Messages

well for one most of them are a few thousand years older then christ.

i came into the thread very sarcastic, no doubt. the thing is though, i didn't and don't attack individuals (except agent), just ideas or the content of your post. westfall has the bad habit of filling his counter points with insults which usually just makes me roll my eyes, but definitely puts me on the attack.

the stats are pretty similar all over the world, with older generations holding onto religions and younger generations being majorly atheist or some variant of agnostic or polytheist. religion is dying, but spirituality isn't - as a result, the pagan gods are seeing a huge resurgence lol.

praise odin!

you can't accuse someone of bickering in the same post laden with petty attacks and insults.

I think you have condescending and confidence mixed up there chief. Sorry if you can't keep up.

lol.

sorry frvge, wasn't my intent.

you've been touting superiority and claiming i havn't 'contributed' anything since your first response to me. your posts reek of condescension, and everything you say is 'defensive' .

i don't want to turn this thread into a troll fight, so i'll try not to tell you to pull your head out of your ass again,

shit. i tried.

EDIT: second response, not first. your first one was about jesus, lol.

let go of the idea that i havn't contributed anything to this thread, spiritual ideals are hearsay, i contributed as much as you by reading and posting. this is a thread about loose idealism and leanings, there's no way one can solidly 'contribute' where another can't. as if i'm not entitled to have an opinion if i don't post my own views anyways.

basically what i'm saying is get your head out of your ass.

also, i don't care what happens when i die. either i'll be aware of it or i won't. if i am, that's all well and good, if i'm not, well it's all the same to me isn't it.

basically the reason i'm agnostic is because i see a lot of consistency in the world, usually that consistency is irony, but such prevalent patterns tell me there's a deeper tapestry or connection that we can't see. i highly doubt it comes down to an individual, more likely just a force, or an endless fractal that makes up all existence - and it most certainly has a scientific origin and explanation.

but it's also very likely that scientific origin and explanation is so far outside of what we know as possible, it would look like magic or mysticism or archaic power to our really young, naive human eyes.

i guess what i'm saying is the science to the universe, the ironies of life and the commonality of humanity, all of that is god - or gods, or science, or science is god. there is much we don't understand, and at the point in which technology surpasses understanding, technology appears to be magic. there is without a doubt a science and origin to any god that does exist, and it is without a doubt not mystic but just a deeper more complex technology that we can't understand yet.

but when it gets to that point, there really is no difference between 'god' and 'knowledge'. so that's basically what i believe, math and gears and shapes and patterns, all of that is 'god' and it's perfectly mundane and normal, we're just too stupid to really get it all yet.

real men model m1911s

the only point i'm making is you're taking the definitions of broad terms too literally. i think you need to look up more about agnosticism, but try reading more then the wiki article.

agnosticism as a broad term means what you just said, but you've been up and down about it. your posts are back and forth. that's pretty much all i'm saying too, is stop throwing around these terms incorrectly.

it's hard to contribute to a thread full of misguided diatribe, without trying to correct some of the confusion.

no i figured as much, it's just a worthless way to make a worthless point. the origin of agnostic might directly translate to "without knowledge" but taking that direct translation to mean agnostics have no opinion on the matter of god is, well, stupid.

you're basically either saying A) as an agnostic one isn't entitled to an opinion or B) genuinely asking for 'agnostic enlightenment'

both of which are basically taking the term one of 2 wrong ways.

if we're going to take the definitions so literal, then atheist basically means someone who refuses to acknowledge god, even if god was to part the clouds and wave at everybody, an atheist would look away and put plugs in his ears.

atheist means without god, coming from the word theist which is to believe in a deity.

agnostic means without knowledge, coming from the word gnosis, greek for knowledge, but in a broader sense refers to theistic or spiritual knowledge as a whole.

the point of saying that an agnostic is undecided was to show how stupid westfall asking for "agnostic knowledge" really was.

that's like asking agent for tips on left 4 dead.

HAIL SATAN!

hail satan!

[AGNOSTIC MEANS UNDECIDED]

Enlighten me with the agnosticism knowledge.

AGNOSTIC MEANS UNDECIDED

what ever gave you that idea? i just find the content in this thread so uninspiring, i can't bring myself to write up a fleshed out reply to it. too many regurgitated concepts and not enough genuine thought.

me? i'm an existentialist pseudo-agnostic anarcho-nihilist humanist subjectivist post-modern gnostic narcissistic pagan with satanic leanings.

hail satan and praise odin.

belief that believing in any god is crazy is crazier then believing in jesus.