I'm not a conspiracy theorist type but I'm also not a hardline skeptic either. I'm somewhere in-between, some times closer to one side than the other.
Random Agnostic Thoughts
- Thread starter AgnosticBoy
- Start date
bbyrd009
“I don’t know anything. Ever…” DGently
i think its obvious that the US has drastically changed its domestic policy in the last hundred years, and i think Woodrow Wilson helped facilitate that by caving to the Rothschilds “central bank,” although i dont blame him anymore, as they were gonna find a way in no matter what i guess. But he did remark upon it in some aside that i notice gets harder to find every year on Google lol.
jfk made a speech about a ruling cabal that he was going to expose many years ago, and i guess even printed up some United States Notes in prep for kicking out the Central Bank. Apparently Lincoln was assassinated for the same reason, printing “greenbacks” (which spurred a renaissance apparently, in the middle of the civil war) rather than allowing rothschilds to finance the civil war (that they had threatened him with openly, in English newspapers, for refusing central bank advances). This has also gotten progressively harder to find in search.
The Rothschilds Murdered at least Seven US Presidents | VT Foreign Policy
www.veteranstoday.com
so to most ppl i am prolly considered a “conspiracy theorist,” but after watching some Talking Head say on live news that building 7 had just fallen, while it was still standing right behind her, and then being considered a conspiracy theorist by the same ppl who believe the Official Story, well, i say just follow the money
Last edited:
bbyrd009
“I don’t know anything. Ever…” DGently
see, no conspiracy, right out in the open
As an agnostic, I look for ways to be open-minded so that I don't have an overly restrictive position (e.g. saying that it can only be this way or that way vs. being open to look for alternatives). I also look for ways to find a middle ground when dealing with two polarizing sides or positions where the truth is not known.
An agnostic should be able to shine bright in hot button issues because they tend to be open-minded and flexible. Where others might be rigid in their beliefs and polarizing, the agnostic is more willing to adopt positions from both sides, come up with compromises or a middle ground, see the gray areas, etc.
When searching for truth of a matter, I usually start by weeding out the extreme positions. The best or true position tends to be the one in the middle.
I question if many atheists and theists are open to accepting evidence wherever it leads. I'm mainly referring to those atheists and theists that commit to unproven ideologies in a unquestioning way, as if they are some absolute truth. Would they accept evidence wherever it leads, even if it's against their worldview, or would they just accept evidence only when it supports their preconceived views? This is the benefit of the agnostic not committing to any unproven worldview, or at least not doing so in any dogmatic way.
Last edited:
bbyrd009
“I don’t know anything. Ever…” DGently
thing is, the evidence might easily lead one into accepting The Prince (Machiavelli) as their bible, like our politicians do (i guess), since the instructions parodied in it tend to lead to the best outcomes for the practitioner.
another thing about evidence, i guess ive mentioned before, is that all of the evidence we can gather, via our finest minds, Einstein and etc, leads us to +- about 5% of everything that our maths tell us must exist. Now im not meaning to say that evidence is useless, but it might easily tend one into a search for facts, which are almost always misleading
My take on Huxley's writings is that agnostics are to be like freethinkers with an emphasis on open-mindedness. They are to be anti-dogmatic in terms of not accepting anything unquestionably, while also not dismissing views outright or w/out any consideration (of evidence).
Agnostics tend to be intellectually honest and intellectually humble. As an agnostic, you will probably never hear me say that I'm not ever open to changing my mind on something. From an intellectual standpoint, I approach everything having in mind that I'm open to changing my mind or that what I accept as true is tentative.
In contrast, a dogmatic person will usually hold on to some view or position without being open to changing their mind, even in the face of evidence.
In contrast, a dogmatic person will usually hold on to some view or position without being open to changing their mind, even in the face of evidence.
Similar threads
