Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

"We must do right by living our lives by the bible/ten commandments." They say.
"So we need to have nothing for those who disobey the ten commandments for they are bad people." They obviously feel.
Oh. There are other people, religions that follow the ten commandments? All must have nothing for one who has suffered their life of depression, ignorant of knowledge due to, resulting in being oblivious of their actions.

you can all endlessly argue between atheism vs theism vs agnosticism, or you can find the obvious solution in non duality. non duality reconciles all these opposing views by going beyond them. it does not go beyond them by blindly guessing that they do not exist. it does so by directly investigating into their existence, and invariably finding out the paradoxical absolute truth of no absolute truth.

this is what i would consider the order of intellectual evolution of an individual mind, with regard to theism:
1. theism: believing in god, (ie the testimony of others about god) as the ultimate reality.
2. atheism: believing in one's own experience as the only ultimate reality. after all, the only problem with 'god' to the atheist is that nobody seems to experience it verifiably.
3. agnosticism: believing that neither one's own experience nor others' testimony is good enough to explain ultimate reality.
4. nonduality: going beyond the concept of ultimate reality, and all concepts, including nonduality itself.

Of course...there is no one to do the investigating...and there is nothing to investigate...

...but don't let that stop you, RL.

And be sure to appreciate the "the absolute truth of no truth!"

A survey of more than 1,000 men in India has concluded that condoms made according to international sizes are too large for a majority of Indian men.

The study found that more than half of the men measured had penises that were shorter than international standards for condoms.

Quote:

Of course...there is no one to do the investigating...and there is nothing to investigate...

yes, at the ultimate level there is nothing. or there is everything, which is all yourself, so basically amounts to nothing. just like when you are in deep sleep, you are everything and nothing. so what?

Quote:

...but don't let that stop you, RL.

exactly, you can't stop the appearing something from finding out it is nothing ultimately.

Quote:

And be sure to appreciate the "the absolute truth of no truth!"

if you can appreciate it, it is certainly worth it.

You really have to learn how to use the words "MAY BE"...because without those words, you appear to be pontificating

You are not especially good at revealing divine truths, CM. So it would be in your best interests to stop trying to do it.

Oh, I appreciate it, CM. Sorta like appreciating Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on first!"

Quote:

You really have to learn how to use the words "MAY BE"...because without those words, you appear to be pontificating

no i don't really have to use any words, nor do i care how i appear to you. i don't need to use may be when a level of certainty is there in me, just like you don't say 'maybe i am a human'. i have the same certainty in what i am saying.

Quote:

You are not especially good at revealing divine truths, CM. So it would be in your best interests to stop trying to do it.

never claimed to be revealing anything but my own opinion. nothing you suggest would ever have anything to do with my best interests.

Quote:

Oh, I appreciate it, CM. Sorta like appreciating Abbott and Costello doing "Who's on first!"

cool story. maybe remember that everyone wasn't born in the 1800s when that **** was on.

Yeah...so you are certain there is nothing. But who is the "you"...and of what are you certain?

You are not sharing opinions, CM...you are pontificating. If you were sharing opinions, there would be more hedging...and a hell of a lot less certainty about things that have baffled the finest minds who have ever lived.

That skit was written in the 1930's...not the 1800's. And if by "on"...you mean on the air as entertainment, there was nothing "on" in the 1800's. But thank you for more material that can be appreciated.

Quote:

Yeah...so you are certain there is nothing. But who is the "you"...and of what are you certain?

this is my 'blind guess', as you call it: there is nothing.

i am not certain of this, i am only certain in the same way that you are 'certain' that you are a human.

now you ask, who is the 'me' and of what am i certain? the 'me' is just me, as i appear. what i am certain of is that i don't exist, ultimately. of course, this certainty is only of the same nature as your certainty that you are human. ultimately, nothing is certain of anything because nothing exists. but, within the appearing mind which is capable of feeling certainty, the highest certainty possible is the certainty of nothingness.

Quote:

You are not sharing opinions, CM...you are pontificating. If you were sharing opinions, there would be more hedging...and a hell of a lot less certainty about things that have baffled the finest minds who have ever lived.

certainly not. why should i be less certain, if i am certain? if everybody shared your way of approaching the 'baffling' things and always simply agreed that all the OTHER greatest minds who have lived are much better than themselves, then NOBODY would ever achieve anything in life.

the irony is that once you actually realise the greatness of your own mind, you get to non-individuality or nonduality, which eliminates the possibility of all the idiotic things you are describing: pontificating, showing too much certainty over things that baffle 'great minds'. those things only exist to the individual. so yes, CM is appearing to pontificate to frank. however, the consciousness in both of us is the same, and i am simply only identifying with that. so to me, nothing is happening, except i am appearing to pontificate to you because you interpret my words as such. if you stopped talking to me, i would stop responding.

there is no 'too much certainty'. without the crazy, excessive certainty of great minds, nothing in humanity would have ever been achieved.

Quote:

That skit was written in the 1930's...not the 1800's. And if by "on"...you mean on the air as entertainment, there was nothing "on" in the 1800's. But thank you for more material that can be appreciated.

wow. if you didn't realise the sarcasm of my comment, obviously over exaggerating with the past date to emphasise...you know what forget it. yes, use that as material. you got me! i sheepishly referred to TV being existent in the 1800s, and you caught me out! well done sir!