Agnosticism: Getting it respected or disrespected?

"In questioning, always withstanding. In truth, always without [it]" (Me; Ioannis K, 2009)

I will write this before I end my homo sapien thought; that there is one and only possibility of a Matchmaker (I prefer that word instead of deity, god, and so on and so forth)

The 2O argument; Origins of origins

1. Everything came out of nothing; Irrational; How can nothing, absolutely nothing, create something?
2. The first "something" was there. It had no history, no nature, no past; Irrational; How can that "something" have no pre-creation, no pre-time, no pre-existence?
3. Someone/Something did it; The Matchmaker; How can that someone/something postulate both Time and Existence whilst being Superior to both?

Acceptance argument

In order to even have the balls to conceptualize the aforementioned possibilities, that person would have to unquestionably re-create his/her brain and mind; Proving to himself first that a schizophrenic is the absolute normal person. Can you do that? Dont, because you will end up in a grave.

My own concerns is that there is a "thing" with the concept of void; been working on my own philosophy on that. There is a connection missing, a bridge to unite and a bridge to walk. But none of this will get as closer to the so-call truth. Just closer to understand it.

I am agnostic due to 2O argument;

However, the God of religion for me is as dead as the living faith and belief; a living void; Because;

Keeping alive when there is nothing to keep and nothing to make it alive.

AND,

Religion is a concept of void; filled constantly with a repetative unknown figure, a shadowless shadow, under the umbrella name of God. And everything in it, is a just void as its infamous "Master".

Ergo,

Be God but dont do God.

When people question me, I say I'm agnostic but in my heart, my religion is love and truth.

I am shocked that 75 percent of members in here brag constantly and non-stop their "intellectual" depth, but when it comes to justifying their intellectual debt to society and the WoRld they criticize as "ignorant, foolish, uneducated, infatuated, Woos" no one so far steps it.

What a disappointment.

What a letdown.

reply to post by SS.Invictus


Theres nothing to respect or disrespect. This train of thought is simply, well I am not sure, I dunno, I think so, but not anything that you think it is.

It's on the fence thinking. A "safe" place.

I am spiritual, I completely believe in a higher power, however it isn't humanoid and it doesn't give a damn what I do or don't do during my lifetime here.

It's part of MANY other higher beings which exist in realms we do not have access to and higher planes of thought.

As for justifying my thoughts, there is no need to. I know what I believe, and that is all that matters in the end. So long as I am not using that belief to put down others or attempt to ram by own beliefs down their throats, then there is no problem.

~Keeper

Please ignore my Second post.

It was off the hook and I will have to post it again to the section it deserves to be.

Apologies.

Originally posted by Supernatural
When people question me, I say I'm agnostic but in my heart, my religion is love and truth.

Please stop being a troll and post IRRELEVANT answers.

Stick to the point.

Dont blather empthy talk to me, to get the good-feeling when typing nonsense.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SS.Invictus

 

The one and only respectable, scientifically plausible and philosophically skeptical is the 2O argument.

That is the only safest place, an agnostic will get close to. YET.

"I am spiritual, I completely believe in a higher power, however it isn't humanoid and it doesn't give a damn what I do or don't do during my lifetime here - It's part of MANY other higher beings which exist in realms we do not have access to and higher planes of thought - As for justifying my thoughts, there is no need to"

Well in here, if you have read about the ATS Thesis they state "Deny Ignorance".

What is laughable are the following statements;

You cannot prove IT exists, but somehow, in a very magical turnaround, ITS traits have a more chance to exist or they exist already!

The most ludicrous use of argument of numbers is this; stupidity and ignorance is overated in faith, believe and Nationalism;

Many "believe it" = Truth and Fact.
Many have the same faith = Truth and Fact
All the people want immigrants to get out of the country = Truth and Fact.

But ofcourse. You dont have any duty to justify your beliefs!

Why would you? After all, you know it is all true and valid.

Blah.

reply to post by SS.Invictus


Ahh, but I never stated them to be truth my friend. Nothing is truth. You can't prove ANYTHING about anything as all we have is science.

What is science? Our best guess at the time. Just because we can't quantify something with our current tools does not mean it doesn't exist or that we shouln't entertain the idea.

Why would I have to justify my beliefs to anybody? Just out of curiosity, I don't use my beliefs for the purpose of getting others to side with me. They are not a scape goat for my views on national policy or personnal policy.

Logic and reasoning will always take a front seat to my spirituality, as again I can't prove anything that I have experienced as being true, faith is something that doesn't require evidence.

It's unfortunate but true.

As stated, there is no right or wrong choice for your beliefs. Whether your a christian or a muslim or a bhudist, as long as YOU are comfortable with your beliefs and they aid you in being a good person to yourself and those around you, then what is the problem?

On a sie note, the ATS moto is Deny Ignorance, however I haven't proposed anything ignorant and I haven't approved of any Ignorance from my posts or yours. So why bring it up in this argument?

~Keeper

[edit on 11/22/2009 by tothetenthpower]

"Ahh, but I never stated them to be truth my friend. Nothing is truth. You can't prove ANYTHING about anything as all we have is science"

Nothing is truth? Oh really?

I thought this forum would be about serious individual who are intellectually enough to hold on psychological, philosophy and metaphysical truths; not more religious agendas; no more cracked-barrel philosophies.

"What is science? Our best guess at the time. Just because we can't quantify something with our current tools does not mean it doesn't exist or that we shouln't entertain the idea"

Right so first again even though it doesnt EXIST; thus we need TOOLS for it.

First of all, a higher being is not an idea. It is a hypothesis bounded to be judged and wrecked upon the depth of the Seven Seas if needed and if required to just like the rest.

"Why would I have to justify my beliefs to anybody?"

Well then, just accept them your beliefs then as a system for lunatics to hold their conversations without anyone, not even your self, holding a judgement upon.

Persisting that your "beliefs" are part, close, fall into a field of Truth, indicates that you still hold into your beliefs; if it is not Truth, then why hold it in the first place?

"Logic and reasoning will always take a front seat to my spirituality, as again I can't prove anything that I have experienced as being true, faith is something that doesn't require evidence"

You still go on spiritualism. I call it overomanticm. Use mature words such as transcending which does not impose by definition "spirit, psyche, higher being, UPP; unique personal point".

"As stated, there is no right or wrong choice for your beliefs"

A belief does not have a back up that would be sufficient for it to be considered as"right or wrong"; no evidence, no spark for right or wrong answers.

It is like claiming, my imaginary Friend is better than your imaginary Friend.

They are both imaginary, both dont exist, ergo are not embodied in existence and cannot have, on serious manner, any actual hypothesis for "right and wrong" arguments.

Then at the end you get over-melo and over-dramatic.

Maybe I should become a scientist, build a machine that governs consciousness and distribute this message; love everyone, make love to everyone, and love everyone you hate.

Wrong.

Freedom of speech and liberty.

I am not God and I dont do God.

Secondly, this thread is about justifying being agnostic enough to be intellectually respected.

Belief and faith dont do that, neither using copy pasting the term "experience" to bastardise language and fill an empty pool with an infamous Water; not being into existence.

reply to post by SS.Invictus


I really don't understand where you come from my friend. You ask a simple question, you get an answer, and then proceed to call me out and various things using quotes which are taken out of context.

Nothing is truth? Oh really?

I thought this forum would be about serious individual who are intellectually enough to hold on psychological, philosophy and metaphysical truths; not more religious agendas; no more cracked-barrel philosophies.

I haven't presented any religious agenda, no crack barrel philosphies either.

Right so first again even though it doesnt EXIST; thus we need TOOLS for it.

First of all, a higher being is not an idea. It is a hypothesis bounded to be judged and wrecked upon the depth of the Seven Seas if needed and if required to just like the rest.

How is not an idea? A hypothesis IS an idea. I'm sorry if you don't realize that. And how is it to be judged and wrecked? Perhaps in your world, but I actually respect my fellow man and their beliefs, regardless of how jaded my or in this case YOUR opinion is.

And you don't KNOW that it doesn't exist, you simply have the assumption of the conviction that it doesn't. Your belief that God doesn't exist, is the same as my belief that one does.

Well then, just accept them your beliefs then as a system for lunatics to hold their conversations without anyone, not even your self, holding a judgement upon.

Persisting that your "beliefs" are part, close, fall into a field of Truth, indicates that you still hold into your beliefs; if it is not Truth, then why hold it in the first place?

Why would I accept my beliefs as being part of a system for lunatics? What are YOUR beliefs my friend? And how they are less crazy than mine?

A belief does not have a back up that would be sufficient for it to be considered as"right or wrong"; no evidence, no spark for right or wrong answers.

Then why do you insist my beliefs are wrong and for lunatics? You are not following your own train of thought.

They are both imaginary, both dont exist, ergo are not embodied in existence and cannot have, on serious manner, any actual hypothesis for "right and wrong" arguments.

I've never see anybody disprove or prove the existance of any higher power, I am sure you have not done so either. So again, how do you know you are correct on in this statement?

Then at the end you get over-melo and over-dramatic.

Well that's just funny, I don't see how you got that..but ok..

Freedom of speech and liberty.
I am not God and I dont do God.

So you obviously don't believe. Therefore anybody coming in here stating they are agnostic, you will automatically clump into the same category as me, since they are lunatics and crackpots to believe in an "imaginary" force.

Secondly, this thread is about justifying being agnostic enough to be intellectually respected.

So you want to be intellectually respected? Or you want to see whether or not a true agnostic will be respected by YOURSELF after explaining his or her views?

Belief and faith dont do that, neither using copy pasting the term "experience" to bastardise language and fill an empty pool with an infamous Water; not being into existence.

I don't see why you would need either belief or faith to be intellectually respected. I am sorry but just because the guy at MIT believes in God, doesn't make me smarter than him cause I don't.

~Keeper



[edit on 11/22/2009 by tothetenthpower]