Mortalsfool

IN CONSIDERATION OF ATHEISM

It may well be that God, if he exists, when making his plan for man, decided all that could be known of him, was an understanding that God-ness has a fifty-fifty chance of being.

If there is a God who is using planning above our understanding, he allowed in his plan, the freedom to develop logical conclusions based on our ability to reason. Reason makes demand that both sides of any argument be considered and argued equally, especially when it concerns the Godhead; to learn the difference between good and evil; right and wrong; God or no God!

Common sense allows that both sides can be argued equally well. Influences caused by the limiting factors of individual subjectivity make us try to present arguments for or against God, as though one side held more than 50 percent of the evidence, when in fact it is impossible to gain evidence that would outweigh either side. It is only when subjectivity replaces reason that we fall short of understanding. Lacking any evidence to the contrary it becomes just as unreasonable to conclude that there is no God, as to conclude there is. Argument either way, can amount to no more then an exercise between egos! Our ego, unfortunately, represents the part of us that does not require evidence when presenting what it calls ‘sound doctrine’. Reason alone creates no unbalance with the status quo [50/50]. It is when our inherent ignorance is bolstered by our ego’s insistence that we can mistakenly accept mere opinion as evidence.

My premise implies that no one person or group knows any more about God than another. When a man teaches another what he knows about God, he tries only to more deeply convince himself. There can be no superiority among mankind when it comes to knowing about God’s existence, except that which the ignorance in others allow. Any claim to Godly understanding that is based on ‘blind faith’ amounts to no more than embellishments added to hopes imaginings.

This means that the least you can learn about God is equal to the sum of what all others have learned, the highest product of reasoning that can exist without evidence. Acceptance of this gives us the ability to set aside our subjectivity and weigh our conclusions tempered with sound consideration, acknowledging wisdom does truly begin and end with admitted ignorance.

It remains then; if a man reaches the highest state of learning, me assuming that to be man’s purpose, it will be to the crux that comes into view when a man knows both the lack of evidence concerning God, and Hope, on which all faiths are based. The definition of Hope outlines the full human containment of God’s potential. We can ascend to no higher a conclusion than the middle line that separates that which is known and, that which may be God-ness. Having weighed that which is known, and that which is not known, a man’s faith will have the purity of being based solely on Hope, a faith that is founded on the humility that shines before all that we don’t know. This allows man to express his faith, in a life that shows benefit from what he does not know! His faith exists in a life that contains both humility and confidence!

Lest someone should say that fifty-fifty is being lukewarm in one’s faith, the ‘fifty-fifty view’ is no less devout to the existence of God, than those who allow the excesses of ego that cause them to preen in their faith. An avowed Atheist will also find himself in the same position, if, ignoring the equal lack of evidence concerning ‘no God’, he bounds in his belief to excess, likewise making claim to knowledge that exists beyond his sphere of learning. He [the Atheist] negates the human spirit of hope in exchange for nothing.

Hope adds to life its own germination. Allowed to grow in a world that has no God-ness [evidenced] of its own, it forms in a man the expression of Good, made manifest and seen, thereby creating a witness as from a Godlike influence!

The strength of ones hope/faith determines whether a person accepts death carrying a boldness formed in the transcendental fires of hope; or, there is nothing! In which case, the boldness so prepared, neither helps nor hinders; unless, you count it of value that a person lives as though worthy of having a God, with them being representative of the only Godliness to exist, human goodness!

I would like ask you to judge this article and tell me if you feel it is a clear statement for agnosticism, which I apply to myself. Is it a clear statement of the facts? Is it understandable?

greywolf90

i think your view is very interesting. i agree that this should be the essential of what agnostic is. i can see some simularities with my own beliefs. the main difference is that i can't really say that i'm 50-50. i do believe that a god exists. i would not presume to say that i am right, it's just what i feel. i've studied a little of biology. i can't call myself an expert, but it is fascinating to see how ordered everything is. consider all the cycles (energy, water,etc.). the body alone is so complex. try imagining everything going on inside you as you are simply reading this. anyone understanding biology should realize that this would be an extremely long list (everything going on inside organs, cells, brain, etc.). based on what i know and understand, i believe that all of this came from something. i don't care what you call it: god, allah, jehova, the force... but i also believe that "something" is impossible to know or understand. the purpose of religion is to interpret the "something" but the religion then claims their interpretation to be the truth. this was one of my reasons for leaving christianity, because how can you claim to know the truth of something unknowable? to me, religion is just an interpretation of something i believe exists. those are my beliefs on the existance or nonexistance of god. your beliefs make sense to me, and the way i see it, everyone has as much chance of being right as i do.

Og

Break out my friend. Open your eyes. When you are dealing in the field of pairs of opposites (i.e. good and evil, being and non-being) you are separate from the divine source.

This whole 50/50 notion is silly. It's what got Adam and Eve cast out of the garden (metaphorically of course).

The buddhists/hindus have this notion of samsara (the cycle of rebirth). It's the image of a torrent/hurricane. Every where in the hurricane, there is an opposite side to the sworl moving in the opposite direction. The dot in the middle of the hindu forhead (the bindu) or the buddha's "immovable spot" is the image of the eye of the storm where all 50/50s and pairs of opposites are transcended and there is calm.

It's the image of the pyramid on the US dollar bill. Everywhere on the base of the pyramid there is an opposite side. ONLY at the apex of the pyramid do the sides disappear. That is where you find the eye of god.

Your attempt to define the problem in terms of pairs of opposites or stances on a topic ignores the transcendent truth to which all religions of the world speak.

Our ego is another culprit of this. The ego (notion of I/self) is a boundary of me inside versus everything else outside. This is another category of thought that separates us from the divine. Thinking in terms of 50/50 is exactly what separates us from god.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

greywolf90

what makes your beliefs more right than his? you call his ideas silly yet im sure there are many people who would say your beliefs are silly. you keep talking about how you know the truth, but you can't prove it any more than he can prove his or i can prove mine. all you have is your own understanding and your own conclusions based on that understanding. by putting down someone elses beliefs, you are showing me that you are intolerant of other peoples opinions, or like any other religion, you just think you are right and anyone disagreeing with you is wrong. i respect your views, and i think your posts are interesting, but you don't have any right to say someone is wrong when you can't prove it. we are discussing opinions here, not facts! treat them like opinions. what you are saying is your opinion, not fact.

Og

Hrm.. Ideas and beliefs are different things friend. I'm sure there are plenty people out there who call my belief's silly. Doesn't mean that it has anything to do with reality.

In order to illustrate my point, I followed my comments up with a tour-de-force of examples from eastern and western religions and even secular society that seem to indicate that the notion of comprehending the divine in the field of time and in terms of categories of thought (i.e. dichotomies.. 50/50) is not what god is about.

I am intolerant of opinions. Everyone has them and most are uninformed. Make a claim and then follow it up with a reasoned argument. Just having an opinion is easy and has no value by itself. I see no reason to, by default, respect someone's opinions.

Namaste

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Mortalsfool

I love the word Namaste, but I find a conflict with your inclusion of a word that denotes mutual respect between the gods in both of us, with the comments about the lack of respect to the opinions the person holds.

I will first point out that you are right when you say ‘fifty fifty’ is not what god is about; it has nothing to do with god, it has to do with me. It was my post and I thought it was an absolutely neutral article in which I express the position in which I stand; not you! I'm the one the middle!

Unless I'm mistaken, when a person express's something about himself, it is not like having an opinion that is being foisted on someone else; meaning suggesting that it's better for you to accept my opinion over your own.

I can't even comprehend how anyone could see an argument in my article. I analyzed it for neutrality and decided that the only person that possibly could say I took something from them, would be an atheist when I removed 'hope' from his possibilities. But I don't think that objection would be valid, because you can't have hope if you don't accept the possibility of a time for it's fulfilling, no hereafter, no hope.

The article doesn't even hint of disagreement with anyone else, unless I missed something. It culminates in my own conclusion that I am an agnostic with a great deal of faith, and no fear to question it.

I think that it might be unduly harsh to say you are 'intolerant of all opinions' since you agree everyone has them. That's tantamount to saying you start out intolerant of everyone, because the only voice any of us have is our opinions. Doesn’t that attitude preclude discussion with others that may in fact, and justly so, respect their own opinions? It seems more likely that if you would starting out respecting another’s opinion, they would respond to your own differences with a degree of respect; after discussion!

Just curious!

The An-Jel

My thoughts and only my thoughts here:

No one really knows anything other than we are here. Philosophy is dictated on those grounded thoughts. As time goes on we are learning about the Universe we find ourselves in but we as a people are stuck fighting amongst ourselves with little to no relevent information to tell us what this Universe is really about.

Metaphorically we exist in a speck of matter on a machine we call the Universe. We don't know how it works but only that we want it to work our way and that makes no sense. We convert Universal principles to help us in our tiny plight and they enable us to pursue our quest of knowledge but to truly understand the ultimate design of the great machine we are on we have to continue to explore it.

Making any declarations as sovereign is superflous and rediculous. A working philosophy is one that let's us all co-exist and enables us to help each other in exploring in an immense undertaking like what is real and what is not.

50-50 I think not!

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment

Og

I think it's a disservice to state that agnosticism is some fence sitting 50/50 position between theism and atheism. Agnosticism transcends both.

50-50 implies equal evidence for both stances when, in fact, there is none for either. 50% of zero is still zero.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Mortalsfool

I can find no more accurate description of where "I" stand than being a half way believer with a strong faith, and half way an atheist since I agree with all the arguments that apply to a subjectiveness view of the real world. I'm in the middle which I will call fifty fifty. I don't know what other agnostics that may also stand in the 'middle' would call their position.

The subjective experiences do count on the believer side as ‘evidence’ even though it’s not considered as valid by the atheists! And hence I agree that agnosticism does transcend both other views since it is a composite of both extremes.