Originally posted by MikeBruceI wouldn't say that I didn't like any of them they all seemed like they'd be great to sit down and drink a beer and BS with, but overall I just agree with objectivism more than the rest.
You should always question. Always.
You cant tell me that you didnt like any of the philosphers you read... can you?
Originally posted by Hank Rearden"Gnosticism" is about knowledge. A Gnostic believes he KNOWS whether or not God exists. An a-gnostic believes it but does not feel he knows it.
Agnostic Athiest? does that mean you want more proff that there is absolutly nothing?
By the way what happened to that creepy a ss picture of the goat man.
But Tshirthell.com is awesome.
"Theism" is about belief in gods.
So, I do not believe in gods, but understand I might be wrong.
7 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe agnostic through simple reasoning always arrive at the conclusion:
An a-gnostic believes it but does not feel he knows it.
"We can't possibly know one way or the other whether there is or isn't
a God. Hence it's futile to even try and seek verifiable knowledge
on such matters."
The agnostic believes that from a human perspective the possibility of
there being a God is the same as the possibility of there not being
a God, and anyone who claims to "know" about these things are lying (to
themselves and/or others).
So, from an agnostic point of view both atheists and theists alike are
either flat out liars or seriously deluded. Yet, you often here proponents
from both of these two camps saying agnostics are cowards for not
having the courage to stand up for what they believe. Apparently, you
have to believe there either is a God or there isn't. (The
possibility that you really can't base your entire world view on something
as unverifiable as a super-dooper creator existing or not is unheard
of.) They are of course as mistaken about that, as they are about the
subject of God itself. The agnostic takes a very clear standpoint based
on reasoning rather than belief. That often takes a lot of social courage
especially in the face of atheists who seem to think that their conclusions
are also based on reasoning.
Theists at least admit that their standpoint is based on nothing but
irrational beliefs with roots in what they feel, see and hear on a personal
and emotional level, rather than on an independantly verifiable set of
observable facts. Some theists seem to think they can detach
themselves from those irrational beliefs and still find "evidence" of God's
existence (there's certainly lots of them floating down here) but
most are wise enough to admit that their whole world view is based on
nothing but blind faith in one or more ancient books along with their
personal experiences (verifiable or not) - as valid a belief as that may
be.
The atheist on the other hand will often use arguments such as the
probability of the existence of one unique being in a universe that is
clearly based on the concept of multitude. They will fool themselves into
believing they "know" there is no God, simply because from our human
perspective it's highly unlikely. I agree with them in so far that the
existence of a unique, all-encompassing God is seriously unbelievable,
but then I have to ask myself if that's not the very definition of a God:
Something that is quite remarkable and who's existence is extremely
hard for us to fully understand?
I also agree with atheists that from what we know about religious
scriptures and oral traditions, it's likely man invented God
simply to explain things we couldn't understand at the time (some of
which still eludes us), and to maintain a social order using the idea of a
power that no one in their right mind would place themselves above,
because the punishment in the end would be severe (a line of
thinking that to this day weave through all parts of our society like a
sticky string of sperm on a hookers face - the idea that through the
threat of punishment alone will we control our primitive urges and behave
civilized - and yet, the common factor between all human civilisations
based on this philosophy, so primitive in itself, has been that they
can't control people's behaviour through scare tactics other than
for relatively short moments in time). That is the most likely cause of
God: An abstract invention meant to help us understand each other and
our given roles so that we may get along despite our limited mental
abilities and our competitive primal urges. But any sane person would
have to admit that we can't possibly know about these things for sure.
We can, at best, draw educated guesses.
I have to admit that I've gone from atheist to agnostic back to atheist,
somewhat theistic and back to agnostic again. You'd certainly think that
an agnostic has a very hard time making up his/her mind when you look
at me, but that's not true. Because while I am an atheist or leaning
toward theism, I am not an agnostic at all, am I? (Heh, heh...)
As for life philosophy, I can't adhere to any philosophy coherently. It
seems to me that there are good thoughts and ideas coming from all
different directions. Some of them seem conflicting at first, but later you
realise that since we're conflicted by our very nature, they make sense to
us. (Such as the Christian commandment: "Thou shalt not kill", and
the samurai's justification for committing suicide: "Life is but an illusion".
They both make sense to a human under given preset circumstances,
yet as practised by Christians and Samurais they're clearly conflicting in
nature.) Even within the same practised philosophy you will find logical
contradictions, exceptions to the rules for the exact same reason.
A philosophy that in practice doesn't bend to human irrationality is
impossible for us to maintain, no matter how hard we try. Just like the
water eventually breaks free from the blocking rocks and vegetation to
flow unhindered down the mountain slope, so will any human attempt to
force way to power, shape the surrounding world to fit his path and flow
through life without obstructions. But like the water, we're only as
successful as natural forces allow.
It is impossible to adhere to one coherent philosophy, when you know
this about yourself.
---
I've done this before, and now I just did it again. I wrote a mile long
post, speaking as if my definition of the word agnostic is the correct one.
The word agnostic directly implies it's the clear opposite of a gnostic, and
a gnostic claims that we can "know" about God and all that (s)he is. I
often put gnostics and theists in the same categorical bag, and atheists
in the opposition, and then I view agnosticism as a third point of view all
together. This is clearly not good thinking.
Atheists oppose theists, and Agnostics oppose gnostics. A gnostic is a
theist in a sense, but an agnostic is not an atheist. 🙄
I think I'll start drinking early this saturday.
Originally posted by Hank Reardenhank, as far as i know there isnt such a book - though i could be mistaken... i think you're right, with buddhism, its a state of being rather than reading about what to do and what not to do
I said out of any of the one's I've studied, I haven't read to much on religion, but I plan on reading as much as I can handle after I'm done reading some other books. But yeah from what I hear buddism is a nice peaceful religion, but I still ahve to admit I'm pretty ignorant of the subject of it. Do they have like, for lake of better word a "bible" of some sort or is it mostly you have to go to a place for it?
Originally posted by stockenAgnostics are like the lib dems in Britain.
The agnostic through simple reasoning always arrive at the conclusion:
"We can't possibly know one way or the other whether there is or isn't
a God. Hence it's futile to even try and seek verifiable knowledge
on such matters."
The agnostic believes that from a human perspective the possibility of
there being a God is the same as the possib ...[text shortened]... 🙄
I think I'll start drinking early this saturday.
Fence sitters who nobody likes.
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenSo are you really saying that you believe there are two types of people?
So, from an agnostic point of view both atheists and theists alike are
either flat out liars or seriously deluded. Yet, you often here proponents
from both of these two camps saying agnostics are cowards for not
having the courage to stand up for what they believe. Apparently, you
have to believe there either is a God or there isn't.
People who believe there are two types of people, and people who don't?
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYounglet me have a shot at a simple format:
"Gnosticism" is about knowledge. A Gnostic believes he KNOWS whether or not God exists. An a-gnostic believes it but does not feel he knows it. of course, you cant prove a negative, eg there is no god, or aliens.
"Theism" is about belief in gods.
So, I do not believe in gods, but understand I might be wrong.
1. a theist has faith so needs no evidence.
2. an atheist has neither faith nor evidence.
3. an agnostic doesnt know whether he needs faith or evidence.
4. a gnostic knows he has faith so needs no evidence.
me, im firmly in the second category. i expect some smart guy will point out that if you have evidence you dont need faith etc,
some might call faith a "suspension of critical faculties?"
2 edits
Originally posted by Hank Reardensurely you are putting yourself in a group by categorising yourself as a objectivist.
I was just wondering what peoples philosphies were, why they are what they are, what you believe.
I am an objectivist.
Why? Because of the fact that out of all the philosophies I've studied it is the only one that does not try to impose it's will on anyone. All other ones I have studied the writers have at some point a part of what to do with the n individual.
Any how I'm interested to hear what anyone else's philosphy is and why.
What other philsophies would you take ideas from- libertarianism? anarcho-capitalism? The fact that you're calling yourself Hank Rearden suggests you are quite into Atlas Strugged and Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Yes I'm a Fan of Atlas Shrugged.
surely you are putting yourself in a group by categorising yourself as a objectivist.
What other philsophies would you take ideas from- libertarianism? anarcho-capitalism? The fact that you're calling yourself Hank Rearden suggests you are quite into Atlas Strugged and Ayn Rand.
And yes I'm a Libertarian.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Libertarianism is the 'what'.
But aren't libertarianism and objectivism incompatible?
Objectivism is the 'why'.
As only two examples of many:
There are Libertarians that might say legalise drugs so we can do drugs, or let's have freedom of religion so we can do religious bollocks. Objectivists might say it's wrong to do drugs because drugs are an escape from reality, and they'd say the same about religion.
But both libertarians and objectivists recognise your right to live a life free from force and threats of force, and that you should bear the consequences of the choices you make. That no man will ever exist for the sake of someone else, nor expect anyone else to live for his own sake.
So, not incompatible, but there are objectivists that will have nothing to do with a political party on the grounds that libertarians are trying to take a short cut to freedom.
Originally posted by Wajomawell said Waj.
Libertarianism is the 'what'.
Objectivism is the 'why'.
As only two examples of many:
There are Libertarians that might say legalise drugs so we can do drugs, or let's have freedom of religion so we can do religious bollocks. Objectivists might say it's wrong to do drugs because drugs are an escape from reality, and they'd say the same about religio ...[text shortened]... litical party on the grounds that libertarians are trying to take a short cut to freedom.