Agnostic female seeks same

thank your parents

 

thumontico asked:

"God" ?? Well, I don't believe in a personified deity, and I'm not convinced of "intelligent design" as in a universal programmer. "Intelligent design" as a non-personal "force" would still have to have a source and control methods, wouldn't it? Chaos? Controlled chaos? Not sure...

"he" ?? Not. Come on...isn't it time we let go of some of these archaic concepts?

"exists" ?? As human beings, we are barely able to conceptualize our own existence. What do we really know about "reality"? Even the so-called laws of physics are really theories and assumptions. These assumptions are based on current evidence, but we have such limited tools for gathering, measuring and testing such evidence. What if it turns out that the speed of light is not, in fact, constant? What if "time" does not flow in a linear fashion as appears to us? What if ... well, you get the picture.

As to the significance of "agnosticism" or "atheism" - Personnally, I have a hard time with labels like these, I don't believe any of the human conceptualizations of "God", and I also think it's possible that "reality" is far stranger than anything we can imagine, (so far).

I'm not sure I even have a clearly defined philosophy. Consider the questions that are often asked in regard to personal morality, "Is it wrong to kill, steal, lie, etc?" My usual answer, "It depends on the situation." I try not to do anything to others that I wouldn't want done to me. I guess that's my philosophy in a nutshell, the ol' golden rule.

For me it's not just a matter of whether or not I believe in "God", I would like to move on, to explore a different approach to "spirituality" (for lack of a better word) without any belief systems.

 

Yes, my point IS that the concept of God itself is archaic. Personifications are auxiliary and even less important.

Why do you have a hard time with labels such as Agnostic or Atheistic? These are very basic questions. They do not define or qualify strictly. The agnostic accepts what he cannot know and that is the extent to which he is defined by this term. The atheist does not believe in the existence of a God in whatever manifestation. This does not necessarily define their philosphy in any way.

However, I think agnosticism is pointless to mention, because an agnostic lives a life of an atheist anyway.

 

To paraphrase a story in Jane Roberts book, "The Seth Material" we imagine a room that expands and contracts by 12 inches each day. Each of the objects in the room also expands and collapses in proportion to the room. Imagine that you are a person sitting in that room, you have a sense that the room seems larger or that suddenly it seems much smaller.

You can't explain this so you measure the room with a yardstick, but the yardstick is also expanding and contracting in proportion to the room so that the measurement always shows the same width and length. Other people enter the room, measure it with the yardstick and everyone confirms this "evidence".

Based on the evidence gathered, it is declared that the size of the room does not change and that any sensation of the room being larger or smaller is a misperception. In this case, however, the perception was correct, the error is in using the yardstick to measure the room. The room really is expanding and contracting but lacking the proper tools to measure the phenomenon, we simply dismiss reality and configure a construct of reality based solely on what we can measure with our yardsticks.

I can't speak to agnosticism or atheism because I don't categorize myself as either of these. As you can probably tell, I'm still in the process of defining my own terms, which can be tricky because it's so hard to put into words. You've said that, "The agnostic accepts what he cannot know..."

I only accept that we don't have all of the information we need in order to properly conceptualize our "reality" - yet! That does not necessarily mean we cannot know.

From what I understand "atheism" is base on the concept that there is no "God" and that one cannot consider anything to be "real" unless it can be "scientifically proven". (Please correct me if this is not accurate, I'm not that familiar with the concepts of atheism.) If my understanding of atheism is correct, I would have to say that the story above illustrates the limitations of both atheism and the so-called laws of science.

You also said, "an agnostic lives a life of an atheist anyway". I would have to disagree, the atheist has chosen to adhere to a narrow perspective of "reality" based on scientific evidence. This perspective would have a certain influence on one's philosophy and lifestyle. An agnostic would, by their perspective on "reality", have a very different approach to conceptualizing life and to interactions with others. Although, I must agree with you that neither agnostics or atheists can be categorized in overly-simplistic archetypal terms as I am doing here.

I am not so much interested in proof of anything as I am in exploration of everything. Throughout my life I have had experiences that many people would define as "spiritual" or "paranormal" this doesn't mean the experiences aren't real or can't ever be understood, it just means we don't understand them right now.

When a person "sees" sound as colors, for example, it is not necessarily an aberration in the sensory interpretation of the persons brain. Maybe sounds really do have a visual component that is not readily apparent to a lot of people, (so far). Our senses are still evolving and who knows what kinds of sensory perceptions we may experience in the future.

You could say I am looking for different ways of measuring "the room" but more than that, I want to explore the envelope of human perceptions in the hope of a more inclusive and less restrictive approach to gathering and sharing information about "reality".