Agnosticism, atheism, and "spiritual struggle"

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
chansen said:
I'm still an anti-theist. I still believe religion is a net-negative force in the world.
Click to expand...
Thus we dei-st we will because we cannot support the gap in the sky ... that forming the clearr way out of the spot we've got ourselves into ... without even being comprehensive of the failure ...

To see such stuff (substance) one has to drift off substantially from a world that appears quite cruel ... some blame it on mother nature ... who eats us all up in the tales ... that was grandmother -AH! The source of that self consumptive reptile? Oriana's ...

There are other words as aphorisms ... alas most don't like heaps of word and prodigious connectors ... get into that gap ... and then it gets complex ... even the Profs restrict it ...


That's professor vessel or dictation-ship ... never say anything on your own ... without taking onus ... it counters the activity ... responsibility ... so no response is directed ... and many accept the fate as blind believer! Thus the Nacht in the day called dark ... did someone knock eth ...

Kind of a bump in what's purely obscure at this point (of view, or perspective) ... take down the robes for a peak ... to see what's under there ... Sous-la?

Maybe El Cid ... bema sked there ... skidding alone like a roadrunner related to what else ... mocking boids!
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
open atheist - doesn't believe in God but won't rule it out
closed atheist - positive that God does not exist (so, your classic atheist)
open agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unproven but could be provable
closed agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unprovable (again, the classic philosophical agnostic)
Click to expand...
My view here

Your better off being a closed atheist or a closed agnostic then an open kind ------at least in your closed stance your state is of one mind which means your stable in your Stance and State ------the open ones leave you double minded and unstable in both your stance and your state in that you can be persuaded to change your state if provable -and it is not likely that anyone could prove that God's exists well enough to you that would make you change ---so your better to stay closed and be of one mind --
 
There is no "better" way for everyone. Again, this is insanity informing your views. Even I understand that there is no "one size fits all" solution here. I may advocate for my views, but I realize some may want to believe, or be especially open to possibilities.

Where I object again is where people insist the possibilities they want to happen will happen. That's a weird one I've run into here before, but being open to possibilities is not a weakness.
 
chansen said:
Where I object again is where people insist the possibilities they want to happen will happen.
Click to expand...
That kind of thinking irks me, too. If people kept it to themselves in their own lives, I'd be fine with it but too often, they use to judge and put down others. "If you're not rich, you're just not doing it right" type of thing, ignoring the real social and economic circumstances of the other.

I kind of think the "open-closed" binary is a bit too restrictive. What is an agnostic who thinks God is unprovable objectively but might still believe based on subjective personal experience? It seems more open than closed, but is not quite their definition of "open" either. I know they were trying to focus on psychology and emotions rather than philosophy but the philosophy does reflect and influence the psychology so I think it does matter to a degree.
 
Mendalla said:
That kind of thinking irks me, too. If people kept it to themselves in their own lives, I'd be fine with it but too often, they use to judge and put down others. "If you're not rich, you're just not doing it right" type of thing, ignoring the real social and economic circumstances of the other.

I kind of think the "open-closed" binary is a bit too restrictive. What is an agnostic who thinks God is unprovable objectively but might still believe based on subjective personal experience? It seems more open than closed, but is not quite their definition of "open" either. I know they were trying to focus on psychology and emotions rather than philosophy but the philosophy does reflect and influence the psychology so I think it does matter to a degree.
Click to expand...

Thus the elimination and exorcist function ... allowing a vast cut in the fabrics of existence ... an escape 'ole thingy? Relax ... it is just another ridiculous word ... vast and loose ... maybe lucid from the view out-there!

Believe me I don't know and I do appreciate intelligence about alien gatherings. They might have some learnings ... that doth draw some 'ate-red ... among the vast will to know not nothing! Is that a close alliteration? Oh Kaye don't ... not now my love ...
 
Oh Kaye ... I derived that from the steppes and Katherine ... raising question about "rine" and all that ... pig's kin?
 
I posted about esoteric cults and groups but deleted it. Look it up. They exist and aren’t always benign. They can cause some mental/ spiritual struggles with manipulative tactics.
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
That kind of thinking irks me, too. If people kept it to themselves in their own lives, I'd be fine with it but too often, they use to judge and put down others. "If you're not rich, you're just not doing it right" type of thing, ignoring the real social and economic circumstances of the other.

I kind of think the "open-closed" binary is a bit too restrictive. What is an agnostic who thinks God is unprovable objectively but might still believe based on subjective personal experience? It seems more open than closed, but is not quite their definition of "open" either. I know they were trying to focus on psychology and emotions rather than philosophy but the philosophy does reflect and influence the psychology so I think it does matter to a degree.
Click to expand...

Thus Chansen de Mour and it all cut out on dah loose? It doth hailed me down to the ground of being ... another dream? It all come unmoored ... there's more to the lashing being busted! Balloch's ...
 
From a theist’s view, an atheist is simply someone "without god," following the Greek prefix a- (as in asexual or amoral). To a skeptic, however, an atheist is someone who withholds belief in deities and other unverified things like elves or demons because the burden of proof has never been met.
Skeptics don’t necessarily claim gods cannot exist. Proving a universal negative is irrational and impossible anyway. Since we can’t observe every corner of the universe at once, the existence of a god remains technically unknown. So while I lack belief due to lack of evidence, I don’t go around claiming gods are impossible.
I don’t label myself as an atheist because that’s the theist’s term for me, a sceptic. I’m happy to be called a sceptic, a humanist (which I am), a freethinker, or whatever else. But not an atheist. I’m not “without god”, I was never with it in the first place.
I have no need to use the theist’s negative terminology. That said, if I have to be more technical about it, I’ll say I’m an ignostic atheist.
 
As a spiritual skeptic ... one would normally question ... and those on the other side of that lines that counters questions in perpetuity ... there is no room for questions as that could (heaven help us) lead to a process of change, alteration in an evolutionary domain.

I see that as some people getting ready to go out to something beyond home ... that can be strenuous as you may have experienced to process as you sat watching the preening ... a metaphor, or aphorism?

Given how much is out there in the great unknown that is beyond us ... what can we be so determined about? Just look at all the cryptic word we don't know and folk get upset over ... it is almost like Shakespearean poetry about stages in life ... change of shifts? Long fabricated tubes ...

The hostiles in life are always trying to get someone else's ... analyzing and not comprehensive of it? Some never get to that point of comprehension because of it's never ending nature ... natural slippage ... Sisyphus !

Its like rock against those other phases ... in the end dismissed and fired! All because of sacred wishes for hed 'n up to that hedonistic spot ... an overlook? Some say out look and then they are out of the near circle ... disposed, wasted, or prodigal!

Dizzying daze of life ... dark ... no graphics ... Po' as a church mous ... frothy!

Some get that way in high states of expression ... I've observed it in Pubs ... leek'ns? Weepers ... rather like poor economic sense ... jumble I awe ...

It is kind of a Po' fued ... for stretching people in vocation! A job in other words ...
 
Last edited:
I would have to agree with Richard Dawkins that the idea that we are born in sin is a hideous idea and that the only way to be saved from sin and the wages of sin is the death of Jesus.

How did I am the way the truth and the life translate into my death is necessary in order for you to be saved from sin?

There are thousands of theologies around the world and they all have their own "High Flown Theology" which they think has greater status than any other.

Christianity has not convinced me that their version of theology is better than any other and I suspect that worshipping Jesus as a savior for all human kind is contrary to his parabolic messages in as much as I am able to interpret them.

Everyone seems to have an innate desire for something a bit beyond the natural, something a bit supernatural and intangible.

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." (said CS Lewis @unsafe )

That statement resonates with me.

Most of the time when a desire evolves for something such as food or a comfortable home it gives a reason to seek out those things in the real world.

Those desires evolve as a latching on to connections in the real world.

Everywhere in the real world we find people with religious sensibilities desiring or apprehending something divine beyond themselves.

I have to wonder why humans almost universally have evolved that desire if that desire doesn't really latch onto anything in reality.

I suspect the desire to survive and live - which makes evolutionary sense - could naturally become the projection of a desire to go on living in some sense after our physical death.

That wishful/belief/desire does not translate into the existence of a God or Gods that have to be appeased in order to earn eternal life with Jesus or with however many virgins or however many ideas of the afterlife rewards to be reaped by just believing does not compute for me.

I have had experiences in my life where I felt overwhelmed by the presence of what I without a doubt would call the holy spirit.

That is not something that Christianity or any other theology has a claim on controlling as far as I am concerned.

Cosmic Skeptic?
 
Last edited:
chansen said:
There is no "better" way for everyone. Again, this is insanity informing your views. Even I understand that there is no "one size fits all" solution here. I may advocate for my views, but I realize some may want to believe, or be especially open to possibilities.

Where I object again is where people insist the possibilities they want to happen will happen. That's a weird one I've run into here before, but being open to possibilities is not a weakness.
Click to expand...
Amen (sorry) :3

And we all of differing values, beliefs, cultures, politics, favourite ice cream (tho I will defend bubblegum peanut blueberry TO THE DEATH!!!) etc we all have to figure oot how to live and be together. Tall fences are quite helpful.
 
Should I chime in? Still an atheist in terms of theology, but it would be impossible for me to speculate about anything beyond my human frame of reference. Personally, the more I learn, the further away I get from the idea of human-centric world, or any ridiculous notion of being a "superior" species. It's all adaptation to the imperative of survival. Yes, our mammalian "plumage" is interesting. We build cities with it and have very complex vocalizations and thoughts, but we are still a mediocre iteration at best. "Arrogant monkeys" as I have stated before.
We know nothing beyond what is provisional for us. The worst of it is, the bigger picture is likely not what we believe it is...possibly it's miraculous beyond comprehension, but we won't ever know. We have to accept our limitations. But Consciousness, Ground of Being. Beyond thought...maybe.
Such a ray of sunshine I am
 
Is this train of religious belief getting off track?

Perhaps it is best not to be in the headlights because it it is going that way you could get run'd ova ... therein another story of crappy origins!

Thus we tail along with Pinocchio's support system ... isn't Giuseppe a early Latin name for Will I am ... degrading to j'suis in franc forms ... just formis?

We'll never know because of the chaos of the imperative categorizing ... and baulking ... there that's packaged!


Chip and Dale? One was where the piece was extracted leaving a fault to be covered by that which flew out of the original spot ... dippy? Perhaps a lot of dipping into the negative and deleterious ide ... enigmatic? Forever so ... forever's Oh a piece is missing ... that's how it dressed down ...

Someone out there declared ... put it back and relief took form! A hymn evolved just as "I am"! Cryptic? All things are questionable ... because of all that we do not know ... yet there will be determinators!
 
Last edited:
An "ator" is something else! Close to Ana tor or some other BS! Thus Anatoli ... an dtol will be collected! Peace of de'nd ... some say Dah ND (non-discriminatory so we can love em all). That's the word according to common folk ... john's to those elevated ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top