Agnostics/Atheists and maybe why they support Ron Paul

[yongrel]

Being young myself and living in ultra-liberal Washington, I can say with certainty that the vast majority of young people are Christians. There are a few who aren't, but overall, I'd say it's 75-80% Christian.

I dunno what part of Washington you're living in, but in my experience the young folk in WA are all either Mormon or apathetic/atheists.

 

[nate895]

I dunno what part of Washington you're living in, but in my experience the young folk in WA are all either Mormon or apathetic/atheists.

Well, you can look at my location.

 

[dannno]

I am agnostic

Which got me to thinking... what if God is just those principles?

I agree. This is pretty much the only exception to another phrase which I agree strongly with, which is, "I don't know what God IS, but I know what he ISN'T."

2. Atheists and Agnostics who defend the Constitution are defending the existance of God - just as Christians, Catholics and any other religious sect has -

They are defending the principles of freedom, and God put us here to make our own choices. The Mormons (LDS) call this "free agency", so there is something to this..

6. I can't be the only one who has come to this conclusion - unite. We've got so much work to do.

Yep

 

[amy31416]

Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

I tell you a purple spaghetti monster that can shoot death rays from it's eyes exists - Wouldn't you disagree with me pending proof? Why is there any difference in matters of religion?

Sure, Satan may be my neighbor, but don't tell me he is without proof.



Paul's positions parallel with my own in many cases. I, and many others, are willing to compromise and vote Paul as a moderate - a uniter.

I'm not going on what anyone tells me, quite simply on the first law of thermodynamics. That's what it all boils down to for me and is the only thing that separates me from the atheists. So, despite your declaration that I can not possibly be agnostic, I beg to differ.

 

[Zolah]

Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

I tell you a purple spaghetti monster that can shoot death rays from it's eyes exists - Wouldn't you disagree with me pending proof? Why is this any difference in matters of religion?

Sure, Satan may be my neighbor, but don't tell me he is without proof.



Paul's positions parallel with my own in many cases. I, and many others, are willing to compromise and vote Paul as a moderate - a uniter.

Why is this different from religion? - existence of God can't be proven or disproven, so I remain open-minded about it. At the base of my beliefs is an open-mindedness of every possibility until a conclusive possibility is realised. Your example of a monster can be proven/disproven assuming it is at a certain location where it can be seen, as it interacts in the physical world I assume it must be visable in the physical world.

 

[dannno]

Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

It sure can when you live in a world lacking a complete data set

 

[Kludge]

I'm not going on what anyone tells me, quite simply on the first law of thermodynamics. That's what it all boils down to for me and is the only thing that separates me from the atheists. So, despite your declaration that I can not possibly be agnostic, I beg to differ.

If God exists, and the supernatural events occurred that were in the bible, all scientific laws are useless, flawed and unnatural.

Why is this different from religion? - existence of God can't be proven or disproven, so I remain open-minded about it. At the base of my beliefs is an open-mindedness of every possibility until a conclusive possibility is realised. Your example of a monster can be proven/disproven assuming it is at a certain location where it can be seen, as it interacts in the physical world I assume it must be visable in the physical world.

I forgot to mention that MY monster is undetectable by all current means, however - take my word as the only truth needed - IT EXISTS (I've also home-published a book detailing it's existence, which I'll sell for a... very.... reasonable.... fee...).

 

[nate895]

If God exists, and the supernatural events occurred that were in the bible, all scientific laws are useless, flawed and unnatural.

This might come as a shocker, but the reason they are called scientific "laws" is because scientists theorized that it was God that decreed them to be the case.

EX: For gravity, God made a decree that all centers of mass should attract each other and the larger they were, the more power or "gravity" they'd have.

 

[Kludge]

This might come as a shocker, but the reason they are called scientific "laws" is because scientists theorized that it was God that decreed them to be the case.

EX: For gravity, God made a decree that all centers of mass should attract each other and the larger they were, the more power or "gravity" they'd have.

And certainly God is exempt from these rules himself.



Bah...

 

[nate895]

And certainly God is exempt from these rules himself.



Bah...

Well, he's King, ain't he?

 

[Kludge]

Well, he's King, ain't he?

*waits for Yongrel to pick up after his failure*

 

[BagOfEyebrows]

I would not call them genius or flawless; they are good, though. I’m not even sure they were novel at the time he lived. Plato and many others have all outlined and argued for similar moralities; reciprocation, action from accordance with reason and goodwill. Flawless? Anything with the taint of the supernatural as its justification is flawed; his ethical principles are self-evident, there need be no god involved.



I agree. One can eat Whoppers and vote Bush twice and call oneself a Christian; it’s ridiculous.



Agree here too. Morality-ethics are natural to man; they do not necessitate a godhead.



I don’t see why you need to call it “God.” You’re essentially invoking Wordsworth’s “the human heart by which we live” idea; the kingdom of god is within; etc. Why stretch it out to a supernatural projection?




This is riddled with mal-logic. God “realized” something? Wouldn’t he, flawless, omnipotent and perfect, KNOW these things instantly and outside of time? I don’t understand at all why you say that God is the principles, but then you still hang on to this anthropomorphized dream-figure who “acts” just as men do—“realizes” things, cheats on Hera, punishes Job, creates Constitutions.



I disagree, but at least you’re finding a way to justify complete adherence to the Constitution.



My disagreement here is one of semantics, phrasing. You can say “God” is within each of us, but I think the word GOD is so meaningless—1,000,000 people use it meaning something different—that I would prefer not use it; why relax onto wasted abstractions when you can describe something much more precisely and variously. I mean, Hindus would agree, but it means something totally different; Rimbaud, who I think was an atheist or agnostic, would agree, but not in the sense of a Christian God in your heart.




A laughing god; you ARE a Hindu.

Have you read Jane Harrison, James Frazer, Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, or William Blake? You might like it (they all have similar, though not exactly similar, views on religion as something “within” but do not reduce it to “God”).

Watched the Joseph Cambell vhs series on religion/myth - something like 6 vhs tapes - that was good. Not sure about the others - might have read their work at some point. Joseph Cambell sticks out, though, because his work definitely made me think more about things.

I know that there were others along the way with the same principles - there were other nations before ours with outlines of Constitutions/ideas for government that were similar, too - it all just keeps coming back to those principles.

I'm not sure why the non-being aspect quickly reverted to the 'being' aspect of God for me - just happened. It's sorta both (in my head, anyways) - the principles as a non-being, a 'life-force' that guides things - but then, a 'being' via each of us.

Could just be my dark sense of humor creating God as the perfect prankster who beats me at debate 40 years into the discussion. Maybe I was just tired of arguing with God, the idea of God, and the lack of 'knowing for aboslutely certain.'

Except that I'm not one who selects surrender - and I'm not one who minds, after 40 years, not knowing something. There's tons I don't know and will never know - God existing wasn't even on the top of my list of 'things to get to know.'

All I know now is that the conclusion, for me, is that God is the principles - no religious sect - nothing changes in my daily life - I'd been following the principles anyways. Defending them, honoring them.

I'm going to google later on those authors you listed - probably good reading there.

 

[homah]

Bah... Agnosticism can't exist in a rational world. For you to believe something to exist, wouldn't you need PROOF - evidence - a formula?

I tell you a purple spaghetti monster that can shoot death rays from it's eyes exists - Wouldn't you disagree with me pending proof? Why is there any difference in matters of religion?

Yes. But the fact that we exist confuses me enough to leave open the possibility that we are part of some grand plan (and by that I don't mean that we were necessarily created by a single God, but that our existence is part of some plan that perhaps we cannot even comprehend). I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to not be sure either way and classify yourself as Agnostic.

 

[amy31416]

If God exists, and the supernatural events occurred that were in the bible, all scientific laws are useless, flawed and unnatural.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what "god" may or may not be. I don't think, that if god exists, it is a supernatural being sitting on a cloud looking down upon us, judging every thing we do.

Honestly, if it (god) does exist, I think it's possibly some type of force of nature that defies logic we can currently understand. Why do you think physicists refer to the "god" particle? Why did Einstein say "I refuse to believe that god plays dice?"

It's not because any of them believe in the Santa Claus version of god, it's an entirely different concept. Sorry I can't explain it any better than that.

Edit: I read another one of your posts--you think that my being agnostic means that I believe in the bible as a message from god. I assure you, that is not the case. I file the bible alongside the Iliad and the Odyssey in my head. It's a good story, occasionally historical, an interesting piece of literature--no more, no less.

 

[BagOfEyebrows]

I am agnostic



I agree. This is pretty much the only exception to another phrase which I agree strongly with, which is, "I don't know what God IS, but I know what he ISN'T."




They are defending the principles of freedom, and God put us here to make our own choices. The Mormons (LDS) call this "free agency", so there is something to this..





Yep

whew... for a while here, I was thinkin', ya know... am I just nuts?

Glad to know you came to the conclusion, too.

I'm being requested off the computer - thanks for this thread so far. Very interesting to hear other opinions and thoughts on this. Folks are being funny and civil - I've enjoyed it.

 

[Joe3113]

Why do people group Agnostic and Atheism together and contrast them with Theism. You would be more correct to group Atheists and Theists in contrast to Agnostics. Both Atheism and Theism require faith.

 

[AzNsOuLjAh27]

i want to go vote for obama when i see threads like this

 

[rational thinker]

Both Atheism and Theism require faith.

You're half right. I'm going to state this again:

A/gnosticism is about what you can and cannot know.
A/theism is about what you do or do not believe.

So one can be agnostic without being atheistic if one does not know that the supernatural exists, but chooses to believe that it does anyway.

Everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is by definition agnostic because none of us can know anything about the supernatural.

The real question, then, is how honest we can be about it.


And you're also asserting the positive claim when stating that there is a god. If you do not provide any evidence, then I can claim without any faith that there probably is no god. Atheism is by defintion a lack of faith. I consider myself an agnostic atheist in that I would not know if there is a supernatural being (outside of the universe), but I choose not to believe in it due to lack of evidence. No faith required here.

 

[BagOfEyebrows]

not to stir up anything, although I know it probably will, but if my theory is right and God is simply just the principles, then each atheist and agnostic (including those in this thread) believes in God - they just don't know it. It kinda freaks me out.

I think about how many atheists/agnostics in various political ideologies who really, really 'get' the principles of liberty and freedom would literally die to protect those principles... and I got to thinking about it just being logical and even compassionate to want to protect the principles, as without them, life would be unsustainable and would eventually destroy itself.

It's sort of like we're all embracing God, as just a logical set of rules, that would lead us to a pretty awesome life here on planet Earth, if we just followed the logic and compassion of those rules.

It's what every hardcore atheist Libertarian probably will come to terms with... that day it dawns on ya that, all along, you were God's greatest defender. You had more faith in him, more of an understanding of him, and more love for him than some of your 'religious' brothers and sisters. God loves you for it, and he's gonna punk you like he punked me - I'm telling ya. You'll laugh about it, and feel pretty dang humbled by it. God's comical and rock and roll. He probably gets a kick outta watching the different 'traditions' in various churches and sects of religions devoted to him and just keeps hoping they one day really embrace the principles, the core of 'him' - ya know? God must sigh and chuckle a lot. He probably cries a lot, too. And I bet he LOL's and ROFLHAO's, too.

And he does it through us.

God's in each of us - Jesus, too. I think they've been trying to tell us that a lot louder lately. I think the proof is all around us - we better pause to listen.

It's not the God in the Bible - he's inside you, tap into him. Jesus did - sure, it got him crucified, but pretty much all of you who get those principles would die to defend them, too. They can't crucify all of us - heck, if we were around back then, they wouldn't have even achieved the crucifying of Jesus. Jesus really got the shaft with his grassroots.

I hope I don't get banned for saying that, but I sometimes get really angry about how Jesus got killed for just being a peaceful guy trying to explain the principles and help folks out.

Anyways... there's my ramble for the month of June.

 

[kombayn]

I do not believe in religious texts, but I love Ron Paul because I enjoy the message of Freedom he preaches. It's a solid foundation message, we should unite for the common message, not our religion.