HOME | DD
AlmudenaDoncelArt β Existence
Published: 2012-01-15 16:47:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 10981; Favourites: 858; Downloads: 94
Redirect to original
Description
1) Sorry I can't reply to all, but thank you everybody for all your favs and comments! I'm so glad you like my work
2) You can give your own opinion, but please, be respectful with the others. Free insulting won't give more power to your arguments.
Thanks
Related content
Comments: 375
I guess it makes more sense than before
π: 0 β©: 0
OH-OHMYGOSH PLEASE stop posting these! Look, I don't want to be rude or anything.....BUT THIS ISN'T ART. You have used the same stamp for each of these quotes of yours. At least change the background color for each one or do something to it to let us know that you have put some effort into it. And stamp concept has been lost on you I suppose, because they are supposed to be small, not huge. What was that one stamp you put up here? "DeviantArt is a wonderful ART site that (sadly) some people use and manage in the wrong way." You are doing the very same thing with these stamps. Your photos and drawings are sweet and cute and the belong here on DA, but these stamps are not art. There I've ranted.....and you probably won't listen to a word I've just typed.
π: 0 β©: 2
Wait, so are you saying God exists? 'Cuz we haven't proven that yet.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think it should be the other way around; "If you believe in it, it doesn't matter if it really exists or not."
π: 0 β©: 0
i do not agree with this but i really like it's impact.
π: 0 β©: 0
"If Christ is risen, nothing else matters. And if Christ is not risenβnothing else matters."
--Jaroslav Pelikan
π: 0 β©: 0
I like the idea of killing things that exist, that way we have less to believe.
π: 0 β©: 0
To others that is, but to you, if it does not exist to you, than that is your personal truth, and unless you are convinced otherwise, it does not exist.
π: 0 β©: 0
So if I dont believe in the universe and that everything is my imagination, it wouldnt matter if I went on killing spree? Wow, thanks for the advice, man!
*Grabs a chainsaw*
π: 0 β©: 1
It means that if something exists, it's real whether you like it or not.
Like the Universe, genius.
Also, if you'd murder everyone just because you didn't have a Sky Daddy telling you what to do, you've probably got some serious issues you need to work out.
π: 0 β©: 1
1. Your avatar, best thing I've seen today.
2. I'm assuming your an atheist as your sig says and satiracally said skydaddy instead of god, right?
3. I have a different interpretation of it. I do not have a serious problem either and I would not go on a killing spree.
4. Atheist, I'm your ally, I used to be an agnostic atheist, now I'm a militant agnostic, about everything. Just so you dont confuse me for someone who doesnt understand what agnosticism is or is cowardly, or perhaps even a theist/deist/someone who believes anything spiritual, I will explain to you why I call myself that hipsterly name.
Know about magical thinking? If not, look it up, we could all be that way, or computers who act that way, so we CANT know anything about anything. Its an absurd statement, but its fully possible, also, you cant use logical arguements against it or any arguement for it( to be true) since it assumes that your reasoning might be false. This means everything is theoretically possible and unknowable. Because my need for intellectual honesty demanded me to admit that this is how it is, that we cant know shit, I now use the term militant agnostic, I dont think choosing between theist or atheist is right if you truly are agnostic about it, assumption can do dangerous things, mostly for agnostic theists who act on their religion without any evidence, for atheists, I dont know any examples. But dont worry, I hate religion too, actively debates against it and am a sceptic.
If tl;dr, we have different interpretations and I'm afraid we cant solve this unless skyqeen reveals what she/he intended.
π: 0 β©: 2
You can still be an atheist without tossing your "militant" agnosticism, you know. Being a theist or an atheist, and being a gnostic or agnostic apply to entirely separate questions.
(A)theism answers the question of what we believe to be true, while (a)gnosticism answers the question of what we can or cannot KNOW. You still seem to be in the mindset that the spectrum starts with theism, ends with atheism (or the other way around; whatever), leaving agnosticism as the "middle-ground" between the two, which just isn't true. As I stated above, agnosticism is in a completely different plane.
Atheism is nothing but a lack of believe in a god or gods; a denial of the theists' positive claim of god(s) existing. In reality, the spectrum goes from theism, to atheism (filling the middle ground), to anti-theism (which is far too often confused with atheism). And each of the end-pieces are able to be either gnostic or agnostic, while atheism, by definition, must be agnostic. They believe what the evidence points closest to, which is why most (if not all) also refer to themselves as rationalists and naturalists.
π: 0 β©: 1
Militant agnosticism is the philosophical position in which ones believe there are things you CANNOT know. My antitheism has nothing to do with the word militant.
I believe that if you're truly agnostic, which applies to any atheist or theist who is agnostic too, then you shouldnt take a side. Especially if you're a theist since that assumes more about the world. I've been atheist all my life, but I feel more honest to myself admitting in the name of my 'beliefs' that I dont know, its not trying to be in the middle of two side. Either I could be agnostic atheist, someone who dont believe in gods but dont know, or an agnostic theist who believes in god but cant know.
I feel like the honest and correct response is to be just agnostic, to not know if there could be a god is being agnostic about theology in the existance of a deity. I just want keep doing what I've been doing as an antitheist atheist but with a name that feels right, I dont know, so I shouldnt assume any of the two current beliefs about gods. Personally I would be surprised if anything supernatural thing turned out to be real and would be scpetical about it, but if I dont know, then I dont know and shouldnt make assumptions.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wait wait wait... hold up. First you say you're a militant agnostic, previously an agnostic atheist. Then, you say you're a militant agnostic AND an anti-theist. And THEN you say that you're being an "anti-theist atheist", but calling yourself a militant atheist?
Sorry, dude, but you literally have NO idea what you're saying anymore, do you?
First of all, you don't "choose a side". There are three primary parts of a spectrum, ranging from belief in god(s) to believing there aren't god(s), middling with lacking a belief in god(s). YOU HAVE TO FALL INTO ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES. Every living creature falls into one of those categories, atheism being the default position. Even animals like cats and dogs, who lack the ability to understand human-born things like religion and deities, would technically be atheists because they lack a belief in god(s) (as well as obviously lacking the ability to "believe" in anything).
That's what you don't seem to be grasping here. Before you address whether you're gnostic or agnostic, you need to settle whether you're a theist, atheist, or anti-theist. Do you believe in god(s)? Then you're a theist. Do you believe that god(s) don't exist? Then you're an anti-theist. Do you lack a belief either way? Then you're an atheist. Once that's out of the way, you can ask yourself, am I open to the possibility of being wrong? If yes, you are agnostic. If not, you are gnostic. If you're an atheist, by definition, you must be agnostic, so you don't get a choice there.
That was my whole point. You can still be a "militant agnostic". That has no bearing whatsoever on your atheism because, as I've described in detail, the two address entirely different questions and therefore are not mutually exclusive. You can (and ARE, whether you believe me or not) both, at the same time.
π: 0 β©: 1
You can be antitheist and atheist, I used to be both, now I'm just antitheist. I think you're confused about what I said, I can rephrase my history though. First I was an antitheist agnostic atheist, then I was a militant agnostic(not only about theological stuff) and antitheist.
Second of all, I disagree, you dont have to fall into those categories, I'm to atheists what pansexuals are to bisexuals. I dont really know any other way to explain it and its not the best comparison. There's also apatheists who dont fall into any of those and deists who would probably be a subcategory of theists. I think that atheist is when you say there is no god. Agnostic atheists are people who know they dont have any proof. I dont know and I think I should therefore be neither atheist or theist in name. I have the same opinion about any gods as I have about invisible pink unicorns. They can theoretically exist, theres no reason too, but how I value intellectual honesty have led me to take away the label atheist.
I personally think there is no god, but that is unjustified, nothing proves it and shouldnt be officially my label. I picked what is rational. To me saying 'I dont/do believe in god but dont know if its true' makes no sense, I can understand why people do say that, but I dont see how its rational. If you dont know you dont fucking know.
I also describe myself as militant agnostic because it also covers other philosophical questions.
I understand the whole agnostic/gnostic/theist/atheist/apatheist thing, I agree personally about athiesm even though I dont agree in a rational sense, more in an emotional/instinctive way, if you get what I mean. Do we really need to discuss what label I use, if thats the case there are plenty of groups you should also (try to) correct.
Debating is really fun, but I dont see the point of it, if you have more things to say I'd want to hear it, or else it feels like I'm left out of the truth.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're just talking in circles at this point, so no, I'm done "debating" (one-sided as this has been). You say you know the difference between gnosticism/agnosticism and theist/atheist/anti-theist, yet your earlier statements betray otherwise.
You can say it's "more honest" to adopt a new name beyond 'agnostic atheist', but the fact of the matter is that if you actually LOOK at the definition of the two words, it is no less honest intellectually to leave it at that. If you don't believe in god(s), but also don't actively disbelieve in them, then you're an atheist. That's a fact (no, your failed analogy doesn't change that). Definitionally, as an atheist, you're also agnostic. It's a bit redundant, if you think about it, but it's no less 'honest'.
As such, the only logical conclusion I can reach is that you've decided to adopt a new name for yourself in order to feel like you're "better" or "more honest" than everyone else. Which, while understandable, still doesn't make any sense.
π: 0 β©: 1
Why should I have a label saying that I disbelieve in gods when there's no evidence? The same goes for theism, my conclusion is to not use any of them.
Your theory about me choosing this label to be seen as "better" or "more honest" doesnt really seem reasonable to me since I tell people I'm atheist because its easier.
I wish there was a word for not-being-able-to-know-and-therefore-doesnt-choose-between-theism-and-atheism, I dont really think apatheist or ignostic would fit either.
Ignostic apatheist antitheist?
Doesnt quite fit either, but thats more understandable, militant agnostic would still be a part of the label though since I think you CANT know.
This is like sexuality, its too complicated and too specific to be given a simple name. At least for me.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Why should I have a label saying that I disbelieve in gods when their is no evidence?"
YOU SHOULDN'T. If you had been reading what I've been saying, you'd understand that. Reading comprehension: You. Don't. Have. It. Fix that, please.
There is a difference between actively disbelieving in god(s) (anti-theism) and simply lacking a belief either way (atheism). Please, for the love of all that is holy, LEARN. TO FUCKING. READ.
"I wish there was a word for not-being-able-to-know-and-therefore-doesn't-choose-between-theism-and-atheism"
Once again, this isn't ABOUT choosing between theism and atheism. That is a useless, outdated form of thinking that theists like to use to give themselves ground for validating their arguments for god's existence.
The belief system is a SPECTRUM. There are NO "sides". You're creating a false dichotomy. JUST. STOP.
You want a term for "not-being-able-to-know"? It's called fucking atheism.
Clearly, you're either illiterate, trolling, or both. So, I'm done talking to you.
(PS: Go fuck yourself. Thank you.)
π: 0 β©: 1
I think we have a disagreement of definitions.
There's no need to say 'Go fuck yourself' though.
π: 0 β©: 1
"I think we have a disagreement of definitions."
Correct. Feel free to list your definitions, and I'll be sure to fix them accordingly. Otherwise, I'm through talking to you.
"There's no need to say 'Go fuck yourself' though."
Oh, there was. I know -I- sure felt a hell of a lot better afterwards.
π: 0 β©: 1
I dont feel it is important to list defintions, if I'm wrong I'll probably figure it out after a number of encounters with people in the future.
And no, saying 'Go fuck yourself' isnt needed, its just luxury.
π: 0 β©: 1
In other words, "I know that I'm wrong, and I'd rather not let YOU have the liberty of proving it to me."
If you're looking to find the truth of a situation, blatantly running away from the answers isn't very helpful. So if you "don't feel it's important" to list your definitions for critique and correction, you're essentially telling me that you don't really care whether there was any truth to anything you've been saying over the last few days here; you just want to try to keep your pride intact.
Well, good luck with that. I certainly hope you'll eventually let SOMEONE knock some sense into you.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, what? Dont decide what I am thinking, thats my job. Do you honestly think what I call myself, mostly in my head, is important enough to have a long discussion about it and for me to list definitions? I think yyou do, otherwise you wouldnt do this, but you know that its weird, right? Nothing too wrong with it though.
I want to keep my pride intact? Seriously, not even the dumbest person in the universe would come out and make a controversial statement in the wrong place at the wrong time with full awareness of it and expect to keep his pride.
I wouldnt want you to think I am running from the truth however, since what I've said earlier probably wont do anything, I'm going to be nice and list my definitions even though I think its unnecessary and would just want to peacefully the discussion.
Atheist means that you dont believe that gods exist
Theist means that you believe some kind of god/gods exists
Deist means you believe in a higher force but that it isnt interfering with our world
Apatheist means you dont care about whether there's a god or not
Agnostic means the position you hold is unknowable or not proven for the time being
Ignostic means you want to define what god/gods are before you can decide if you're theist, atheist or whatever
Antitheism means you actively oppose religion
The thing is that agnostic atheism doesnt make much sense to me, first you say god doesnt exist and then you say that you cant know it, it pretty much means that the reason you dont believe is because all religion in the world is false and that you reject the idea of a deity because it is absurd. Absurdity has nothing to do with truth and because of that I feel like that just agnostic is a better way to describe it. I dont think you have to be agnostic plus something else, you can just be agnostic about theological propositions in general. And in my defense, agnostic theism makes even less sense.
π: 0 β©: 1
As expected, regardless of the fact I've stated it several times already, you still don't seem to understand what being an atheist actually entails.
'A' is a Latin(?) prefix which literally means 'not' or 'without'. Theist, as you correctly stated, is a person who holds a belief in a god or god(s). When you put them together, you get "not (a) theist" or "without theism". Meaning that they don't share the belief of theists that a god exists. This does NOT mean that they actively oppose the idea of god(s), merely that they don't think there is sufficient evidence to say. Anti-theism is one who opposes a belief in god(s); not religion. There are theists who oppose religion in it's current state, feeling that belief in god(s) should be a purely personal thing.
The difference you're missing is between lacking a belief in god(s) and actively believing that there are no gods. Atheism is a LACK of belief, not an active belief. That's why atheists always call bullshit when religious folks try to claim that atheism is just as much a religion as actual religions, which is ridiculous.
THAT is why the idea of agnostic atheism (which, as I've said is actually a bit redundant) seems so wrong to you. It's because you have your definitions of atheism and anti-theism flat-out wrong.
Also: "Do you honestly think what I call myself, mostly in my head, is important enough to have a long discussion about it and for me to list definitions?"
Clearly it is, as you've had no issue with continuing the discussion before, and only AFTER I asked you to give your definitions of things I figured you had wrong did you get defensive and decide you'd rather let someone else correct you later on (remember: YOU said that; not me).
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, the word atheist was from the time of ancient greece ad simply meant people who didnt worship gods, not that they didnt believe in their existance. It has changed now though, cause obviously atheists do not acknowledge the existance of Zeus. I kinda get it now. Guess you win, or both, since I got corrected about something.
π: 0 β©: 1
And why didn't they worship gods...? (Because they didn't believe in them.)
And it wasn't about "winning". It wasn't some contest to see who could make the other concede first. You were (unintentionally, I'm sure) spreading misinformation, and so I decided I'd correct you because, as far as I'm concerned, there's enough misinformation being spread by morons already, we don't need otherwise perfectly intelligent people doing it too.
π: 0 β©: 1
You know Epicurus? He's probably one of the most sceptical of the ancients greeks, if I recall correctly he just thought worshipping gods was wrong but he wasnt really an atheist as we know it as today. I also remember something vaguely about a letter he wrote that shows he's not really atheist and I dont know anyone more sceptical towards the concept of gods than him.
Also, winning a debate/arguement/discussion is to me something you can do, you do that by convincing the opponent. So according to me you won. Its not a contest, but you can 'win'.
π: 0 β©: 1
Even if he was "one of the most skeptical", that doesn't mean he was the *only* skeptical one. And my guess would be that they invented the word (or whatever equivalent we translated the current word from) for the majority of the skeptics, not the one person they thought was most skeptical.
And fine. If you want to say that I 'won', you're welcome to. But as far as I'm concerned, that detracts from the intended purpose of the conversation, so I'm going to have to say that I didn't win anything.
π: 0 β©: 1
Okay.
And then Lord-of-Potatoes and Monjaru lived happily ever after, seperately.
π: 0 β©: 1
...So, from what I can gather, magical thinking is the conviction that thinking = doing?
...I cannot even begin to rationalize how that works. Do explain.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll explain it this way, I can make a computer that tells you 1+1=7, thats not the case, but its perceived as truth by the computer, what if we also somehow use logical fallacies and think they're logic?
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm pretty sure most things we understand and base our sciences, teachings, and lives on aren't fallacies at all. Gravity, Evolution, Natural Selection, The Big Bang, Red Shift, Modern Medicine, etc. have all proven to be extremely consistent and work as a satisfactory explanation with repeatable results and conclusions nearly every single time, and whatever doesn't work is usually corrected with a little more rational thinking; not that sort of pseudo-intellectual "WE'RE TOO DUMB TO EVER REALLY KNOOOOW~!" nonsense. If science and critical thinking and reasoning work 99.99% of the time, I really doubt that "we can never know anything for certain". I'm pretty certain that if I break my arm, it's going to hurt like a bitch and need repair, or that if I stab you with a needle full of the HIV virus, you're going to get infected. Logic says that action breeds result, and you observe and see that every single day. Punch the "o" button on your keyboard. What do you get? "o", that's what. If not, inspect it. Oh, what's that? A short! Let us fix it. NOW you get "o", just like a keyboard that is correctly made would!
People would peer-review your hypothetical computer in the same way and find it very faulty, anyway, since it seems to add five onto every answer it gets, and there's a hundred thousand computers out there that would consistently come to the conclusion that 1+1=2. Your computer would be consider the fallacy, not everyone else's.
If anything, that seems to imply a lack of understanding of the Scientific Method to me. Science always leaves room open for new ideas and reasoning and findings, of course, but that's because Science is actually extremely open-minded and extremely strict at the same time. If you give science evidence for a claim, it turns it inside-out, upside-down, punches it, kicks it, stabs it, jumps on it, electrocutes it, stabs it some more, gouges it in both eyes, screams in its ears, lights it on fire, punts it like a football, strangles it, drowns it, gnaws off three limbs and strands in it the desert with only a rusty spoon for protection and a cactus up its ass, and, if it somehow manages to hold up and come crawling back to stand on its own two feet again (having improvised a new limb or two during its long and harsh exodus), proceeds to warily glare at it from a distance before slowly approaching closer and finally accepting it as accurate once it proves itself to be after more (and only slightly less-violent) rigorous testing; all of which needs to produce the same results under a variety of conditions.
Still makes absolutely no sense.
Least you're not religious, though, which means you're far more tolerable than 99% of the people I know.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm also pretty sure reality is just as real as I perceive it, but that doesnt mean your thinking cant POSSIBLY be constructed in a way so that your thinking doesnt make sense, you could dreaming, this could be the matrix, these things are POSSIBLE, not necesarily true, but possible. And thats why we CANT know anything for real. Real knowledge is unattainable.
This computer I spoke of, its meant to explain how magical thinking works, if the people reviewing have magical thinking, everyone for that matter, or if some are just illusions. If the logic you use to say these things arent possible is not working correctly then it is still possible. Note that I'm saying possible, which makes things impossible to truly know, not true.
For example; a person with magical thinking says 1+1=7. You show the person its 2 by putting two apples together. Than he says reality does not apply or that you just proved his statement(even though it doesnt), because he's not logical. You cant use logic against a person who doesnt understand or use it. He wont listen to reason and logic. If its possible that we're way, or if we're all computers that way, or if we're one computer imagining everything, or if we're dreaming, then you cant know real knowledge, real truth.
Prove to me you're not dreaming, is my imagination, a computer thinking you're you or is in a matrix.
π: 0 β©: 1
I can't prove that we're not in a dream or imagining, but I can prove that whatever this reality is, what we understand about it is explainable and applicable, and, therefore, it is "cannon" for this reality (if you will) and isn't false just because some alternate reality *might* exist. If there's another planet out there where Time somehow moves in reverse, does that mean the Time here is somehow irrelevant? No, it doesn't. It just means that the two are separate, but, at the same time, they might have a mechanism or two in common, and in order to find out if they're interconnected somehow, we study them both, and learn about them both. Before long, we understand how both systems work; we don't just dismiss everything about one or both of them and decide that we cannot know anything ever. That. Is. Not. How. It. Works.
This is still just pseudo-intellectual nonsense to me. If we don't understand, we learn, and even if it's just a dream, at least we know how to manipulate this particular dream, because there's no evidence for any other "dream", and, therefore, no real reason to speculate. According to your logic, we should just give up everything we know and shrug our shoulders to attribute it to "the mysterious ways of the Universe", even though there's absolutely no reason to think that there's anything else out there; not even a single shred of evidence. We should stop searching for a cure for cancer or AIDS or world hunger or the energy crisis, then, and just shrug our shoulders, sit on the ground, and go "Iunno, because mankind's just too stupid to know~" That's such a disgusting insult to the human intellect, truly...
In that way, you're really no better than someone who says "JESUS CHRIST DIED ON THE CROSS FOR ME AND THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW!" or something like that. This is why I honestly can't stand agnosticism as anything but an in-between, temporary thing when in the middle of doing one's research and making up your mind. "I don't know what I think" isn't an acceptable answer to give all the time, because it doesn't get anybody anywhere.
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree with you about everything except that if this WOULD be a dream, then we cant be sure physics works. They might stop working in a second or something. In dreams there doesnt have to be consistent patterns to be studied.
It would be stupid to take this as the truth, because my statement also means that I cant KNOW if thats true either. I still think we should do science even if theres a possibility thats it might not work, thats just as stupid as a theist believing in god, just in case. I'm also not saying we're stupid, I'm saying that we COULD theoretically be computers who think they're human. Thats fully possible in theory and does not mean we're stupid, just thats its outside of the things we can 'prove'. When you dream, most of the time you think what is happening is real, thats not because you're stupid, the same thing applies here.
You need to realize that I dont believe in the absurd conspiracy theories I make up. I'm just admitting that this COULD be the case, absurdity has nothing to do with truth and admitting what could be ahs nothing to do with what actually is or you actually think.
π: 0 β©: 1
If it is a dream, it's a very long and fucking consistent one, that's for sure.
Honestly, this still makes no sense. Everything *might* be a lie, but I *might* fart out a magical pink pegasus tomorrow, too. It's just so incredibly unlikely that there's an extraordinarily huge chance that it just isn't real, like God. There's also no proof for it, and if you're going to convince me of anything, you're going to need proof, not just "What if"'s.
Agnostic Atheism is exactly the same, then, because we admit we don't know everything, and that there's always a slim chance for anything. BUT, we demand evidence for any claims made, and strongly doubt anything that isn't provable by hard evidence, though we leave room open to admit when we're wrong. Isn't that exactly what you're doing here? >__>;;
π: 0 β©: 1
Me labeling myself as Militant Anostic has everything to do with the farting pegasuses thing. It IS true that its POSSIBLE; thats why I'm a Militant Agnostic, I do not act different that I would if I was an athiest/when I was an atheist though. I felt that taking side in the name is stupid if I'm truly agnostic, but its almost in name only.
π: 0 β©: 1
...Yeah, I'm juuuust going to go out on a limb here and say it's impossible. Still, if you want to jump off a highrise building on the off chance that you *might* fly, well, then... My point proven.
π: 0 β©: 1
No that would be stupid. I'm just saying we cant KNOW, not that its not true, truth and knowledeg are different, knowledge is in your brain truth is what knowledge tries to reflect. I'm not saying we cant know because we're dreaming or something, I'm saying we cant know if we're dreaming or not. I dont believe in that we do dream or that we dont, I make the assumption the universe is as real as I perceive, because doing otherwise would be stupid since there's nothing indicating that would be the case.
π: 0 β©: 1
There's nothing indicating that it wouldn't, you know, and as an Atheist, I'm going to assume that this is what we have until something concrete proves otherwise.
Not to ad hominem, but you realize that Magical Thinking is literally considered a distinguishing factor of both a child's thought process and several mental disorders...?
π: 0 β©: 1
I didnt get that last sentence, I'm swedish, so my english may not be perfect.
How big do you perceive the difference between my militant agnosticism and agnostic atheism to be? I dont see it as a big problem, I usually say I'm atheist, so its really just when talking religion or in my head I call myself that.
π: 0 β©: 1
I said that Magical Thinking is considered a symptom of many mental disorders, as well as something that's classed as "the way children think". I'm not trying to insult you; this is just everything that I look up about it is saying.
Simply because "militant agnosticism" literally means you say "I don't know, and none of us ever can" about everything, and that's really just not a great way to approach life. It CAN bleed into you never making firm decisions about some things, and is rather insulting to the way Humans work. I pretty much equate it to being similar to saying "God works in mysterious ways" whenever religion fails and someone can't explain (or admit) why. Basically, I'm just trying to encourage some rational thought here; it's what we nonreligious tend to do, you know?
π: 0 β©: 1
I think I've said this earlier, but I dont act based on absurd theories that could be. I do things as rationally as I am capable. For the most part militant agnosticism is just something I admit to me because it feels like it has to be admitted, as I said, I call myself atheist often because its easier.
π: 0 β©: 0
The trouble is figuring out if it exists.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah, nice job quoting Mr. C. Obvious there.
I understand what you are trying to say here, but yeah. Nice stamp though.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>