I know I said I wouldn't. And I'm sorry...

[conuly]

This site appears to be just for males because there seems to be a war going on. Anyway, I'm a spiritualist now. I was a Christian because my mother raised me Christians. I later changed as an adult. I place a challenge before agnostics and before atheists to prove that there has never been one human group in existence that did not created "god." (An abiding focus or focal point with varying pronouns for names or otherwise description that gave rise to abiding.)

Um, I'm not sure I know what you're saying (I assume she's a nonnative speaker...) but if you're looking for such a group, there's one, right here!

To say that God doesn't exist is TOTALLY overlooking the fact that God does exist.

Oh, sure. I'm convinced. This is the line that made me decide to post it.

You're arguing and talking about God all the time. Like dah!

And....?

You can say somebody's cosmology and mythology is unbelievable and unthinkable -- to you, and that be your opinion and challenge but when it comes to proof of God's existence-- that's your proof. God exist; you're talking about God and you have your position to negate God. And the other people have their position to substantiate God. So. God is in existence.

I talk about Santa Claus sometimes, and the Tooth Fairy, and the Verucca Gnome, not to mention Lost Sock Land. That doesn't mean these people and places exist (well, except Lost Sock Land. That's real).

God is reality. God is a state and stage of consciousness in the human experience.

If you're going to use a different definition of "god" than they use, you need to, at the very least, state this at the beginning of your letter.

There is no denying God for millions while you can spend the rest of your life aruging that God doesn't exist. That makes God still existing.

Um, whatever.

I'm an anthropologist as well.

What's that got to do with anything? You're also incapable of forming a coherant thought.

Then there's all caps guy. All caps guy must have a broken keyboard. I wouldn't c+p everything, because it's horrible to read (this is due entirely to the CAPS LOCK), but...

THESE THAT CLAIM THEY WENT FROM RELIGION TO BEING AGNOSTIC ARE ACTUALLY JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED.

Look, if you grow up without a faith and then "find religion", I won't call you confused. Even if that means you believe that aliens are coming to get you, you're not confused. That's flat-out obnoxious.

And more ALL CAPS. Little hint. Making your comments VIRTUALLY ILLEGIBLE TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT WISH TO READ THEM IS A VERY BAD WAY OF GAINING CONVERTS. IT ALSO MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO EMPHASISE CERTAIN WORDS UNLESS YOU KNOW HTML, AND IT IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS RUDE AND/OR UNGRAMMATICAL. SO knock it out, would you?

My point is only to suggest that it may be a tad hypocritical to denounce atheism with the same vigor as you denounce theism, and that you should consider your treatment of the viewpoint more carefully than you currently do.

Hypocritical how? If you have blind faith that there is no god, that is better than blind faith that there is one? Or different? If you have come to your conclusion based on careful examination of the available evidence, that's different from people who did the same thing and came to the opposite conclusion? Could you explain why it seems hypocritical? I think you're just personally upset to be lumped in with "those people".

Is there ANYBODY out there who is willing to accept the existence of people who disagree with them WITHOUT getting offended/CAPSLOCKHAPPY? How about people who are capable of having a semi-logical discussion about religious matters? Anybody? Anyone at all? Because, based on the available evidence, the sillies on all sides are taking over. Silly christians. Silly atheists. Probably silly agnostics (and you wouldn't think that'd be a belief prone to dogma, but I know they're out there....)

It's enough to make one lose one's faith.

Comments

[wetcircuitry.livejournal.com]

Can you explain a little about agnosticism? I've never heard of it.. (or maybe I have and I'm having a stupid moment.)

[auryanne.livejournal.com]

I might be wrong here, so feel free to correct me. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven - they're neither denying it outright as atheists do, nor buying into one of the organized religions. That's pretty much where I stood for a long time, myself. I didn't know there was a name for it until much later ;)

[conuly]

That's exactly it, except that some agnostics say that it possibly could be answered one way or another, but until that proof appears, they're not taking sides.

The Agnostic's Creed

[dkmnow.livejournal.com]

I use the term in a vastly broader sense than most people do. Within my concept of agnosticism (like "scientific agnosticism"), the standard theological sense is accounted for, but it's really just a sort of footnote in the grand scheme of things. My definition is very fundamental, and very much in keeping with the core of Zen (overlooking, of course, the fact that I dared to put it into words). It goes something like this:

"Agnosicism: categorical rejection of any assumption of absolute knowledge regarding any existent or observation thereof."

This leads to the practical: "Acceptance of uncertainty in all experience."

Most people just can't stomach that.

Their loss.

:-p