Okamura wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:52:57 GMT, flannel at mindless.com (Flannel)
> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:21:00 -0500, "Dan Fake"
> ><danfake at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Flannel wrote in message <37910484.153725452 at news.prodigy.net>...
> >>How did you get into my head? You must have read the links
> >>I provided. Aside from the coward and crap words, you came
> >>close. Care to share with us what your views on agnosticism
> >>are? Please don't tell me you're of the opinion that agnosticism is
> >>the superior intellectual and logical position over believers and
> >>disbelievers but if that's your position, so be it.
> >
> >Well the crap was my word, but the "coward" came from one of your
> >posts. One of the urls you gave read "agnosticism = coward". It
> >appeared to be a spin on the "agnostics are gutless atheists" that we
> >get in alt.agnosticism from time to time.
>> It is always surprising how many people who say that don't come even
> close to understanding what some people mean by the term agnostic. We
> all mean different things and all.
>> >As far as agnosticism being intellectually superior, how would I know?
> >I'm an agnostic. Agnostics are ignorant. For myself, I choose the
> >terms agnostic and agnosticism because they appear to be the most
> >accurate terms to describe me and my outlook.
>> For the record since my last splurge at this NG I have changed
> classification albeit not changed that much philosopohically. I now
> class myself as a Philosophical Taoist. Most people don't know what
> the hell that means in relation to anything (well AFAIK) so not as
> many preconceived notions. But a Phil. Taoist is inherently agnostic
> anyways..
>> >Agnostic and atheist can be overlapping terms. I know weak atheist
> >that state that they are also technically agnostic and agnostics that
> >state that they are technically weak atheist. Their viewpoints seem
> >to be nearly identical with the main difference being the label they
> >choose to call themselves. I'm not going to quibble over labels.
>> Come on, it is usually the backbone of all atheist/agnostic NG
> posts... that and theist trolls.
>> >Personally, I don't know if there is a god or not. As to whether it
> >is likely there is a god, that depends on what kind of god you are
> >talking about. Are you talking about the old gods that were numerous
> >and fallible, or the western version of god that is singular,
> >omnipotent, etc; or one of those fairly new definitions of god such as
> >"god is the sum total of the universe" or "god is collective of
> >physical laws that determine the universe?" God is a vague term and
> >agnostic is flexible enough term to answer it. I use it because it
> >is a useful term that addresses more than just god. I use the term to
> >mean that I don't see the big picture. Is there a big picture?
> >Soliphicism could be correct as far as I know.
>> I used to know what that mean, now I am clueless.
> <Okamura browses a dictionary>
> Oh, I see. But going by this overly generalised definition you would
> believe only in yourself.. Have you changed your belief in this
> regard? Like last time I talked to you you had doubts over your own
> existence (IIRC).
>> > I don't use agnostic to portray some logical superiority, I use it to
> >attempt an accurate portrayal of ignorance. I don't have the big
> >answers. I don't trust anyone who claims to have the big answers. I
> >live in ignorance, not because of choice, but IMHO, ignorance is our
> >inherent state. Any thing and possibly everything that I might think
> >could be wrong. That, to me, is agnosticism.
>> Just out of curiousity do you use agnostic more widely as an adjective
> for anything which your agnosticism lends its uncertainty upon?
> Like, "Do you think that we have a soul?", "Well, I am kinda agnostic
> on that point."
>> >I have a deep distrust of anyone who is not insecure.
> > Roger A. Bird
>> Still?? Ahhh well.
>> Okamura
----------------------------------------------
Anyone who thinks they know is not humble. Believers and disbeievers
think they know and say they know. They don't, and they can't, they are
lying.
Whatever you are just sure that you've been through and are now certain
about, ponder confronting a gigantic being beyond life which has power
even over your mind and heart, and then contemplate that it STILL may
only be a powerful evil pan-dimensional alien and not God at all.
Humility is truth. It is the core of the scientific method. Be humble.
Anyone who says that they know, this side of death and for all I know
the other side, is surely foolish. Do what makes sense and feels right
and good, but don't try to justify your life with invented human
malarkey, and that's all there is available besides love and warmth.
The only justification for your life that makes sense is what is written
upon your heart before the foundation of the world. You can't count on
it being in books intact, and you will find it in many more and
different books than supposed 'holy" books. The important thing is this,
that it is inside you, and that YOU are what validates it when you see
it and it makes sense. The book is just dead plants and is as often
wrong. Your "heart" is the ultimate authority because you have to live
there.
Atheism that rejects the feudal monarch model of "God" is fine, as that
was clearly only an economic despotism. But if that's all it is it
remains in the dark ages. Profound atheist materialism looks like
somebody wasn't paying attention very well to how very strange it is to
exist at all and to feel you are you. Why is that required at all?
And what in the world does it imply?
Be gentle with each other.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew at armory.comftp://ftp.armory.com:/pub/user/rstevew
-Electronics Site!! 1000 Files/50 Dirs!! http://www.armory.com/~rstevew
Europe Naples Italy: http://ftp.unina.it/pub/electronics/ftp.armory.com
