You sound like Deepak Chopra. And yeah, he's an idiot. But lets break some of this verbal diarrhea down.


>Exactly,
>
>Being agnostic doesn't only mean "I lack knowledge". It was a
>term created in the argument of religion that means "I believe
>that I, and very likely YOU (religious person in question)
>lack the knowledge to truly determine whether there is
>evidence of divine presence or merely mind-boggling physics
>and mechanics"

...Do I need to reiterate that gnosticism regards knowledge, and theism with belief? If your answer to "is there a god?" is ANYTHING except "yes" then you're an atheist. From the rest of this, you sound like an agnostic theist.


>
>I exist. This fact is not arguable to any worthwhile degree.
>We exist. So what. Why do we exist. This is the real
>question. Chance? Curiosity of the atoms? Divine Spiritual
>Super Holy Quest of Salvation? You decide. By the way, if you
>really think about it, random chance is the most absurd option
>of those three theories. To say that an atom just happened to
>bond with another atom, which just happened to bond with
>another atom, which just happened to bond with two other
>bonded atoms, which just happened to...ON and ON and ON and ON
>until you get simple bacteria (which would already be
>extremely unlikely according to the rules of probability) and
>ON and ON and ON ALL the way to mammals (extremely
>ridiculously ludicrous according to the rules of probability)
>and ON and ON and ON and ON until the development of humans,
>developments of societies, politics, and even down to the very
>study of ontology, to where said humans are asking themselves
>how the hell the came to be in the first place. That's like
>saying all these cities built themselves. Well, in a way,
>they did, because god built them, and god is everything,
>capiche? (is that how you spell capiche?) God is an energy
>that influences matter to behave in ways to achieve
>enlightenment in this world. Self discovery. God is far
>beyond our comprehension, other than our ability to comprehend
>that things can be beyond our comprehension.

We call this an argument from personal incredulity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity). You need to better educate yourself regarding abiogenesis, evolution, and the current evidence regarding the origins of the universe.

>
>If you haven't already, Look up Andrew Cohen on Youtube. He
>may either seem like a lunatic or a badass spiritualist,
>depending on your level of spiritual understanding and
>consciousness studies. I, myself, believe in the concepts of
>spirits, psychic communication, and collective consciousness,
>particularly on the level of subconscious connections between
>all people. In the same way that yes, ants, bees, and birds
>tend to follow each other in ways beyond normal communication.

Evidence to support this?

> I believe that god exists, but he is not captured in a holy
>script or church. Those are the attempts of humans to
>organize mysteries into facts. I'm not concerned with rules
>of right and wrong, but rather, facts of behavior and
>action/reaction developments. A creature is born with an
>inherent spirit, discovers reasons in the world to be happy,
>scared, angry, vengeful, lustful, bored, and a myriad of other
>experiences. It could be said that these experiences are
>based on the relationship between the subject and his
>environment, and therefore, be a product of consciousness
>becoming more aware of itself in the forms of countless
>perspectives across the world. Some say that God is
>everything, well, I agree. Everyone of us is a piece of
>"Totality" or God if you will, and our contributions to this
>planet ultimately define what this planet is, no matter how
>miniscule or massive your influence is. (Coffee shop cashier
>vs Albert Einstein, per say)

...We call those "perspectives" empathy, and it is from whence cometh all morality. I think you'd feel more comfortable with this if you listened to a talk that Matt Dillahunty gave regarding the superiority of secular morality.

>
>If you have difficulty following this, study a flock of birds,
>and how they all seem to move around as one entity. Surely,
>it could be considered that one bird leads and the rest follow
>the subtle changes in direction. This is also true of people,
>when you think about political memes, catch phrases, clothing
>styles, what's in, what's out, what's acceptable and so forth.
> While these behaviors aren't as immediate as watching the
>birds follow each other, the only real difference is the time
>scale. If you videotape a group of people entering a stadium
>for a concert, celebrating, and then exiting the concert, and
>the watch the tape in 10x the speed of regular time, the
>people will start to appear as birds or ants, moving and
>flocking together in large group mentalities and memes.

You're mistaking hive mind with general group behavior...

>
>This probably sounds like religious nonsense to some, but in
>all due fairness, atheism for the sake of doubt is just as
>useless. Agnosticism with a healthy dose of consideration has
>always been my cup of tea. If it helps, don't call it God,
>that word has been associated with religious zealots. Call it
>whatever you want. Oneness, the Universal energy, existence
>defining itself through action, energy manifesting itself in
>shape and form, in order to escape the eternal strain of
>chaos, and so forth...

Those words again don't mean what you think they mean. You seem to regard doubt as a bad thing, and give no credence to the burden of proof. Skepticism (doubt) is mental floss. It cleans the unfounded ideas out of your brain. You should go in expecting the null hypothesis until the evidence disproves it.

And then you say how you're a pantheist. Great. If you're going to look at "energy" and call it "god," then great, now why are we calling "energy" something other than that? If I called my coffee cup "god" and explained that it is my coffee cup and it holds my coffee and makes me feel better by giving me coffee, and thats why I call it "god" despite the baggage that word carries, you'd laugh at me.

>
>Another consideration for the atheist. Nothing matters eh?
>So then, allow me to take all your belongings and bury you in
>the desert. No you say? Whatever for? Exactly what is it that
>prevents me from doing whatever I want with you for my own
>benefit? Could it be the same energy that makes me want to
>defend myself from you? And what, pray tell, does this
>feeling come from? Why do my molecules remain adamant about
>maintaining this shape and form, preventing you from damaging
>the form, as well as all the belongings and social strongholds
>that this form has walked around and made decisions and
>sacrifices in order to develop? In other words, why do we
>care? This question in itself pokes at the substance of
>consciousness, and points out a key ingredient of evidence
>that matter is not totally objective, and that the subjective
>experience itself is what is in question. What makes
>something subjective? The CONSCIOUS eye. And what is it's
>origin?

Boy have I heard this nonsense too many times. Atheism isn't nihilism. You have this strange strawman idea of what an atheist is and believes. What prevents you from doing whatever you want is called EMPATHY. You don't want to get punched in the face, robbed, killed, etc, and know that other people don't want to either, so in order to promote a habitat that does not include those things being done to you, you should not do them to others. This is the foundation of morality and collective living. Again, I strongly recommend you listen to Matt Dillahunty's talk regarding secular morality.

Also "energy" doesn't "make" you do anything. You're using the wrong word. Drives? Thought? Reason? Energy doesn't mean what you think it means.

>Well, I remain agnostic on that one.

The word you're looking for is SKEPTICAL. What you said was "I remain ignorant on that one". Great, we know.
>

I wrote this very quickly and right before bed. I feel my brain was damage somewhat by the nonsense that was spouted.

In other news though, I think you have a great CF attitude based on your other posts, and are probably very smart in other aspects of your life, but you're REALLY dumb and ignorant when it comes to philosophy.