fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2554 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2554 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Hobbit movies, Silmarillion]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Ripper Street]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Avengers]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Sekai-ichi Hatsukoi]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Game of Thrones]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Sherlock Holmes/Star Trek: The Next Generation]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Soukyuu no Fafner]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Attack on Titan]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Goo Goo Dolls]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 050 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

No, I don't agree, I think the position you're criticizing is basically valid. If you think that the existence or non-existence of God in the abstract is not knowable, it's reasonable to call yourself an atheist. The concept of the divine includes the deist god and the logical non-physical god just as much as the physical immanent Christian god. If you think that the abstract concept god cannot be proven wrong, it's perfectly legitimate to call yourself an agnostic.

There's not really any reason why an agnostic should be required to narrow down their definition of God from the concept of God as such; in fact, I would argue that it's against the very nature of the argument for them to do so. If you're going to talk, from a theoretical, abstract, epistemological or theological point of view about the divine, I think it ultimately makes much more sense to talk about the concept of the divine in a broad way, rather than to stick to the specifics of a creed. You can still critique existing religions when you're talking on that level; I don't think there's anything conflicting between the approaches.

"the physical immanent ~~Christian~~ *koff*Abrahamic*koff* god"

[ SECRET POST #2554 ]

Re: 'I'm agnostic'

Re: 'I'm agnostic'