It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
They stole our pav too.
Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by spellbound
Who wants Russell Crowe? They can have him plus whatever else their greedy little hands get.
We have AOTEAROA - right?, or not.
Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by Welfhard
I don't subscribe to the notion that there isn't a "God" or a "Jesus Christ".
I'm unclear on the point you are trying to make?
Jesus gives us free will to choose what we do, and who we are going to serve - be it Him or satan.
If He hadn't given us free will, what sense would it have made to create a world full of people that operated as puppets.
Since we have free will, we'll also be accountable for every decision, good or bad, that we make.
In all honesty agnosticism is the best position to have at this juncture and the only true "objective" position to have.
Agnostic theism, also known as Spiritual Agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. Per theism, an agnostic theist believes that the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but, per agnosticism, believes that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories. Recently suggested variations include:
* Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "absolute agnosticism")
—the view that the question of the existence or non-existence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
* Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
—the view that the existence or non-existence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."
* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or non-existence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
* Agnostic atheism
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.
* Agnostic theism (also called "religious" or "spiritual agnosticism")
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe." (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)
—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.
I consider the pure sense, does not take a stance either way and will state it as such, middle of the middle ground
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I think I explained myself rather clearly. If you are unhappy with the answer I do apologise but tough.
But do you not notice the generalizations you are using? And it is worth noting that generalizations I, well, generally wrong. Particullarly when you are talking about groups of people.