I am an agnostic at best, I hate Bush and don't believe the

election results. I never used to be anti-religious but grow more that way every day with every hypocritical utterance from *, DeLair and the rest. Am I totally out of the mainstream?

For you to become hateful.

The more they polarize us, the easier it is for the Bush administration to get what it wants.

I am something of a human hater. They are pathetic, small-minded, shallow, short-sighted, petty, vindictive, ignorant, and insecure.

Our hate is the reflection of our own insecurity.

If the left were to unequivocally and absolutely embrace a 'messiah complex', I could guarantee the ouster of the Bush** regime.

ButI know humans better than that.

We are all repositories of omniscience, it is the divergence of perspective which creates a 'feedback effect' wherein we must all believe we are singular.

It is an illusion.

Linear time is an illusion.

This is the great dream of the cosmos, the multiverse- human cognizance.

And {we} love it!

The sooner we destroy everything the better. The earth will manage much better without this stupid apeman.

Believers are happy; doubters are wise.

First it is still an association for most intents and purposes to a particular type of supernatural.

Second, it gives a false impression as well as weight to a position which is at odds with itself if one were to grant that it even exists at all. Example: An agnostic will not deny the existance of something because they "know" they can't be certain about it.
Talk about flip-floping hey if you feel you can't be certain, fine, stand on the side lines and observe, but don't try and carve out a place for your inability to decide by claiming you know you can't know.

Last, the agnostic and non-believer crowd to various degrees are responsible for keeping threads about the supernatural going by insisting they don't "believe" and debating with the non-non-belivers as if there was some point that needed to be or could be resolved.

Hint, if you don't like threads about stuff that is not real don't reply to them.

>>>First it is still an association for most intents and purposes to a particular type of supernatural.>>>
And this is wrong because....?

>>>>Second, it gives a false impression as well as weight to a position which is at odds with itself if one were to grant that it even exists at all.>>>>
???? What does this mean?

Example: An agnostic will not deny the existance of something because they "know" they can't be certain about it.
Talk about flip-floping hey if you feel you can't be certain, fine, stand on the side lines and observe, but don't try and carve out a place for your inability to decide by claiming you know you can't know.>>>>>

Ummmm... why NOT, exactly? And how do you know that my agnosticism is an "inability" to decide and not a concious, rational choice? ( Answer: you can't and you don't.)

>>>Last, the agnostic and non-believer crowd to various degrees are responsible for keeping threads about the supernatural going by insisting they don't "believe" and debating with the non-non-belivers as if there was some point that needed to be or could be resolved.>>>

Well, there certainly "could" be a resolution to the question of whether one could or should believe in "god"; otherwise no one would ever "become" agnostic, nor would anyone ever come to "faith" from unbelief. Sorry, both of these things happen all the time.

Whether the existence of god "needs" to be resolved, or, more precisely, whether the question of whether or not one can know if god exists needs to be resolved is a much more complicated issue. My answer is "probably". It's too late in the PM to deal with why, right now. "Some snowy night by the fire," perhaps.

>>>Hint, if you don't like threads about stuff that is not real don't reply to them.>>>

Why do you *ASSUME*( "believe"?) I "don't like threads about stuff that is not real"?
Is there anything in my post that even remotely suggests that I don't like the post to which I responded?

And if I DIDN'T like them... why can't I respond anyway?

I cant understand how anyone can believe in a god when its so insensible.I mean come on I'm supposed to believe in an invisible being thats all knowing and powerful yet cant prove his own existence, sure, right, OK then.

Not that the supernatural isn't a label but just saying fiction does not get the point across as well.

--------------
>>>First it is still an association for most intents and purposes to a particular type of supernatural.>>>
And this is wrong because....?
-----------------
Because many people think the supernatural is real and when you make up a specific label that is intended to show you "believe" differently about something that does not exist you are giving tacit acknowledgement
that maybe there is some room for doubt when there is none.
=======================

>>>>Second, it gives a false impression as well as weight to a position which is at odds with itself if one were to grant that it even exists at all.>>>>
???? What does this mean?
-------------------
It means there is no point in discussing a nonexistant topic and to do so can give the impression to the person that thinks the supernatural is real and that their position has merit because otherwise why would anyone bother to debate it. No one has made up a specific term to describe people that think they can not know for certain that there
are not aliens from Saturn walking among us as we speak. To do so or debate seriously that they may have a point, is to support their illusion.
=========================

Example: An agnostic will not deny the existance of something because they "know" they can't be certain about it.
Talk about flip-floping hey if you feel you can't be certain, fine, stand on the side lines and observe, but don't try and carve out a place for your inability to decide by claiming you know you can't know.>>>>>

Ummmm... why NOT, exactly? And how do you know that my agnosticism is an "inability" to decide and not a concious, rational choice? ( Answer: you can't and you don't.)
-----------------------------------
It does not matter why you call your self by a label that has to do with a nonexistant topic. You may refer to yourself as a Jedi Knight and your reasons for the decision do not enter into the conclusion that you are not a jedi knight for the simple fact that jedi knights
are also fiction.
========================

>>>Last, the agnostic and non-believer crowd to various degrees are responsible for keeping threads about the supernatural going by insisting they don't "believe" and debating with the non-non-belivers as if there was some point that needed to be or could be resolved.>>>

Well, there certainly "could" be a resolution to the question of whether one could or should believe in "god"; otherwise no one would ever "become" agnostic, nor would anyone ever come to "faith" from unbelief. Sorry, both of these things happen all the time.
----------------------------

This again is getting specific which many people do and if you wish to debate some part of playing dungeons and dragons that is ok but you will have to find someone that is willing to accept something fictional might actually be real. If you wish to try and make the case that it's ok for people to be so involved in D&G that they think there are real dragons somewhere on Earth you are going to be wasteing your time, but only with someone that is into role playing games to start with.
=======================

Whether the existence of god "needs" to be resolved, or, more precisely, whether the question of whether or not one can know if god exists needs to be resolved is a much more complicated issue. My answer is "probably". It's too late in the PM to deal with why, right now. "Some snowy night by the fire," perhaps.
-----------------------------
Again all dealing with fiction, there is no way to determine if the Enterprise could make the Kessel run faster that the Falcon because
both ships as well as the kessel run are all fiction.
==============================

>>>Hint, if you don't like threads about stuff that is not real don't reply to them.>>>

Why do you *ASSUME*( "believe"?) I "don't like threads about stuff that is not real"?
Is there anything in my post that even remotely suggests that I don't like the post to which I responded?
----------------------
The hint was general in nature and meant to address some personal disappointment about people that post on certain threads complaining about them instead of just letting them drop off the page.

You did however seem to take some exception to the OP saying they were
agnostic at best and you appeared to feel that the OP was some how saying that being agnostic at best was saying that there was something wrong with being only "agnostic at best "
=========================

And if I DIDN'T like them... why can't I respond anyway?
-------------------
Because responding to any thread that you don't like is not likely to change anyone's mind and it makes the thread stay on top instead of going out of your sight where you don't have to see it and think this is the lounge it's for fun right and there are several other forums that are more fitting to post topics of this subject matter.

The mainstream gave us Britney Spears.

When people become scared they look to a "protector" for help. So don`t piss him/her (why do we call it Mother Nature anyway ?) off or you will pay in a lake of fire.

If you do "this" something horrible will happen to you.
If you don`t do "this" something horrible will happen to you.

Rove knew who to go after.


Religion : The World`s Biggest Gang Fight !

and I don't see how this will get any better, so soon you'll be the hip person everyone wants to know.

and you'll get to say "I told you so" a lot. It's the right now part that sucks.