Vinterland

It's possible to say it; it's even rational, but it is unknown to be true.
In short I agree that God is equal to the FSM; God could be the FSM or some trickster.

[quote=marmalade;20742]

Neither.

I'm a weak atheist because I don't actively believe God doesn't exist, but by the same measure I'm a weak theist because I don't actively believe God does exist. By the same measure you a theist? What definition of theism are you using? So, rather, I'm maybe a non-theist(and a non-atheist?). I'm certain that your atheism (not actively disbeliving in God) negates theism, but I'll have you clear up your previous statement. A part of me does highly suspect that something like a God exists, but not any of the traditional Christian views. I am attracted to ideas such as panentheism, but I don't worship a panentheistic God. I have no clear beliefs about a God, and the idea of believing in God doesn't seem very meaningful to me.

I'm agnostic in the sense that I don't believe its possible to rationally know whether God exists or not. But I'm gnostic in the sense that I have had experiences of a deeper sense of knowing. You speak with a mystic quality to you. You've peaked my curiosity, would you mind sharing what these experiences are and how you attained them? If God does exist he can't be known. Instead, he would be this very sense of knowing. The term 'God' isn't necessarily useful, but I sometimes use it to refer to my experience simply for a lack of a better term. I don't use the term 'God' to refer to my views much on this forum. However, if I were on a religious/spiritual forum, then I would probably use the term more often because in that context it would be more useful.

I tend to see life from multiple perspectives and I've never been one to entirely identify with a single perspective. I consider myself a seeker. Maybe that is the best label for me.
I like that one.

I try to accept both sides of my personality, but they're far from happily balanced. Sometimes this causes me to be critical of both sides of a discussion.
That's a great tactic for trying to open a new perspective; I tend to do this all of the time.


In my experience, much about life especially in relating to others(whether a rational discussion or not) defies proper labels. For one, there is a difference between the complexity of lived experience that is the reality of a belief and one's stated beliefs. Sometimes a person's stated beliefs only slightly correspond to what they actually believe. In particular, religious matters are difficult to describe and communicate. On top of that, the human psyche itself can only be superficially understood by the conscious ego-mind. Your example of the term 'God' helps explain this well. I'm not sure what you mean in your last statement.


That is probably as concise as you could state your beliefs, but conciseness isn't always desirable. Concise labels can cause nuances of personal meaning to be lost or left unclear. Also, it can create a false sense of similarity between things or people that are very different. For instance, I could also label myself an agnostic weak-atheist and it would largely be accurate, but I'm sure you would interpret that label in a way that I wouldn't.
Possibly...I'll give it a try using info you've already given me. You're observations are science based; you've come to the conclusion that God cannot be known by humans and you are a weak atheist because you don't believe in God. On top of that you seek for spiritual knowledge of God.


Even so, a clear label does create a useful context in which to then discuss those further distinctions.
I agree, let's finish up those labels so we can continue!

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

marmalade

I believe there are ordering principles to reality. I tend to believe that its possible(and maybe probable) that these principles have something like consciousness and intelligence. I have a serious desire to believe in God/gods.

Does my above description clear it up?

My combination of agnosticism and gnosticism partly refers to Robert M. Price's idea about this. But my idea about it is more general than what he is writing about.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...ticgnostic.htm

Someone else on this forum(AB517) asked me about my experiences. I've had many experiences over the years. My spiritual seeking/longing has always been grounded in my sometimes severe depression. I've at times felt so depressed as to feel incapable of and undesiring of doing anything. And so I've spent long periods of time with my awareness turned inwards.

The most recent spiritual experiences I had were instigated partly by a failed romance. Along with the accompanying depression, I searched very deeply into my heart and temporarily got lost there so to speak. I experienced an openess and an emptiness that went beyond anything that I'd experienced before. I'm not sure what good it did other than to strengthen my dissatisfaction and compel even moreso my seeking nature.

There is a sense of self that is somehow different than our everyday sense of self. Jung called it the Self(with capitol 'S'). Others would call it the soul. Beyond any specific definitons of it, its just something I experience. Its what I was feeling very deeply when I became temporarily lost in my heart. The heart is often a symbol of the center of the self.

I only doubt that humans can intellectually know God. As for believing in God, its not that I don't. Its just that the terms 'God' and 'belief' are so uncertain, vague, and general to me. For someone to say they believe in God, it could mean a wide wide spectrum of experiences. I'm sure I could define those terms in such a way that I could make the claim that I believe in God. I choose to keep it open-ended.

If you could give me your defintions of 'God' and 'belief', then I could give you a more specific answer about whether I believe in God.

Gettin' In Tune

Good question. Agnostics can never defined god.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

romansh

I think I understand why you think this is a good point,
As an agnostic I can find many 'definitions' of god and perhaps create a couple that would work for me.

And ......?

What do I do with that definition..... it's not as though I can test it in some physical way...... My choices are simple to have faith and not.

This is precisely what I have done. Accept either as a possibility, look for answers, look for evidence. The only thing that bothers me is that I am very skeptical that there is evidence to find and even if I did, I would recognize it.

all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Og

God is a metaphor for a transcendent mystery. A mystery transcendent of all categories of thought EVEN including being and non-being.
-Joseph Campbell

This is what I mean when I say I am agnostic. This is what all of the religions of the world scream from their elemental basis. It's the content of Jesus' teachings, the teachings of the buddha, the bindu on the forehead of the hindu, the central mountains of the american indians, the garden of eden, and the pyramid on the dollar bill.

Atheists and theists are stuck in terms of categories of thought such as existence an non-existence of an absurdity. When you cast it in terms of the question of non-existence of existence, you have immediately mistaken the finger pointing at the stars for a star and you miss the entire point.

Many agnostics think it's about "lack of evidence" or that they "don't know yet".. I call myself an agnostic because of a specific understanding of what God has meant in myths and how it relates to myths that speak to us today every time we turn on the TV or goto the movies.

Agnosticism does not have to be about fence sitting. While I am not a theist in that I don't believe that the literal interpretation of fictional stories is factually correct, I do not consider myself an atheist other than that I reject many of the demonstrable absurdities and logical schisms that theists take stances in support of.

But I do not reject the notion of God as an expression of the human psyche. Demons are elements of your psyche that you have not addressed and that have the ability to control you (see Jung's "shadow" concept). Gods are depictions of your psyche much as an avatar on the forums or in an online game depicts elements of your psyche.

Why do you think the greeks had all sorts of different gods for different things? God of Love? It was an expression of that element of the human psyche. People actually believed that they were real much in the way that kids today believe that Santa Claus is real. It's something that they can easily wrap their mind around. This is directly analogous to the concept of gods or God. It's easy for lesser or otherwise occupied minds to understand elements of their own psyche if they cast it in terms of external entities that they can relate to.

The awakened mind realizes that the search for God is a search for understanding of the true nature of one's inner being and not for some mysterious thing "out there."

This is my distinction between agnosticism and theism/atheism. I think its a very positive stance to take and one that empowers.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

romansh

Interesting ..... thanks

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

marmalade

I agree with Og almost entirely. My view of God/gods is mostly an archetypal one. However, like Jung, I question the archetypes being limited to an individualistic view of the psyche.

Og

They are certainly not limited to an individualistic view. That's part of the realization that christ was trying to share. There is no distinction between you and me ultimately. I and the father are one.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

marmalade

I wasn't entirely sure how you interpreted it, but it sounds basically the same as I do.

The reason I often say I'm unsure that I believe in God is primarily about definitions. Few people have archetypes in mind when they speak of God. In discussing with most people, you might as well be speaking about two different things.

I like your approach in relating to Christians in discussion. Its insightful all the while being respectful. Going straight to the deeper meanings of the Christian Mythos bypasses much of the normal fruitless arguments that come up.

romansh

Hi Og
putting this into the language of a fence sitter......

• You definitely are not a theist.
• God(s) could be a reflection of our fears, hopes... in general our psyche?
• You do not rule out a deistic god.
• Texts such as the Bible lead to an understanding of ourselves (maybe stories and myths in general aswell as religious texts).

I apologize if I have misrepresented your beliefs/points.. I was wondering if there are more bullet points to what you understand and if you could add to them? I realize that the conclusion you come to is greater than the sum of the parts?

all the best

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams