destroys, plunders and torments, judges and kills, where even people who hate war, in their own way, war . . . nonetheless.
We are complex, more than profound, we are destructive, more than creative, and yet we hope. Yet, to try to place God Almighty in this mess somewhere, or even in the good, which truly exists, in spite of our failings! . . . is almost too difficult for many of us.
We read our own history and call bloody, warmongering men of old, "The Great," and yet we claim to uphold peace; we prove this by giving money to charities and opposing capital punishment for our own society. All this we do while admiring "The Great's." Those "Great leaders" of desolation took their armies across this planet, leaving dry earth where water had flowed, bloody fields, void of edible vegetation, where there had been an abundant source for food. Empty structures, when any structure remained after the plundering and hacking. Where there had been families, only dead bodies! And, we call them "The Great." Who are we really? Do we know? Are we part of them? God forbid, but look!
We do not need a God, someone says. Why, someone asks, do we not need a God? We can destroy this planet all by ourselves.
Is this where our power lies? Or is it in our magnificant structures, that can be destroyed in a matter of minutes, by hate driven man.
Even without the major atrocities, we manage to keep our little wars going. We are threatened by those who disagree with us, hindered by those who think less of us, posture for the masses to prove our worth. We ignore the destruction of our planet, and blame it all on this God that does not exist!
Is it then understandable why we claim not to need a higher power? Is it not easier to admit that there is probably no God, than to declare that God is, and then try to explain why He has seemingly forgotten us?
But wait! Is it not our own behavior that has caused the real problems? Is not "our behavior" exactly what makes this world what it is? When we say "Why did God allow such a thing to happen?" we may as well say, "Why does God let us behave in such a manner?" When we say religion has caused wars, we should be saying, humankind has caused wars! Without the labels, we are all in the same category! Underneath what we call religion, are personal motives, just like anywhere else.
Anytime religion becomes a big problem for the world, is it not the whole of that religion, but rather the extremists, or the upper echelon; ie, an extreme and dangerous mindset, or those in high places, drunken with power. Surely, it is not the little quibbling ones, who annoy and hurt in a charge to change their neighbors, that do the most damage. Nay!
So, how bad is it to be a religious person on the attack? I say, just as bad as anything that makes one want to condemn his neighbor! What makes it seem worse is that the former is done in the name of God, and I say it is worse! Yes, it is, but only for the propogators.
I remember, after I lost my son, while still in a state of enormous grief, I said to a dear friend, --(a Christian, she was, but I did not care), I said, "The ones that hurt me the most and that comfort me the least, tend to be people who are religious."
Expecting her to try to justify the ones of whom I spoke, I was surprised, with her quick matter-of-fact response: "Well, I would not feel too bad about that," she said. Those were the ones Jesus had the most trouble with."
The best we can do for this world is available to us. All that we need is within us. What we leave behind is up to each of us. When we cling to what we call life, at any cost, and grieve when it is gone, we display our helplessness, --which is okay, because in the final stages, we are in many ways helpless. Actually, our grieving should be for the living.
My best wishes to you. PMT
G0DLESS:
Bless your heart. At least you were not nasty.
There are those who would swear that only the weak, or the moronic would believe in a God. There are others who think only the world's children of disobedience would deny that God is.
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God," according to the Bible. The philosopher, Spinoza, contends that it is "innate in man to believe in God."
We who are not so sure, or not so well educated in human history, may not be so convinced one way or another, and therefore may spend a good part of our lives wondering, doubting, --trying to believe, --trying not to disbelieve.
You will laugh at me, but sometimes I find myself amazed at the audacity of man. Man! Humankind, if you prefer. Who is he? Made of clay, flawed, disagreeable, fooling himself with acquisitions, and what we call progress, progress that often ruins, and engaging in wars that ruin progress! We are in a world that clutters and destroys, plunders and torments, judges and kills, where even people who hate war, in their own way, war . . . nonetheless.
We are complex, more than profound, we are destructive, more than creative, and yet we hope. Yet, to try to place God Almighty in this mess somewhere, or even in the good, which truly exists, in spite of our failings! . . . is almost too difficult for many of us.
We read our own history and call bloody, warmongering men of old, "The Great," and yet we claim to uphold peace; we prove this by giving money to charities and opposing capital punishment for our own society. All this we do while admiring "The Great's." Those "Great leaders" of desolation took their armies across this planet, leaving dry earth where water had flowed, bloody fields, void of edible vegetation, where there had been an abundant source for food. Empty structures, when any structure remained after the plundering and hacking. Where there had been families, only dead bodies! And, we call them "The Great." Who are we really? Do we know? Are we part of them? God forbid, but look!
We do not need a God, someone says. Why, someone asks, do we not need a God? We can destroy this planet all by ourselves.
Is this where our power lies? Or is it in our magnificant structures, that can be destroyed in a matter of minutes, by hate driven man.
Even without the major atrocities, we manage to keep our little wars going. We are threatened by those who disagree with us, hindered by those who think less of us, posture for the masses to prove our worth. We ignore the destruction of our planet, and blame it all on this God that does not exist!
Is it then understandable why we claim not to need a higher power? Is it not easier to admit that there is probably no God, than to declare that God is, and then try to explain why He has seemingly forgotten us?
But wait! Is it not our own behavior that has caused the real problems? Is not "our behavior" exactly what makes this world what it is? When we say "Why did God allow such a thing to happen?" we may as well say, "Why does God let us behave in such a manner?" When we say religion has caused wars, we should be saying, humankind has caused wars! Without the labels, we are all in the same category! Underneath what we call religion, are personal motives, just like anywhere else.
Anytime religion becomes a big problem for the world, is it not the whole of that religion, but rather the extremists, or the upper echelon; ie, an extreme and dangerous mindset, or those in high places, drunken with power. Surely, it is not the little quibbling ones, who annoy and hurt in a charge to change their neighbors, that do the most damage. Nay!
So, how bad is it to be a religious person on the attack? I say, just as bad as anything that makes one want to condemn his neighbor! What makes it seem worse is that the former is done in the name of God, and I say it is worse! Yes, it is, but only for the propogators.
I remember, after I lost my son, while still in a state of enormous grief, I said to a dear friend, --(a Christian, she was, but I did not care), I said, "The ones that hurt me the most and that comfort me the least, tend to be people who are religious."
Expecting her to try to justify the ones of whom I spoke, I was surprised, with her quick matter-of-fact response: "Well, I would not feel too bad about that," she said. Those were the ones Jesus had the most trouble with."
The best we can do for this world is available to us. All that we need is within us. What we leave behind is up to each of us. When we cling to what we call life, at any cost, and grieve when it is gone, we display our helplessness, --which is okay, because in the final stages, we are in many ways helpless. Actually, our grieving should be for the living.
My best wishes to you. PMT
P. M. Thorne
Welcome to sci;
I'm a drifter here, I pop up once in a while, been a member for a very long time, though I don't always post.
Most of my post are to stir confussion, and contradiction. I have a radical mind. Not well accepted in many circles.
Anyhow I liked your post. Thanks.
My condolences on your loss of a son. I've never had any children, so I can't even imagine lossing some one so dear.
The problems of earth are many, we are not by all means civilized.
Many ponder upon the questions of were it all went wrong. Religious congregations and sects preach pease this should be a peacefull world, though many just wont have opinions forced upon them. They rebel upon what is believed to be just cause, no one likes others to dictate what is right or what is wrong for them. I believe this is a just cause, I don't like it either to have someone dictate to me what is right or what is wrong.
My view of things are like this.
There are two points of phylosophical positions, one is amoral, the other a moral one.
Plato=Amoral
Aristotle=Moral
The powers that be, political leaders through out history, and church leaders throught history have followed pretty much the philosophical Platonic point of view. This is what in my opinion makes the world amoral, and the state that is in today.
Oh!! hell yes, many here will argue the point to death, though this is a fact.
Where upon the phylosophical point of view from a Aristotelian stance this have been the time frame of human history with it's most achievements. i.e. Reneisance, The declaration of Independence of The United States, The baby boomers have taken place.
All though like a plague, Platonistic ideals were and always have been in the mindset of many leaders and authorities, as well in education and the such.
Anyhow that is just my opinion.
Welcome to sci;
I'm a drifter here, I pop up once in a while, been a member for a very long time, though I don't always post.
Most of my post are to stir confussion, and contradiction. I have a radical mind. Not well accepted in many circles.
Anyhow I liked your post. Thanks.
My condolences on your loss of a son. I've never had any children, so I can't even imagine lossing some one so dear.
The problems of earth are many, we are not by all means civilized.
Many ponder upon the questions of were it all went wrong. Religious congregations and sects preach pease this should be a peacefull world, though many just wont have opinions forced upon them. They rebel upon what is believed to be just cause, no one likes others to dictate what is right or what is wrong for them. I believe this is a just cause, I don't like it either to have someone dictate to me what is right or what is wrong.
My view of things are like this.
There are two points of phylosophical positions, one is amoral, the other a moral one.
Plato=Amoral
Aristotle=Moral
The powers that be, political leaders through out history, and church leaders throught history have followed pretty much the philosophical Platonic point of view. This is what in my opinion makes the world amoral, and the state that is in today.
Oh!! hell yes, many here will argue the point to death, though this is a fact.
Where upon the phylosophical point of view from a Aristotelian stance this have been the time frame of human history with it's most achievements. i.e. Reneisance, The declaration of Independence of The United States, The baby boomers have taken place.
All though like a plague, Platonistic ideals were and always have been in the mindset of many leaders and authorities, as well in education and the such.
Anyhow that is just my opinion.