I've heard of atheists comparing agnostics to bisexuals, they just can't make their minds up LOL

but don't take that serious lol

Agnosticism, unsurprisingly, is a more popular idea than atheism. It seems less aggressive. It's often seen as more "open minded." It's constantly referred to as a sort of "middle ground." It just lacks the strength and stigmatization of atheism. Because of these less abrasive qualities that are associated with agnosticism, it really gains a great deal of headway over atheism. However, the fundamental issue, is that agnosticism does not answer the questions, "Do you believe in god?"

Agnosticism is an epistemological theory - a theory of knowledge. Agnosticism posits, merely, that we can not know spiritual truth. I always want to vomit when I ask such a simple question as "Do you believe?" and I get such an non-contingent answer - I know exactly what is at play. Misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and (worst of all) the fear of being stigmatized are driving the popularity of agnosticism.

What most agnostics don't realize is that they are atheists. Yeah, the terms aren't mutually exclusive or anything. Atheism is merely, as we have already discussed, a lack of belief. Nothing more or less in of itself. And, the supposed middle-ground of agnosticism is just an elaborate farce. There is no middle ground in an existential proposition of belief. I mean, you either believe or you do not. You are either an atheist or a theist. You might not claim perfect certainty - most atheists don't. But, in either case, you either believe or you do not.

All agnosticism describes is how you feel about the nature of knowledge within a spiritual context. I'm an empiricist, a skeptic, an agnostic, and an atheist. None of these things contradict one another. I'm tempted to blame intellectual snobbery and pseudo-tolerance on top of it all, but I won't get any more complex than I need to.

Agnosticism is boring - but an obvious reality to anyone with any sort of consciousness. The real concern isn't whether or not you think we can know with entire certainty - what we're concerned with, the individual and the group, is whether one believes or not.

In my experiences (personally and otherwise) it has been the fear of admitting that you do not believe in God that breathes oxygen into self declaration of agnosticism. I've had the idea for some time that it is a cowardice way of being and a self denial of sorts.

I am 100% a hypocrite in this regard.

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. When I glanced at your response and saw how long it was, I cringed and jumped right back to playing my game, which had kept from from coming back until now.



When I said Buddhism is unsuited for Western lifestyle, I meant in sense of its moral disciplines, rather than anything social or political. I cannot say why people would be attracted to Buddhism (I don't speak for them), but I know that those who truly understand it have always found peace. With that said, Buddhism has always been about making individual choices, therefore, any notion of blame and escape you associate with it is untrue. Buddhists take refuge in themselves, not from blame.

As for your suggestion that it helps one to escape miseries, I do not agree. Escape does not mean acceptance and the overcoming of misery.



The statement, "the human experience revolves around passion and desire" is very true and Buddhists agree with you. However, they also will tell you that there is wisdom and virtue in understanding that passion and desire will end with suffering; there is no other ending to it.

To Homer, a Buddhist tries his best in everything and does not give up when he fails because he will just accept the outcome as it is, then tries again. It is a cycle of acceptance, of patience.



1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

=) What part of the above discourages dancing and sexuality?



Please explain where you see "fear of failure and the daunting realities of the suffering" in a practicing Buddhist. There is no fear, there is only acceptance, then contentment.

Stocism to a certain extent, yes, but you are certainly not a monk, and therefore, you should dance to your heart's content! You wouldn't be doing anything evil or hurting anyone. I don't understand why you would think you're not allowed to dance.

Buddhists monks live by different discipline than the average Buddhist for reasons beyond the scope of a 23 year-old's undertanding. However, as we are not monks, we do not have to adhere to that lifestyle at all and still be Buddhists.


I saw it but I'll get to it someday. I'm just lazy from reading and thinking too much.



In my opinion, the most important prerequisite of Buddhism is acceptance that one does not truly understand anything or know any truths until one realize that the fundamental truth that life is suffering. That is the "emptiness" that you seek. Then, acceptance lead to widsom of how to overcome. That is the "fullness" that you do not see. Singularity with the univerese is peace that you and I do not understand because we have yet achieve it. There is no denial of self when there is acceptance of self. There is no confusion or double-speak when there is wisdom in acceptance.

As for non-existence and the want to live, I give an old saying that was drilled in me since I understood "life". It is a rough translation from Vietnamese so the power of its meaning may be lost: "Even an ant wants to live". On the face of this earth, I can proudly and confidently tell you that no one knows the value of life more than a Buddhist.

I'm sorry to be frank, but I know a person of your maturity will not mind at all. Though your argument in this subject is very logical and has its strengths, I think your understanding of Buddhism is very limitted, even more so than mine. I am amending my initial assumption that your criticism of Buddhism is from it being unsuitable for the Western lifestyle. I believe your limited understand of it is the root of your argument. I am NOT in any way degrading you; you know that I have respect for you. I am simply telling you that there is more to it than what you may have learned from a third source.

It is not as 1-2-3 as reading the Bible and following scriptures to boot thus securing a safe haven for our immortal souls. I can sit here and argue Christianity with a Christian all day every day, because theirs is a spiritual, yet tangible world; the Bible speaks for them. But when I talk to a Buddhist, the immaterial world of "mind" is beyond my understanding.

Hell, I can barely understand my own mind. Oh, I'm sorry for the length. I hope you'll have time to respond.

if you dont believe in a higher being how do you explain your morals? do you behave strictly on a code of laws? would you kill someone for personal gain if you knew you could get away with it? why the f**k not you shouldnt even feel bad about it because there is no consequences for a person without a god. like whos to tell you whats right and wrong it sure as hell not the bible.

If you're asking how I explain morality in terms independent from holy conduct codes, I can easily point to the Darwinian explanation of how kinship and mutual cooperation ensures a higher survival rate than individuals living on their own accord.

If you're posing that to me, personally, then no, I do not need a celestial being providing an ultimatum to me. I'm a moral person because I wish to reflect the type of society I believe is the most functional to live under. Are you telling me that the only reason you're ethical is because of the divine consequences for acting otherwise?

2shay reidar that answered my question flawlessly

From what I've noticed, that's how a lot of religious people handle their life. Out of fear of rejection from God.

If they were really deific enterprises, using morals for the sole purpose of saving your own hide would be pretty immoral.

Where do atheist base their morals on?... If Darwin set the morals, can we see what standard of morals they are?

I know every society/region, culture, ethnicity etc.. have their own sort of morals. But I would like to compare and contrast the morals set by the leader (Darwin) of the atheists and the laws of God. Since the laws of God are actually the standard of religious morals.

Or are the standards of atheist individually different?

He didn't set morals. His explanation of evolution simply provided a naturalistic explanation on the purpose of moral behavior.

Darwin isn't my "leader". I merely utilize the information that he contributed to science to form my own observations. Personally, my morals just happen to coincide with what most religious tenets prescribe - I don't drink, smoke, have sex, look at pornography, curse, etc. - but they're of my own accord.

I'm an amoralist. I don't believe in or consider the "moral implications" of my actions. I simply am not swayed by the idea of a moral code. I believe that ethics are merely a reflection of human sentiment and taste - an emotional invention and nothing more.

I am a selfist, a psychological egotist, and a pragmatist. I don't believe anyone can act outside of self-interest, and I believe this fundamental egotism is at the heart of what we imagine as a moral code. Men, by the means of their biology and environmental precursors, act in whatever way they feel will be most pragmatic to their sub-conscious and conscious goals. I don't believe in the force of duty or the imposition of the "right thing." Men will act in whatever way they happen to believe will benefit them (or whatever is most agreeable to the mind). As an example of this egotism, notice that men commonly discard those aspects of "moral teachings," found in the Bible, that they happen to personally find disagreeable. The forcefulness of a commandment only goes so far, and (just to get a bit philosophical) even if men were compelled to do good by command, could any ethical system truly confirm such inspired action as moral if it was done merely because it was commanded?

I get my "morals" from my goals. I want to be happy, successful, and healthy - it does a lot for you. Further, as Reider indicated, consider the "moral conscience" as a naturally evolved voice in order to promote reproductive success.



Atheism, as I have said many times before, is merely a lack of belief in gods - nothing more and nothing less (in any broad sense). There is no inherent world-view or philosophy behind or inside atheism, just as there is none within theism. To answer you question simply, yes. The standards of an atheist is individually different.

I would argue that those standards are just as individually different within theists, but that is whole other discussion.

What is with people asking, "Well where then do atheists get their morals?" Why do you not inherently know that? They get them from the same place anyone else gets them from: their parents, their friends, individual experiences, personal contemplation, movements...it's not like you have to be Christian to think that killing is not a good thing or you have to be Buddhist to think that bragging isn't really too hot either. All of these types of "morals" were around long before the major religions of today. People don't like the things that hurt them or others, so, if something hurts you, I doubt you're going to go out and do it to others. Why in the world would you do that? That's how a person develops their own system for what is right and wrong...any person, whatever their religious beliefs.

I completely agree with this statement. Those who believe too much in the moral right of institutionalized religion should think about how cutthroat of a business it is. Where do the morals go? What's stopping a preacher from snapping and committing a murder-suicide? Meanwhile, the Atheist with no morals and religious guidance is walking the straight and narrow path.

From the way I see it, even for the non-believers, Natural Law is most important.

Mind Closed

So in other words... you're more of a satanist, an atheist one at that.



Yep... you are.



So in a sense you're just a bunch of people with no specific path to walk on.

Sort of like, as you live your days you decide what's right from wrong through experience?...










Right... and their parents and or friends are either religious or non religious.

So the child understands the morals of either religious views or non religious views.

What I want to know is... what is non religious morals. Obviously if the atheist and satanists believe that God, the Prophets, and everything that has to do with religion is bullshit.. then that means the standard of religious morals is bullshit as well.

Satanists for example believe that the commandments/morals of religion are not selfish enough.





Right and some satanists/atheists believe killing is morally good, as long as they prosper from it.




Do you have any proof of that? Because from my resources, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism... before God gave the commandments to the people through Moses... society was pretty damn immoral, killing, raping, stealing, worshiping objects, lying, etc...

That's why the commandments were created, because society back then needed standards, they needed rules/laws, they needed order. They needed to understand what was right from wrong.




Yeah? And what if the person lacks emotions? What if they lack emotions and doesn't know a standard of morals?... They obviously can't create their own morals.

how do you think the universe was created?

^ I'm not Atheist, but a logical theory would be the Big Bang

Nah... Big Bang has been pretty much discredited because of the Super String Theory.
Unfortunately our Universe(s) are too large to come up with a solid theory.

Not really. I'm more of an Epicurean hedonist. I have an enlightened selfishness, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a member of a specific dogma (because, don't mistake it, Satanists have their own specific moral guides, I, on the other hand, have none). I don't adhere to any moral system, let alone satanism. My recognition of a hedonistic nature not an ethical one. Remember, I said I was an amoralist?



Some of us build our own paths, some of us have none, some of us let others build their path for them... not all atheists are entirely devoid of moral subscription. I, however, happen to be.




I don't believe anything is actually "right" or "wrong." All things are morally meaningless and, as such, "morally" equal. I make my decisions based on my unwilled biology and the influence from external stimulus provided by my environment (interpreted through my biology). This merely means that I do whatever I feel will best suit me.



Self-reflection and projection are enough to inform anyone, child or not, that taking someone another individuals toys and breaking them against that persons will might be a bad idea. It isn't f**king rocket science (in fact, it seems to be, to an extent, evolutionarily wired into us). Morals arise not only from spirituality, but from the many existing institutions within our societies (family, education, mass media, etc.). Further, those morals imposed upon us and taught to us are ultimately filtered by our own prejudices. It all boils down to psychological egotism - there truly are no moral concerns (even if we delude ourselves in order to protect and comfort ourselves).



Though an atheist might not believe that "religious morals" were ordained by god, her or she doesn't have to necessarily discredit the value of whatever specific virtues the "religious morals" in question happened to propose. An atheist might or might not be a moralist (that is not to be seen by the definition of atheism - it is too narrow to include any sort of ethical system), so whether or not he finds any ethical system valid or not is entirely an individual struggle.



So what?



1. Hinduism is the worlds oldest major organized (and currently practiced) religion, far predating any God of Abraham business.

2. Pagan faithsbefore even Hinduism had a myriad of ethical codes and systems.

3. Hinduism is a religion born out of love, appreciation of the earth, care for one another, and, above all else, pacifism. Hindus hold Ahimsa (or non-violence) as one of the highest of all precepts.

4. Judaism is born of out war, violence, hatred, and fear. The Old Testament is wrought with stories of God's commanded slaughters, massacres, and atrocities - things that, if they were commanded by anyone man today - would be a means towards detainment and serious mental evaluation.

5. Christianity isn't much better. The New Testament teaches us that men who live by the sword die by it, but it also informs us that men of god whose swords do not drip of blood and not truly followers of their father and should be shamed.

6. We are truly no more civilized than the ancient Greeks (who worshiped many gods of considerable "moral question"). Further, this suggestion of yours of total chaos without a few slabs of stone is utter absurdity. Not only is it entirely unsubstantiated by any social science, it is also against all common sense and reason. How could a commandment (supposedly) from the sky change the entire moral fabric of a people you claim to be entirely anarchistic in terms of ethical consideration (especially with lines like, "thou shalt not make graven images")?



No. Laws and rules had existed long before the commandments. Actually, come to think of it, so did order (what, did this mythical Moses just free his supposed people from a completely orderless and amoral civiliza-er, I mean... people?).




I don't.



String Theory is an entirely unscientific idea; it has no verifiable, testable, demonstrative, or falsifiable evidence. Further, the Big Bang Theory is still the running explanation for the phenomena of expansion.

I was letting the person know that the standards of morals aren't always the same.



Through the sword. Forcing those into understanding what is right from wrong when they commit wrong. Making examples out of the people who have done wrong to the community.




If you're using Hinduism I understand, I didn't keep in mind that Asia and the Middle Eastern part of the world were completely separate at the time. The moral standards of Abraham's religions are completely different than Hinduism. They became more strict than Hinduism.

But keep in mind that Egypt while they had a standard of morals, it was always imbalanced. They would then bring religion/mythology into their society in order to keep the standards of morals.



While this is true, the theory of the Big Bang was also in this position at one time. We know that the string theory was just born recently so we just have to sit and wait for some sort of scientific data. I actually like the string theory for the many possibilities it opens to us. Such as parallel Universes, dimensions, and time travel.

But quite sadly, I think we'll all be dead by the time we figure out exactly how the Universes were created.

so you think there's no universe?

Do you think that there is no god?

(I was thinking of ending it at that, but... I'll play nice)

The universe is the totality of all existence, this includes the temporal dimension. If you are going to propose that the universe have a beginning, a "creation," you're going to be committing an embarrassing absurdity. You are requiring that the the universe fall on a temporal scale that doesn't even exist without the universe itself. You are requiring that the universe not exist unless it is created which would entail the application of a temporal scale (for the universe to have been created, there must have been a time in which it did not exist), but the temporal scale you are imposing upon this supposed "creation of the universe" does not even exist without the universe itself.

Further, if you can't see the immediate inadequacy of the cosmological argument, you seriously have no place posting anything here. The cosmological argument begins with the idea that if something is to exist it must be caused. However, the argument then denies that very premise in its conclusion of an uncaused causer. If you're going to require that anything that exists must be "created" then you also must require your god to have been created (and the creator of your god to have been created, and the creator of the creator of your god to have been created, ad infinitum). And, lastly, you realize your "explanation" is just a seemingly clever jumble of meaningless words? What the f**k does it mean to have a "god create the universe?" How the f**k is that an actual explanation when it doesn't, in any form of demonstration, actually inform us to the phenomena of existence? In fact, such an "explanation" actually poses more questions and further complicates the issues (needlessly). Do I seriously have to invoke Occam's Razor?

i was just asking. i was thinking more yes or no answer lol but your long scientific answer works to i guess even though i don't understand...







and no i can post anything, anywhere, and whenever I want..

wtf kinda question is that? Since you believe in God, do you believe all gays should be hung and gutted? Do you believe that all non-believers of the God of Abraham should be killed, that we have no morals?