In conversation with so-called atheists I've found another suitable name that really fits them much better than the term atheist. They are Mockers. All they do is mock christianity and use any and every avenue to cast dispersion.
Christopher Hitchens did go off on all religions including Muslims who he really disliked. Known staunch atheist. Dead now though he was interesting as a person. Classical liberal but had some morals. He was pro life.
I had one example. Sorry. But yeah they are rare and I can't think of one now who is alive.
I come across this alot, you have to see the good, alot are mislead and hate the religious/ christian establishments and cant seperate the very real spiritual side.
A large number of them are lost souls, who're seeking community. They've found one, and it only requires them to mock something immaterial. But they are closing their minds, sadly.
"Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened. Ask, and it will be given unto you/"
That's why I in the past I used the term "apatheist" for myself when asked, I never outright denied the existence of God I just didn't worship him despite following general Christian morals.
You may be right friend, unless of course you believe in one true God, than
A-(without) theist (God) would pretty much cover everyone else.
I've no desire to rewrite definitions to "accommodate" those that would hide behind "separation of church and state" to poison the minds of our children, and embrace acts of perversion in our town square.
I simply claim masquerading around as a Secular, while aggressively assaulting the fundamental values of the Judaeo-Christian religious ethics that our society is based upon, is a calculated assault on our society itself and a distortion of "freedom of religion" to freedom from religion".
the fundamental values of the Judaeo-Christian religious ethics that our society is based upon
Why then did the Founding Fathers write their own document based on humanist morals instead of adopting the Torah? Why does the Constitution expressly state separation of church and state right out of the gate in Amendment One?
Because the Founding Fathers knew that religious institutions were capable of being corrupt to fulfill with will of tyrants as they had in the crusade and inquisition. Considering the current state of corporate mega churches, they found a way to seize some sort of power anyway...
Many seem to take issues with the terminology "Judaeo-Christian" tell me friend, you intend to separate the new testament from the old ?
True the constitution forbids a state sponsored church, (remember many of the individual colonies form around particular denomination, and to ensure religious ideology wasn't forced on citizens, "Freedom of Religion" was incorporate rightly so..
NOT "Freedom from Religion" as so many would have you believe.
You'll find no argument with me on the corruption of organized religion, or the evils of it past and present sins the world over. We could probably waste the day away discuss it.
This is not the one true God that I know, nor the scripture I follow. Many have been led astray with false prophets.
Why does the Constitution expressly state separation of church and state right out of the gate in Amendment One?
It doesn't expressly state separation of church and state.
"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices."
Do you know why? Because they know Christians like me are good people and we are not going to do the same thing. They are bullies, that’s their names Bullies.
We are good people. And we won’t do the same things bc that’s not following Gods teachings. But it doesn’t mean we acquiesce or acknowledge they are right. It just means we need to find ways through our actions to inspire the spirit of God in them. Easier said than done.
You do you mate. I support freedom of religion, as well as freedom FROM religion. I don't try to persuade anyone. Man should be free to worship (or not) in accordance with his conscience and within the reasonable confines and dictates of a free and just society (i.e. No child sacrifice).
You must have both freedom of and from religion, unless you're okay with sharia law.
Yeah, that bugs me about about the "freedom from religion" argument. It violates freedom of speech, among other things.
That's not the kind of freedom from religion im talking about.
I have a Muslim coworker who absolutely LOVES America. I once asked him why it was better than his home country. He said he didn't like being told when to pray, or being pressured (or forced) to do so. He believes that should be between man and God, not man and the state.
I can't argue with his logic.
We still have people coming to this country for religious freedom - both to practice their religion, or to escape from an oppressive one.
Yes, I'm atheist. But I don't think religion is bad. It's like any other tool, or even a firearm - what you DO with religion makes your actions good or bad.
Preach and help the needy, spread you faith with joy, or even showing concern by warning others when you believe bad things are coming? I can't fault you for that. You're genuine and trying to help your fellow man.
Start a commune, abuse women, mary children, give 'em poison drinks, or steal men's wives, or try to start a race war by killing a pregnant woman, or
rename yourself Koresh and then let the feds burn to ashes the people you've promised to protect? Yeah, if there is a hell, some people used religion to get there.
Normal humans just doing their best to believe, live, love, work, fight, and befriend? I've no beef if they want to pray before a football game, or stand in a circle and call to Thor for strength. I've even once participated in a public asatru ritual. I don't believe in the gods or God, but I was invited, and they were a based group of 'folk'. I find it a bit silly, but it's important to THEM. And it was kinda cool.
It's not okay to demand a ten commandment sculpture be removed from a courthouse, and it's not okay to try and restrict the beliefs of other sects, religions, pagans, believers, or force beliefs on non-believers. It's just that simple.
Jesus had it right - would you want someone to do it to you? No? Then don't do it to them.
What If someone else's belief or non belief offends you?
As Matt Gaetz says, "be offended".
The rest of us will get over it. And it's probably our turn to be offended next week. LOL @ humans.
I have a Muslim coworker who absolutely LOVES America. I once asked him why it was better than his home country. He said he didn't like being told when to pray, or being pressured (or forced) to do so. He believes that should be between man and God, not man and the state.
I've noticed that as well, I have some Muslim coworkers and they don't do the whole running off to a corner to pray X times a day at the exact same time like I saw happening at university with some of the Muslim students. I remember one complaining about another coworker (long gone) who was nagging him to come along every time he went to go pray.
On a philosophical level, you have a point. However, for me, there are two important considerations.
Datadude is talking about the pseudo-religious "non-religion" that Atheistic Marxism drives in order to destroy and undermine religion. It's good that you clarify your concept of "freedom from religion", but it needs to be recognized is that there are forces and people out there who will use certain sophistry and presented arguments with a duplicitous agenda; they are not being honest.
Regardless of what they say, their purpose is to destroy religion and religious thought and practice.
But really, what you define as "freedom from religion" is actually "freedom of religion". State-controlled religion is NOT "freedom of religion". Freedom of religion in the United States constitutional context means "government is NOT free to make laws that shape and determine what religious practice is and isn't".
When you say "freedom from religion" you really mean "freedom from religious oppression" don't you?
As is clear from a study of history, despite their many flaws, most of the long-lasting religions have consistency provide significant benefits to the populations that practice them. Religions that upheld certain values declined and were pushed out (i.e. child sacrifice, human sacrifice, etc) and others that upheld certain values prospered and delivered benefits. Many of those benefits you yourself, atheist though you are in terms of your faith, acknowledge. Why? Because they are tangible and real.
Thus, it needs to be recognized that not all religions are "created equal." Some are better than others. Some yield many more benefits than others. And the ones that deliver the greatest benefits are the ones that trend towards enhancing the freedom of individuals and groups to pursue the goals of their religion while upholding the innate rights of others.
It's not a coincidence that the concept of religious freedom evolved in the Christian sphere. Religious freedom is critical to religious practice, because freedom is a core ethic or virtue in Christian teaching.
It's also not a coincidence that the greatest equality of opportunity, value assigned to human life, and other ethical 'miracles' have emerged from the Christian sphere.
In any case, I very much agree with everything you've written except for one simple caveat: that something should not necessarily be tolerated simply because it calls itself 'a religion'. However, if government abstains from attempting to define or control religion, and if the innate (God-given) rights of human beings are upheld (aka people are not forced to practice religion or people are not abused and violated in the name of 'religion') then things would work themselves in rather wonderful way.
"Freedom of religion" is the ability to choose, all or none. "Freedom from religion" has been used to prohibited "Religions of Faith" from the public spaces.
That right there is the issue, the "freedom from religion" assholes cry that they're somehow being oppressed and want them outright banned. These people are bigger assholes than what they believe Bible thumpers to be.
I would caution against lumping atheists and agnostics together, for what it's worth.
Agnosticism is the natural evolution of those who haven't found God. They don't reject God or his teachings, but tend to believe that whether he exists or not is irrelevant and impossible to prove by the nature of the omnipotence that is claimed.
Atheism are those who openly reject God and his teachings, and it is a natural evolution of those who feel wronged by God or felt like he wasn't there for them or their loved ones; modern atheism has artificially accelerated this, by teaching atheism as a religion in itself and removes what used to not be super uncommon in the above people.
Atheists could find God and repent later in their lives, realizing that they were wrong and coming to terms with what they lost.
Modern day atheist teachings have all but removed this potential, instead aiming the people at Christianity specifically as a weapon.
I am agnostic. I don't fully know what to believe, and I believe it doesn't matter because proof cannot be provided. I don't like organized religion, and I have beliefs to an extent in a greater being but I can't base my life on a book that has been repeatedly written by mankind over the years.
I can use the good from those teachings to shape my moral compass when I need to search for answers, and I was raised in a Christian oriented country with good Christian values, so as long as I adhere to how I was raised and do my best to raise my children the same, then I am doing the best I can.
A really heartwarming comment to read. Best comment I've read on GAW for some time.
I'd just like to comment on one thing: modern atheism.
I know of (and agree with) a school of Christian thought that sees human history as the playing out of specific issues that arose within the first human progenitors. Specifically, the scriptural "family of Adam". All the core issues are there. Faithlessness on the part of Adam and Eve in God's command, unity with a different 'word" (eat the fruit), so you have disunity with the parent, then conjugal (husband wife) breakdown, and a distortion of correct order: Adam was meant to be sovereign Aka lord over the Angels, but an angel seduced him and reversed the correct order. This then that bore fruit in the children, Cain and Abel, and the rest is history.
In this school of thought, Cain, the elder son, represented relative evil, and Abel, the younger, represented relative good. If Cain had humbled himself to Abel, and united with him, it would have essentially 'reversed' the incorrect order of the Angel dominating and ruling over Adam. But, instead, the same violation of the fall repeated itself, when Cain murdered Abel, and thus multiplied the problem instead of reversing it.
Human history as taught through scripture is the story of reversing the mistakes that began at the start of human history.
In this school of thought, the modern era is the era when that 'fallen human history' is being brought to a close> in our fallen human history, the Cain-Abel problem expanded from the individual and family levels, to the clan level, the ethnic group level, the national level, and eventually to the worldwide level.
Thus, the Soviet Union, founded on Atheistic Materialism - Marxist was in the position of a global Cain, and the United States, founded on the principles of Faith or recognition of God and the spiritual / material nature of human existence, was in the position of Abel.
Modern atheistic teaching is nothing other than a Satanic word (philosophy), created by evil to destroy and murder Abel and murder (again) Adam.
On the global level, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States rose as the Abel not murdered, and the ancient reversal of the Angel - Adam, Cain - Abel disorder was reversed conditionally on the global level.
However, that condition now has to be brought from the realm of "symbolic condition" to a substantial realization, which is why the forces of Good are substantially and directly engaged with rooting out the forces of Evil. If Soviet vs US was Cain vs Abel, now we are engaged in a war between Adam and the Angel. Adam is the God-acknowledging human vs the Angel, which is the Luciferian spirit that wants to replace God and make themselves somehow god.
"Modern Atheism" is nothing but an ideological framework put out by the devil in order to attack and deny God. But, at its root, it is driven by forces that seek to replace God, make themselves god. They know that God is real. But they use the deception of saying "no God" in order to delude and manipulate people into becoming cooperative and self-destructive instruments.
Anyway, just offering another perspective on the context of our modern times. It might mean nothing to you; I'm not attempting to convert you out of your agnosticism!!!! It's just that your (to my mind) perspicacious comments about the nature of 'modern atheism' brought to these salient points to my mind, so I thought I would share.
I'll leave it there, except to add (one point), if 'the book' has any value, it's because it has the potential or ability to be a become a springboard for an actual relationship with an actual person or being. In other words, (in my view) people aren't meant to base their lives on a book. They are meant to take hints from the book, like a map, to find and discover the one who (reportedly) is reaching out via the book. Ultimately, however, that person or being is more concerned with the content of our heart than with the concepts or 'beliefs' we hold to be true.
Better to be an agnostic with a good heart than a 'believer' who is otherwise unable to give or receive love.
I agree it's a bit of a over simplification, but one could argue Agnosticism as a gateway to Atheism.
And in all humility, I have no malaise for any without or in doubt. My issue is with those who use it to force views upon the rest of us that are diametrically opposed to faith.
It was my desire to live my life of faith in peace, accepting and respecting your choices along the way.
Other would not allow it, so here we are.
Hearts and minds are won or lost in exchanges of open, honest, considerate and respectful dialogue, this is the only path forward to any who truly want peace and enlightenment.
The rest are merchants of misery and hate, and must be met with force and resolve by us all...
Alito is a unsung hero on the bench. One based freedom fighting mofo...
Atheism and it's lying little cousin Agnosticism have enjoyed the benefits of claiming no mans land.
A religion onto itself:
While claiming it believes in no religion at all, it goes where religions are not allowed.
Left unchecked, allowing it's true intentions to unfold, spreading doubt and disease, infecting the minds of the unsuspecting Innocent.
Long has this evil hidden in plain sight and has gone unchallenged, but now, times they are a changing...
In conversation with so-called atheists I've found another suitable name that really fits them much better than the term atheist. They are Mockers. All they do is mock christianity and use any and every avenue to cast dispersion.
If you call them out on that, they'll be like "YoU ArEN't ACkNoWlEdGiNG tHe SiNS of pAsT ChRiSTiAniTy"
Even if you acknowledge them.
I believe all religions and atheism are (and can be) humorous.
If a Sikh researcher develops superintelligent artificial intelligence, the world will experience a "Technological Singh-gularity".
Badum-tss
I'm here all night folks.
Exactly
Christopher Hitchens did go off on all religions including Muslims who he really disliked. Known staunch atheist. Dead now though he was interesting as a person. Classical liberal but had some morals. He was pro life.
I had one example. Sorry. But yeah they are rare and I can't think of one now who is alive.
At least he finally knows the truth.
I come across this alot, you have to see the good, alot are mislead and hate the religious/ christian establishments and cant seperate the very real spiritual side.
A large number of them are lost souls, who're seeking community. They've found one, and it only requires them to mock something immaterial. But they are closing their minds, sadly.
"Seek, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened. Ask, and it will be given unto you/"
...but they aren't even seeking; just scoffing.
That's why I in the past I used the term "apatheist" for myself when asked, I never outright denied the existence of God I just didn't worship him despite following general Christian morals.
You may be right friend, unless of course you believe in one true God, than
A-(without) theist (God) would pretty much cover everyone else.
I've no desire to rewrite definitions to "accommodate" those that would hide behind "separation of church and state" to poison the minds of our children, and embrace acts of perversion in our town square.
I simply claim masquerading around as a Secular, while aggressively assaulting the fundamental values of the Judaeo-Christian religious ethics that our society is based upon, is a calculated assault on our society itself and a distortion of "freedom of religion" to freedom from religion".
Such a critical understanding, one that needs to become mainstream.
Thank you friend.
I completely agree with you.
Why then did the Founding Fathers write their own document based on humanist morals instead of adopting the Torah? Why does the Constitution expressly state separation of church and state right out of the gate in Amendment One?
Because the Founding Fathers knew that religious institutions were capable of being corrupt to fulfill with will of tyrants as they had in the crusade and inquisition. Considering the current state of corporate mega churches, they found a way to seize some sort of power anyway...
Many seem to take issues with the terminology "Judaeo-Christian" tell me friend, you intend to separate the new testament from the old ?
True the constitution forbids a state sponsored church, (remember many of the individual colonies form around particular denomination, and to ensure religious ideology wasn't forced on citizens, "Freedom of Religion" was incorporate rightly so.. NOT "Freedom from Religion" as so many would have you believe.
You'll find no argument with me on the corruption of organized religion, or the evils of it past and present sins the world over. We could probably waste the day away discuss it.
This is not the one true God that I know, nor the scripture I follow. Many have been led astray with false prophets.
It doesn't expressly state separation of church and state.
"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices."
Do you know why? Because they know Christians like me are good people and we are not going to do the same thing. They are bullies, that’s their names Bullies.
We are good people. And we won’t do the same things bc that’s not following Gods teachings. But it doesn’t mean we acquiesce or acknowledge they are right. It just means we need to find ways through our actions to inspire the spirit of God in them. Easier said than done.
You do you mate. I support freedom of religion, as well as freedom FROM religion. I don't try to persuade anyone. Man should be free to worship (or not) in accordance with his conscience and within the reasonable confines and dictates of a free and just society (i.e. No child sacrifice).
You must have both freedom of and from religion, unless you're okay with sharia law.
"Freedom of religion" is the ability to choose, all or none.
"Freedom from religion" has been used to prohibited "Religions of Faith" from the public spaces.
Yeah, that bugs me about about the "freedom from religion" argument. It violates freedom of speech, among other things.
That's not the kind of freedom from religion im talking about.
I have a Muslim coworker who absolutely LOVES America. I once asked him why it was better than his home country. He said he didn't like being told when to pray, or being pressured (or forced) to do so. He believes that should be between man and God, not man and the state.
I can't argue with his logic.
We still have people coming to this country for religious freedom - both to practice their religion, or to escape from an oppressive one.
Yes, I'm atheist. But I don't think religion is bad. It's like any other tool, or even a firearm - what you DO with religion makes your actions good or bad.
Preach and help the needy, spread you faith with joy, or even showing concern by warning others when you believe bad things are coming? I can't fault you for that. You're genuine and trying to help your fellow man.
Start a commune, abuse women, mary children, give 'em poison drinks, or steal men's wives, or try to start a race war by killing a pregnant woman, or rename yourself Koresh and then let the feds burn to ashes the people you've promised to protect? Yeah, if there is a hell, some people used religion to get there.
Normal humans just doing their best to believe, live, love, work, fight, and befriend? I've no beef if they want to pray before a football game, or stand in a circle and call to Thor for strength. I've even once participated in a public asatru ritual. I don't believe in the gods or God, but I was invited, and they were a based group of 'folk'. I find it a bit silly, but it's important to THEM. And it was kinda cool.
It's not okay to demand a ten commandment sculpture be removed from a courthouse, and it's not okay to try and restrict the beliefs of other sects, religions, pagans, believers, or force beliefs on non-believers. It's just that simple.
Jesus had it right - would you want someone to do it to you? No? Then don't do it to them.
What If someone else's belief or non belief offends you?
As Matt Gaetz says, "be offended".
The rest of us will get over it. And it's probably our turn to be offended next week. LOL @ humans.
I've noticed that as well, I have some Muslim coworkers and they don't do the whole running off to a corner to pray X times a day at the exact same time like I saw happening at university with some of the Muslim students. I remember one complaining about another coworker (long gone) who was nagging him to come along every time he went to go pray.
I agree with everything you said and I cling to the teachings if Jesus.
On a philosophical level, you have a point. However, for me, there are two important considerations.
Datadude is talking about the pseudo-religious "non-religion" that Atheistic Marxism drives in order to destroy and undermine religion. It's good that you clarify your concept of "freedom from religion", but it needs to be recognized is that there are forces and people out there who will use certain sophistry and presented arguments with a duplicitous agenda; they are not being honest.
Regardless of what they say, their purpose is to destroy religion and religious thought and practice.
But really, what you define as "freedom from religion" is actually "freedom of religion". State-controlled religion is NOT "freedom of religion". Freedom of religion in the United States constitutional context means "government is NOT free to make laws that shape and determine what religious practice is and isn't".
When you say "freedom from religion" you really mean "freedom from religious oppression" don't you?
As is clear from a study of history, despite their many flaws, most of the long-lasting religions have consistency provide significant benefits to the populations that practice them. Religions that upheld certain values declined and were pushed out (i.e. child sacrifice, human sacrifice, etc) and others that upheld certain values prospered and delivered benefits. Many of those benefits you yourself, atheist though you are in terms of your faith, acknowledge. Why? Because they are tangible and real.
Thus, it needs to be recognized that not all religions are "created equal." Some are better than others. Some yield many more benefits than others. And the ones that deliver the greatest benefits are the ones that trend towards enhancing the freedom of individuals and groups to pursue the goals of their religion while upholding the innate rights of others.
It's not a coincidence that the concept of religious freedom evolved in the Christian sphere. Religious freedom is critical to religious practice, because freedom is a core ethic or virtue in Christian teaching.
It's also not a coincidence that the greatest equality of opportunity, value assigned to human life, and other ethical 'miracles' have emerged from the Christian sphere.
In any case, I very much agree with everything you've written except for one simple caveat: that something should not necessarily be tolerated simply because it calls itself 'a religion'. However, if government abstains from attempting to define or control religion, and if the innate (God-given) rights of human beings are upheld (aka people are not forced to practice religion or people are not abused and violated in the name of 'religion') then things would work themselves in rather wonderful way.
That right there is the issue, the "freedom from religion" assholes cry that they're somehow being oppressed and want them outright banned. These people are bigger assholes than what they believe Bible thumpers to be.
While the secular progressives are free to spin their evil craft.
They are emboldened because they enjoy a undefended field with a unfair advantage.
They are but a small minority, head to head, toe to toe they will not survive, and they know this. Time we catch on as well.
Dylan lyrics have come home to roost
Well said!
Thank you friend,
it kinda just said itself.
Keep the faith.
I would caution against lumping atheists and agnostics together, for what it's worth.
Agnosticism is the natural evolution of those who haven't found God. They don't reject God or his teachings, but tend to believe that whether he exists or not is irrelevant and impossible to prove by the nature of the omnipotence that is claimed.
Atheism are those who openly reject God and his teachings, and it is a natural evolution of those who feel wronged by God or felt like he wasn't there for them or their loved ones; modern atheism has artificially accelerated this, by teaching atheism as a religion in itself and removes what used to not be super uncommon in the above people.
Atheists could find God and repent later in their lives, realizing that they were wrong and coming to terms with what they lost.
Modern day atheist teachings have all but removed this potential, instead aiming the people at Christianity specifically as a weapon.
I am agnostic. I don't fully know what to believe, and I believe it doesn't matter because proof cannot be provided. I don't like organized religion, and I have beliefs to an extent in a greater being but I can't base my life on a book that has been repeatedly written by mankind over the years.
I can use the good from those teachings to shape my moral compass when I need to search for answers, and I was raised in a Christian oriented country with good Christian values, so as long as I adhere to how I was raised and do my best to raise my children the same, then I am doing the best I can.
A really heartwarming comment to read. Best comment I've read on GAW for some time.
I'd just like to comment on one thing: modern atheism.
I know of (and agree with) a school of Christian thought that sees human history as the playing out of specific issues that arose within the first human progenitors. Specifically, the scriptural "family of Adam". All the core issues are there. Faithlessness on the part of Adam and Eve in God's command, unity with a different 'word" (eat the fruit), so you have disunity with the parent, then conjugal (husband wife) breakdown, and a distortion of correct order: Adam was meant to be sovereign Aka lord over the Angels, but an angel seduced him and reversed the correct order. This then that bore fruit in the children, Cain and Abel, and the rest is history.
In this school of thought, Cain, the elder son, represented relative evil, and Abel, the younger, represented relative good. If Cain had humbled himself to Abel, and united with him, it would have essentially 'reversed' the incorrect order of the Angel dominating and ruling over Adam. But, instead, the same violation of the fall repeated itself, when Cain murdered Abel, and thus multiplied the problem instead of reversing it.
Human history as taught through scripture is the story of reversing the mistakes that began at the start of human history.
In this school of thought, the modern era is the era when that 'fallen human history' is being brought to a close> in our fallen human history, the Cain-Abel problem expanded from the individual and family levels, to the clan level, the ethnic group level, the national level, and eventually to the worldwide level.
Thus, the Soviet Union, founded on Atheistic Materialism - Marxist was in the position of a global Cain, and the United States, founded on the principles of Faith or recognition of God and the spiritual / material nature of human existence, was in the position of Abel.
Modern atheistic teaching is nothing other than a Satanic word (philosophy), created by evil to destroy and murder Abel and murder (again) Adam.
On the global level, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States rose as the Abel not murdered, and the ancient reversal of the Angel - Adam, Cain - Abel disorder was reversed conditionally on the global level.
However, that condition now has to be brought from the realm of "symbolic condition" to a substantial realization, which is why the forces of Good are substantially and directly engaged with rooting out the forces of Evil. If Soviet vs US was Cain vs Abel, now we are engaged in a war between Adam and the Angel. Adam is the God-acknowledging human vs the Angel, which is the Luciferian spirit that wants to replace God and make themselves somehow god.
"Modern Atheism" is nothing but an ideological framework put out by the devil in order to attack and deny God. But, at its root, it is driven by forces that seek to replace God, make themselves god. They know that God is real. But they use the deception of saying "no God" in order to delude and manipulate people into becoming cooperative and self-destructive instruments.
Anyway, just offering another perspective on the context of our modern times. It might mean nothing to you; I'm not attempting to convert you out of your agnosticism!!!! It's just that your (to my mind) perspicacious comments about the nature of 'modern atheism' brought to these salient points to my mind, so I thought I would share.
I'll leave it there, except to add (one point), if 'the book' has any value, it's because it has the potential or ability to be a become a springboard for an actual relationship with an actual person or being. In other words, (in my view) people aren't meant to base their lives on a book. They are meant to take hints from the book, like a map, to find and discover the one who (reportedly) is reaching out via the book. Ultimately, however, that person or being is more concerned with the content of our heart than with the concepts or 'beliefs' we hold to be true.
Better to be an agnostic with a good heart than a 'believer' who is otherwise unable to give or receive love.
Well said, deep and thought perplexing. I'll be chewing on that analogy for days.
Thank you for sharing.
I agree it's a bit of a over simplification, but one could argue Agnosticism as a gateway to Atheism.
And in all humility, I have no malaise for any without or in doubt. My issue is with those who use it to force views upon the rest of us that are diametrically opposed to faith.
It was my desire to live my life of faith in peace, accepting and respecting your choices along the way.
Other would not allow it, so here we are.
Hearts and minds are won or lost in exchanges of open, honest, considerate and respectful dialogue, this is the only path forward to any who truly want peace and enlightenment.
The rest are merchants of misery and hate, and must be met with force and resolve by us all...
Much Love and Respect
My Agnostic Friend.