Posts by Paul Jones7

Anonymous said:But why even have "faith in circumstances"? Is it just saying, "I hope this all goes smoothly"? And who gets to decide that? If I’ve already done everything I was capable of and knew how to do, efficiency should follow naturally. So why do we need to rely on someone else to help? If I wasn't efficient, it simply means I didn't grasp reality properly, and I need to fix that and move forward. This is where we differ. My personal take is that since we were created by God and in His image, we already possess the necessary "tools" for our own growth. If we hit a wall, is it because of our own limitations—limitations we refuse to face—that we turn to God for help? We end up creating expectations that mostly lead to misery and frustration, either because we feel "unworthy" and judged, or, even worse, because we start thinking God is being unfair.

Expectations are just a byproduct of belief and hope. But that happens when we place that belief and hope onto something or someone outside of ourselves. Is there really any possibility that we were designed to be perpetually dependent?!
To put it symbolically: if we are all created by God, why would humans be the only ones meant to be dependent and incapable of functioning independently? Especially when it's emphasized that we are made in His image. It doesn't make sense, does it?! And what about self-discovery? What about discovering the soul? Or uncovering that spark of God within ourselves?
We will see Him when we finally recognize ourselves in all our beautiful complexity. But you have to want that. You have to take ownership and responsibility for your own mental, physical, and spiritual evolution.

That’s kind of the kicker, though—faith itself might be one of those tools. I’d be lying if I said I knew exactly how it works. Is it external assistance, or does our faith actually have some sort of creative power over our circumstances? Or maybe it’s a bit of both?

The way I see it, every person has their own soul, which is basically another version of ourselves existing in the spiritual realm. The soul can do pretty much anything; faith, then, is just finding harmony with that soul. If our soul is doing the work, it isn't really "help from the outside"—it's just helping ourselves. It's us. Only, it's not our egoic personality; the soul has its own level of awareness.

Then again, maybe it truly is always external help, and perhaps we shouldn't lean on it too heavily when we could be doing more with our own two hands. I agree that it's better to handle things ourselves whenever possible. But our own hands have limits. What happens once we hit them? What would be the reason to abandon faith—or belief—if faith actually possesses some kind of genuine power?

Anonymous said:But why even have "faith in circumstances"? Is it just saying, "I hope this all goes smoothly"? And who gets to decide that? If I’ve already done everything I was capable of and knew how to do, efficiency should follow naturally. So why do we need to rely on someone else to help? If I wasn't efficient, it simply means I didn't grasp reality properly, and I need to fix that and move forward. This is where we differ. My personal take is that since we were created by God and in His image, we already possess the necessary "tools" for our own growth. If we hit a wall, is it because of our own limitations—limitations we refuse to face—that we turn to God for help? We end up creating expectations that mostly lead to misery and frustration, either because we feel "unworthy" and judged, or, even worse, because we start thinking God is being unfair.

Expectations are just a byproduct of belief and hope. But that happens when we place that belief and hope onto something or someone outside of ourselves. Is there really any possibility that we were designed to be perpetually dependent?!
To put it symbolically: if we are all created by God, why would humans be the only ones meant to be dependent and incapable of functioning independently? Especially when it's emphasized that we are made in His image. It doesn't make sense, does it?! And what about self-discovery? What about discovering the soul? Or uncovering that spark of God within ourselves?
We will see Him when we finally recognize ourselves in all our beautiful complexity. But you have to want that. You have to take ownership and responsibility for your own mental, physical, and spiritual evolution.

You’re never going to prove that expectations are an inevitable byproduct of faith and hope. To me, they seem more like an option—one that’s probably best avoided if you can manage it.

To me, this whole push to renounce faith and hope feels like a purely intellectual school of thought that bases all development on pure reason. I can respect that approach and its effectiveness, but I don't think it's the only way to live. I’ve seen enough in my own life to know it definitely isn't the only path. Reason is a tool... but it's certainly not the only one we have in the kit. Humans aren't entirely rational creatures, nor do I think we're supposed to be.

I mean, honestly... what can you even say about it? It’s just one of those things that sits there, kind of heavy, I guess. Maybe I'm overthinking it—I probably am—but there's just this sense of... well, you know. It's hard to put a finger on it without sounding like I'm trying too hard. Anyway, it is what it is. kaže:
I have to admit, I found this a little confusing—at least, that was just me, anyway. I mean, obviously, the future isn't necessarily set in stone; it doesn't *have* to be just one single path. And it’s probably less about what’s possible and more about the choices we actually make. But it makes me wonder... when we talk about faith—or even just a belief system—are we focusing on the choice itself (you know, the actual process or the path we take toward a goal), or are we just fixating on the end result? Like, if someone is dealing with an illness, are they putting their faith into finding the right treatment or the right way to heal—the process—or are they just believing blindly in the outcome, that they'll just be healthy again? It's a bit of a nuance, I guess.

It all comes down to focus, I guess. You just have to do what you can, and then... well, you trust the process. If that means having faith in God, then maybe it works like this: if you’ve done everything within your power—everything you actually knew how to do at the time—then you can believe that God will step in to handle the rest. It's almost like, by staying on the right path and doing things the right way, you've earned a little bit of divine backup to help settle the rest of the pieces. Maybe.

I mean, honestly... what can you even say? It’s just one of those things. I guess there isn't much point in overthinking it—sometimes things just are what they are, right? Maybe we all spend too much time looking for some deep, hidden meaning when the reality is probably much simpler—and maybe a bit more frustrating—than we'd like to admit. I don't know. Just an observation, I suppose. kaže:
Is a vision really the same thing as faith? I mean, I’ve been sitting here wondering about that—it’s one of those questions that feels simple until you actually try to pin it down, I guess. Maybe they’re two sides of the same coin, or maybe they’re worlds apart. If you think about it, a vision is like... a blueprint, right? It’s that mental picture of how things could be—that spark of an idea or a goal you see clearly in your mind. But faith? That feels different. Faith is more like the fuel in the tank. It’s that gut feeling that even when the blueprint looks impossible or the road ahead looks pretty bleak, you just know you’ll get there anyway. I suppose you could have a vision without faith—just a daydreamer staring out a window at some rainy street in Seattle, imagining a life that isn't happening—but without the faith part, that vision probably isn't going anywhere. It just stays a thought. On the flip side, can you really have faith in nothing? Probably not. Usually, there's a tiny seed of a vision there first, acting as the anchor for the belief. It's a bit of a loop, honestly. A little bit of seeing leads to a little bit of believing, which gives you the strength to see even further. Or maybe I'm overthinking it—which, let's face it, is kind of my default setting. Just a thought, though. What do you guys think?🤷
I guess there’s a bit of a distinction to be made here—and I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately—between actually believing in yourself and your own capabilities versus just... hoping for the best. To me, they aren't exactly the same thing. One is about trusting your own skin in the game, while the other is more like just wishing for a lucky break. Maybe it sounds a bit pedantic, but I think there's a massive difference between having confidence in your tools and just crossing your fingers that the universe decides to be kind today.

Why not just do both? I mean, I guess there isn't really a rule against it—unless you're looking for things to get complicated, which, let's be honest, is usually how my day goes anyway.

I guess I should probably start by saying that I don't really have much to add to what was said earlier—it’s all a bit much, isn't it? I mean, maybe I'm just overthinking things, but there's a certain way the world works that feels... well, complicated. It’s like when you’re trying to follow a conversation at a crowded bar in Chicago—you catch bits and pieces, but the full picture always seems to slip through your fingers just when you think you've got it. Anyway, I'll just sit here and process it all. kaže:
Some people cling to hope like it's some kind of magic cure-all—as if just wishing for things to get better will somehow make all their problems vanish into thin air. I’ve definitely been there myself, honestly. Back when I was stuck in that headspace, I used to call it "couch therapy." But looking back, I think it was really just a way to run away from ourselves... you know? It feels easier in the short term, I guess, but it's mostly just a temporary escape.
What exactly is this thing people call "sad hope"? I mean, it’s such a strange, heavy concept—sort of like holding onto a flashlight when you know the batteries are dying, or maybe waiting for a train at a station that was decommissioned years ago. It's that feeling where you're still wishing for something, but deep down, you already know how the story ends. It’s a bit of a gut punch, honestly. I guess it's that lingering, quiet ache of wanting things to be different, even when reality is shouting otherwise. Just a thought, anyway. 🤷 It feels a little contradictory to me—I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking it—but there's definitely a bit of a clash there.

It really works best when you pair it with actual effort—you know, some real boots-on-the-ground action. I mean, who exactly deserves some kind of "divine intervention" if they haven't even rolled up their sleeves to do the work themselves? And honestly, who thinks that’s a fair way to live? The soul just isn't going to be happy with that kind of mindset. It has its own set of principles, I guess. It judges based on what’s actually needed—if you look at it as the soul being the higher consciousness, or the higher self, or the essence... basically, your guardian angel. It's all connected.

I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking things—it’s probably just one of those moments where everything feels a bit... off? I guess. It’s hard to put a finger on it without sounding like I'm making excuses, but there's definitely a certain feeling there. Just a thought, I suppose. kaže:
Can you actually hold onto faith and hope without letting expectations get in the way? It’s a tricky one—maybe even a bit of a paradox, if you think about it too long. I mean, isn't hope usually tied to wanting a specific outcome? We tend to plant these seeds of hope and then immediately start building an entire blueprint for how they should grow, which feels more like a demand than true belief. I guess there’s a subtle difference between the two, though. Real belief—the kind that doesn't leave you feeling crushed when things go sideways—feels more like a quiet confidence in the process rather than a checklist of results. It’s almost like... well, I don't know, maybe it's more about trusting the direction of things rather than micromanaging the destination. If you're constantly waiting for a specific door to open, are you really practicing hope, or are you just setting yourself up for disappointment? It's a fine line, I suppose. 🤷
If you’re out there believing and hoping for things like happiness, peace, love, or some kind of inner light... isn't it just human nature to start building up these expectations that you'll actually get them? It feels almost inevitable, I guess. But there's this catch—this little bit of a trap, really—where if you treat faith and hope as your only real tools for getting there, you end up accidentally handing over all your responsibility to someone else. You sort of outsource your own agency to "some higher power" or whatever, instead of actually owning your own path. Maybe that's just how we're wired, but it seems like a slippery slope.

I guess

when you're dealing with something "intangible"—like the future, for instance—it’s a little easier to form expectations once you have some kind of mental picture of how things might play out or what's actually possible. but, honestly, expectations are something you can end up fighting with yourself over constantly if you happen to be the type of person who tends to build them up too much. being humble isn't a bad thing either, nor is being happy or just feeling grateful for everything you've got and the breaks you've been given... because, really, you never truly know how much of it was due to anyone else. we like to think we're entirely responsible for our own success, but sometimes, I suppose, a little bit of "luck" plays a role, too.

dustyraven26 said:My apologies🙏

While you didn't ask, if what he has envisioned in his head is known—something tangible and real—he doesn't exactly need belief to confirm it is possible, does he?
If he possesses all the necessary preconditions to achieve it, what purpose does hope serve?
And if he lacks them, what use is hope? He should simply determine whether they can be met and act in accordance with reality.

There is a saying:
If you can change it, don't stress, just change it;
if you cannot change it, don't stress, because you won't be able to change it regardless.
(And who is the one prone to stressing? The individual whose expectations are rooted in mere belief and hope.)

Is there anything more important than LOVE!?
__________________________________
Identify the problem, solve the problem, move on!

Maybe the future isn't just one set path laid out for us—I don't know, maybe it’s more like a tree? Like, there are all these different branches of possibility stretching out everywhere. If that's actually how it works, then I guess faith—or even just what you choose to believe—could be the thing that actually makes a difference in which outcome you end up walking toward. Or at least, it might influence the direction you take.

I think psychology has actually looked into this whole "vision" thing before—if I recall correctly, there was some research done on students, comparing them during their college years to how they fared much later on. It basically showed that people who had a clear, positively defined picture of their future—you know, a real vision of what they wanted to achieve—and actually believed they could pull it off, ended up doing significantly better than the group that just sort of drifted along without any specific plan or vision. It’s funny how much that mental blueprint seems to matter, I guess.

You’ve got another example you can show yourself—assuming you’re still young enough to pull that off, anyway. Otherwise, I guess you'll just have to rely on your memory. 😁So, here’s an idea—it might be a little simplistic, maybe even a bit cliché, but bear with me. Try this out: go up to a girl once with total, unwavering confidence, like you just know it's going to work out. Then, try it again later with someone else, but this time, go in without any of that certainty—just sort of winging it, I guess. You’ll see pretty quickly that if you actually believe in yourself, things tend to click. But if you don't? Well, you're probably going to get shot down. It sounds almost too simple, but honestly, that level of self-belief... it really does make all the difference.

dustyraven26 said:My apologies🙏

While you didn't ask, if what he has envisioned in his head is known—something tangible and real—he doesn't exactly need belief to confirm it is possible, does he?
If he possesses all the necessary preconditions to achieve it, what purpose does hope serve?
And if he lacks them, what use is hope? He should simply determine whether they can be met and act in accordance with reality.

There is a saying:
If you can change it, don't stress, just change it;
if you cannot change it, don't stress, because you won't be able to change it regardless.
(And who is the one prone to stressing? The individual whose expectations are rooted in mere belief and hope.)

Is there anything more important than LOVE!?
__________________________________
Identify the problem, solve the problem, move on!

I don’t really see much point to hope—not that I think it’s particularly harmful or anything, either. It just feels like one of those deeply emotional, purely human traits. Hope doesn't exactly exist because it's useful or serves some grand purpose, I guess. From what I can gather, it seems to have two different sides to it. There's the positive kind, which is basically just optimism. Then there's this other version—a sort of sad, hollow hope that lacks any actual faith behind it. Now, that first combination—where you have actual faith paired with hope—that’s something I can get behind.

dustyraven26 said:My apologies🙏

While you didn't ask, if what he has envisioned in his head is known—something tangible and real—he doesn't exactly need belief to confirm it is possible, does he?
If he possesses all the necessary preconditions to achieve it, what purpose does hope serve?
And if he lacks them, what use is hope? He should simply determine whether they can be met and act in accordance with reality.

There is a saying:
If you can change it, don't stress, just change it;
if you cannot change it, don't stress, because you won't be able to change it regardless.
(And who is the one prone to stressing? The individual whose expectations are rooted in mere belief and hope.)

Is there anything more important than LOVE!?
__________________________________
Identify the problem, solve the problem, move on!

In my experience, expectations are generally pretty lousy—if you can even call them that. I mean, look, there’s this nuance here, I guess... belief and hope have this sort of emotional, soulful component to them, right? They feel like something. But an expectation? That feels strictly like a mental trap—this rigid mindset where you just decide that something *has* to happen for you. It seems like a losing game to me. If you actually get what you were expecting, you don't really gain anything—you’re just back to zero. But if it doesn't happen? Then you're stuck in the negatives, feeling let down and frustrated. It’s a bit of a rigged system, honestly. So, I keep wondering—if it's possible to hold onto belief and maintain hope without falling into that whole expectation pitfall, why wouldn't you? Why would that be a bad thing?

If you ask me, I say go for it—because if there’s even a shred of truth to the idea that belief carries its own kind of energy toward making things happen, then throwing that faith away would just be a mistake, I guess.

I say this as someone who mostly navigates life through faith, and honestly, I haven't had much reason to doubt it yet. When you have that kind of deep-seated conviction, you get this sense of being absolutely unstoppable... and when a critical moment actually hits, it shows up as this genuine sense of satisfaction, or just pure happiness; like having the sun shining right inside you.

Paul Jones7 said:It seems like you're saying belief has the potential to create things... though it's hard to say at what level or how that even works (assuming it works at all).

I guess this is about how belief and hope are used or misused; if you already do everything you can, then belief and hope might be useful for those extra little bits; but if they're used as a substitute for taking action, then they're harmful.

So, are you trying to say that belief and hope lead to a lack of action?

Hmm. Well, anyone who wants to achieve something starts with a vision. You basically sketch something out in your head first. In doing that, you're expressing a certain kind of faith in its realization.

What would an ideal look like on your part, though? Like... a total blank slate of irrationality? Or strictly being rational?

A quick little heads-up to the OP that I didn't miss you or forget to reply to your comment 🙂 don't worry about it, buddy... 😉

I don't really care much about leaving a mark—if that was ever even a thing for me, I guess—it kind of just faded away over time. What actually matters to me is figuring out what’s important right now. That part isn't always easy, though.

Brian Foster3 said:Who on earth said that this "force" isn't alive? Of course it acts on a spiritual level! And look, I already told you that it can even manifest in an anthropomorphic way for some people. It’s not like I ever claimed angels don't exist in the first place. You're seriously trying to put words in my mouth by implying these "forces" aren't living beings, which just tells me you're twisting my arguments to suit your own agenda—and honestly, you're doing a pretty clumsy job of it. 😍

Quincy:

You aren't going to find any kind of real truth just staring at some dead, dusty ink on a page; you have to actually go out and live if you want to find anything worth having, and honestly, that's something you really ought to wrap your head around.

Oh my god, here we go again with the wrong assumptions... honestly, it might have been a lot smarter if you’d actually bothered to ask me how I operate before charging in like a bull in a china shop. Why on earth do you assume you have even the slightest clue what I’m doing? When it comes to Kabbalah, from what I can see, you haven't got a single clue beyond those totally fabricated, twisted, and arbitrary theories you've cooked up. I find it incredibly bold of you to try and lecture me on what I should or shouldn't be doing based solely on that—especially regarding Kabbalah. By the way, all those "mystical beings" you think are just some vague nonsense were actually encountered firsthand by Kabbalists who recorded their true names, which are the very ones you're using now. I'm certain you didn't realize that...

Quincy:

Look, there’s no magic bullet or one-size-fits-all manual for actually connecting with the living world—and honestly, if you can't even figure out how to check in with your own damn self first, you're already lost.

Look, that’s just your personal take, not some universal truth that everyone's forced to swallow, so you can go ahead and keep that opinion all to yourself if you want!

Quincy:

When you start throwing around those "universal truths" that everyone knows are totally debunked by actual experience, you’re basically just being elitist and playing games. Honestly, you aren't even in a position to be making those kinds of judgments.

It’s not even an abuse of power, honestly!I can't even begin to deal with this nonsense right now because honestly, I am just completely over it!It’s just straight-up manipulation at this point! You haven't actually denied a single thing, let alone had the nerve to try and dismiss someone else's lived experience as some kind of lie—well, newsflash, those "alleged experiences" you're trying to brush off? That was me! He finally went and installed it! Look, I’m going to say this one more time because apparently, it didn't sink in the first time, and if you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you'd see I already laid it all out plain as day!

When people start preaching about "authenticity" or what's considered the "truth," I honestly think it’s all just subjective nonsense because everyone’s just going to judge things based on their own biased perspective, which is completely arbitrary and doesn't actually prove a damn thing. If you want something you can actually bank on, you have to rely on your own direct, firsthand experience—anything else is just guesswork. I honestly can't even begin to wrap my head around how people act when they think they have some specific, certain authority over a situation, because it’s just absolute madness! It’s all about the level of truth, isn't it? Honestly, people just toss facts around like they're nothing, and it drives me absolutely insane!

Look, if you’re one of those people who thinks spiritual beings are just little winged characters with cute personalities hovering around to protect you, then by all means, go right ahead—you’ve got a wide lane to drive in, and I’m not here to start a fight over your fairy tales. But let’s get one thing straight: I am talking about the specific angelic forces found in Kabbalah, and since my entire purpose on this forum has been to express a strictly Kabbalistic perspective, you can either read it or don't. If you don't like what I have to say, stop reading, but if you actually want to debate the real stuff, bring it on—I'd honestly love that. 😍

If you’re just looking to talk down to people or act like you're some kind of superior authority—which, let's be honest, includes all that condescending patronizing nonsense—then you better be ready for the exact same energy coming right back at you.

I’ve been following your posts for quite a while now, but honestly, there isn't much to dig into... you just don't have it, baby... and I’m not even talking about the Kabbalah, I mean just the way you put your thoughts together

Brian Foster3 said:What am I supposed to do with them? They'll actually get where I'm coming from.

Quincy:

man, these conspiracies... look, they might be onto something, but don't just swallow everything you read online.

And what exactly gives you the right to talk down to me like that?

I mean, based on your absolute certainty that angels aren't real—unless you view them as some abstract force—it seems a bit off. Experiences from all over the place suggest there’s a spiritual plane of existence where these things are actual living beings.

Brian Foster3 said:If I got a single dollar for every time someone peddled that tired old conspiracy theory about some secret cabal being the "only truth," I’d be sitting on a massive fortune by now! ☕

Alright, here we go again. Get ready, because I'm about to dive into another one of these. 🙂 People keep trying to tell me that Kabbalah isn't the "only truth," but honestly, they can just stop right there because, for me, it’s hands down the best way to understand everything! I’ve been thinking about this whole damn method lately, and honestly, it just feels like a complete mess that nobody wants to take responsibility for! It reminds me of that one time I tried to fix my own sink in Chicago and ended up flooding the entire kitchen because the instructions were absolute garbage—just pure, unadulterated chaos from start to finish. I can't believe I actually made it here on time! I am sick and tired of people acting like they can just bypass the proper channels whenever it suits them! You can't just go jumping straight to the top or making direct contact without following the protocol, because honestly, that's how you end up creating a total mess for everyone involved. It’s just the plain, unvarnished truth.

The thing is, you won't find any living truth tucked away in dead letters or old scripts; you can only find life through something that's actually alive—I guess that's just common sense, really. And when it comes to connecting with the living (starting with your own self, anyway), there isn't some single, universally superior method. Plus, when you start claiming these "truths" about angels—which, honestly, experience tends to debunk—it starts feeling a bit like gatekeeping or being exclusionary. I don't think you're quite at the level where you can judge that yet.

I mean, honestly, you don't really need to take everything so literally. It’s just that classic trap—you know, that whole mindset of "this is my truth and only my truth, and nobody else gets it except me and my little circle of academic buddies."

Sound familiar? 😉

Brian Foster3 said:Angels aren't some winged little people floating around with personalities—that's just how people misinterpret things because they can't wrap their heads around the truth. They are actually spiritual laws that construct our entire reality, acting as the fundamental forces driving both this physical world and the spiritual realms alike. It’s all happening according to the blueprint and command of the creator, so you could really look at angels as the specific ways the creator differentiates His power into active forces within existence.

It reminds me of that old Kabbalistic saying: "There isn't a single blade of grass out there that doesn't have an angel hovering over it, striking it and commanding, 'Grow!'"

heh, but what about the people who actually have experiences with the spiritual realm?

man... all this Kabbalah stuff—I mean, it's fine, but you probably shouldn't believe every single thing you read.

wiredpuma9 said:Exactly.

It isn't a misclassification. Atheism is defined either as the absence of belief in God or the specific claim that God doesn't exist. Since "pure" agnosticism fits that first definition, "agnostic atheist" is perfectly accurate.

I guess I misread that earlier, my bad, wiredpuma9—that’s actually a pretty solid definition.

wiredpuma9 said:Exactly.

It isn't a misclassification. Atheism is defined either as the absence of belief in God or the specific claim that God doesn't exist. Since "pure" agnosticism fits that first definition, "agnostic atheist" is perfectly accurate.

I don't think I can agree there—mostly because what you're describing sounds exactly like the definition of agnosticism, which is pretty easy to trace back to its roots:

gnosis (Ancient Greek) = knowledge, insight, understanding, or experience
a-gnosis = no knowledge, no insight

So, basically, agnosticism is just a lack of knowledge or certain insight regarding something. Even the word itself doesn't explicitly mention faith or God, though that's usually implied in this context. I guess it might be more accurate to call someone a religious agnostic or a theological agnostic. It seems clear that the term alone doesn't dictate what someone believes or doesn't believe, so an agnostic—without adding "theist" or "atheist"—would just be someone who holds the position that they simply don't know, having an undefined faith, or perhaps none at all.

On the other hand, a-theist = non-theist, or someone who isn't a believer in God. It’s the logical negation of being a theist. Once you aren't a theist, you're an atheist. That could mean you just have no stance or belief regarding God, or it could mean you actually believe God doesn't exist.

Since those two areas overlap quite a bit, things get a little blurry, I suppose.

wiredpuma9 said:Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."

Agnosticism is about what you know, not what you believe.
An agnostic theist believes God exists, but isn't certain.
A gnostic theist is certain God exists.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim to know if He exists.
A gnostic atheist is certain God does not exist.
So, typical agnostics actually fall under the umbrella of agnostic atheists, though some prefer the label "agnostic" just to distance themselves from the louder crowd of agnostic atheists.
An antitheist is someone who openly opposes belief in God and organized religion.
do you mean they're pushing back against other people, specifically?

Agnosticism is really about knowledge—or rather, the lack thereof—just like you put it. I guess those terms like "gnostic theist" or "gnostic atheist" are pretty much made up concepts. Nobody actually *knows*, you know? There’s really only the illusion of knowing.

But there's a piece missing from this whole categorization thing. You have the pure agnostic, who doesn't even have a set stance on whether God exists or not. They aren't leaning toward belief or disbelief; their only actual position is just... "I don't know."

Now, if someone calls themselves an agnostic atheist, I'd argue they're primarily an atheist. It feels like a bit of a misclassification to me—kind of meaningless, really. It's the same with being an agnostic theist, because since nobody knows anything for sure, the agnosticism is already implied. It doesn't really add anything beyond the absence of certainty regarding faith.

At least, that’s the only way it makes sense to me. 🤷

Larry Wilson5 said:If a perfectly ordinary octopus can predict a
football game with total accuracy... -- one has to wonder if the sport feels high-stakes to the creature. A matter of survival, perhaps. Even considering synchronicity, what kind of phenomenon does this represent? Some longing for miracles? I suppose the real miracle is how people manage to survive while ignoring the subtle dimensions of existence. Or maybe they don't. You can't really account for everything. It's all just a way to forcibly suppress the subtle aspects of life, and Andrew.

There was once an octopus rooting against the Americans during the Euros... 😍 Paul thought the Germans were going to absolutely crush us 😉

It all boils down to statistics, I suppose, but... there’s this other factor: how much does the collective energy of optimism—that sheer belief in making things happen—from everyone praying that the octopus's prediction comes true actually matter? 😉

Anthony Perez9 said:Then what do you call the conviction that there is no God?
Just say it doesn't exist. 😉[/I]

It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
It's like saying "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist." lol
Baldness isn't a hair color. Atheism isn't a belief either; it's just the absence of one.

Believing that something doesn't exist is nonsense.
There are people who swear up and down that God definitely isn't there. Those are anti-theists.

What you're describing is actually agnosticism, which doesn't really fit into the category of faith or lack thereof.

Theists and atheists just use different definitions for atheism. They'll never agree because they're starting from completely opposite sides.
Basically, an atheist is just... well, a non-theist. It's just the logical negation of being a theist.
amoral means lacking morality, right? Just like that.

Then you've got agnostics. You can't really slot them into the theist or atheist categories—not really. They aren't holding onto an irrational stance; instead, they hold a rational one, which is basically just saying, "I don't know."

As for an antitheist? I assume that means someone who is actively against theism—against God, if you will. But to be an antitheist, I guess you almost have to acknowledge God exists, while being fundamentally opposed to religious ideas or the whole concept of "cooperating with God."

So, I got knocked off my bike by a car doing maybe sixty. He picked me up from behind—not hit me directly, per se. I didn't break anything or anything, just ended up pretty bruised. How?

He caught the pedal, but didn't actually strike my leg—it was just the pedal taking the impact. It sent me spinning off to the side instead of slamming me onto his hood

Then there was another time—my own fault, really—where a car clipped me from the side and sent me down. Again, no direct impact to my body. He was braking, so he was going much slower. Once again, no real injuries

The third time was a bit different. I was flying down a hill at high speed when I hit a rock right at the exact moment I was switching hands—moving from the drops back to the hoods—basically the split second I wasn't gripping the bars. The handlebars jerked, slammed into my right arm—left me with a nasty bruise—and snapped back so hard it actually returned to center. I managed to grab hold of them calmly. If they had twisted the other way... well, I wouldn't be here

There were other instances too, including one massive blunder on my part. I won't list them all—honestly, I'm a little embarrassed—but I always walk away with this feeling that something is looking out for me. Like it’s just not my time to get seriously hurt, even when the circumstances seem perfect for it

If it were "meant to be," I would have been crushed. If that were just part of some grand life plan of mine

Sure. I guess you could break it down into three distinct paths:

1. I believe in God—meaning, my position is that He exists.
2. I don't believe in God—essentially, my stance is that He doesn't exist.
3. I'm just sitting on the fence regarding whether God exists—I don't really hold a definitive position either way.

So, 1 would be theism, 2 is atheism, and 3 is agnosticism.

Anthony Perez9 said:Look, as an atheist, I don't believe in God and I'm not expecting a single thing from Him. Honestly, the whole concept is totally foreign to me. I’m perfectly fine with using the term to describe something beyond our limited human comprehension—like the sheer scale of reality, the awe of an infinite universe, or even that > "God" concept.

So, atheism isn't really believing that God doesn't exist.

A theist actually believes God is going to step in, help them out, grant wishes, or grant immortality.
It’s basically the difference between worshippers and everyone else—those who don't pray to or believe in a deity, whatever that may be. ☕

Belief is usually boxed in by rigid dogma. Every phrase and word has been strictly mapped out by theologians long ago. There's no room for actual curiosity, exploration, or keeping your eyes open; it's just repeating mental scripts handed down from the past. That’s a death sentence for any kind of genuine spirituality.

Well then, what do you call the actual belief that there is no God?

I mean, I guess you could just say that concept doesn't even exist... 😉

What you're describing sounds more like agnosticism—it sort of sits in this weird middle ground where it doesn't quite fit into the category of faith or the lack thereof.

dustyraven26 said:Anyone genuinely committed to improving their circumstances must act in direct alignment with those intentions. Such action can only occur within the reality of the "here and now," because the concept of "there and then" is a fiction that simply does not exist.

In observing how belief and hope influence the human psyche, I have noted several patterns:

A person can only truly believe in what they cannot currently see or experience in the present moment. It is a known phenomenon that if one maintains a belief long enough, they begin to perceive it visually. However, at that stage, what they are seeing is not objective reality, but rather a mental projection—a waking dream—which can lead to severe psychological trauma when it inevitably clashes with actual reality.

Furthermore, the mere hope that things will improve "someday"—whether through fate or the intervention of others—serves only to diminish the drive required to take meaningful action today. In its purest essence, hope acts as an escape mechanism, allowing one to bypass the necessity of acting in the present.

Because of these dynamics, I hold the view that

Belief and hope are dangerous delusions; they erode the motivation needed to engage with the real world. By encouraging an escape from reality, they render a life stagnant, ritualistic, and ultimately precarious, posing a significant risk to one's mental stability.

Based on these observations, and without indulging in hypothetical scenarios, I am inclined to assert that religious faith exerts a negative influence on individuals by further fueling this tendency toward belief and passive hope.

Please share your thoughts.

It seems like you're saying belief has the potential to create things... though it's hard to say at what level or how that even works (assuming it works at all).

I guess this is about how belief and hope are used or misused; if you already do everything you can, then belief and hope might be useful for those extra little bits; but if they're used as a substitute for taking action, then they're harmful.

So, are you trying to say that belief and hope lead to a lack of action?

Hmm. Well, anyone who wants to achieve something starts with a vision. You basically sketch something out in your head first. In doing that, you're expressing a certain kind of faith in its realization.

What would an ideal look like on your part, though? Like... a total blank slate of irrationality? Or strictly being rational?

I’m a believer in the spiritual side of things—you know, angels, demons, all that stuff; I also think we each carry our own unique spiritual blueprint deep down

rustyfalcon24 said:That’s a bit of a relative term, I suppose—I wouldn't call myself a seasoned pro by any stretch, but then again, I'm certainly not some total amateur either.

That’s actually something new to me—I had no idea they'd gone and established a third category.

So... wait, are you telling me those guys are actually paying you to play? I mean, if that’s the case, that's wild. But honestly, looking at the state of the first division, it kind of makes sense—it’s basically semi-pro at this point, I guess. 😉