Well, you're an empiricist, and that's okay, truly. Most smart people are. As a scientist in a documentary once quoted regarding quantum physics (I could find the name if it even matters). paraphrased "There's nothing inherently wrong with our current model of the universe, it is by far the most advanced system of information we've ever had to study the natural phenomenon of our universe. But with recent discoveries in quantum theory and mechanics, we need to also allow for other interpretations of reality"

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

Welllll, uh, ok fine. I assure you, I haven't read anything by Deepak Chopra, though judging by his ability to be somewhat famous by providing spiritual insights, I won't be entirely insulted if you compare my thoughts to some of his teachings. Verbal diarrhea? *sigh* I was hoping to have a debate, but I find this somewhat encouraging as people generally tend to resort to blatant insults when factual arguments cannot be found.

>
>
>>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.

Ok, ok. You'll have to pardon me here, I am not necessarily having a terminology debate, and perhaps you are entirely correct with those sentences, though it doesn't really hold any bearing on what I was trying to communicate. Sure, theism is based on belief. Got it. So anyways... when asked what my religion is, and I say agnostic, what I'm referring to is, I feel that the answer to the question "Is there a god?" is unanswerable to a 100% degree of certainty, because we, well, lack the knowledge to know for sure. It looks to me as if we're arguing different points so let's skip that part.

>
>
>>
>>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.

Kudos for that link, as I tend to use this type of argument often, mostly when having a healthy talk on metaphysics, philosophy, or other ontological types of debates. I just never realized that this is what I was doing, and in a way I'm glad you pointed that out because it's almost somewhat manipulative or deceitful (unless the crowd is sharp enough to catch it as you were) and I don't want to effectively be a manipulator, but instead inspire people to adopt other ideas and perspectives.

>
>>
>>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?

Well, no tangible evidence per say, but I do work at a Voodoo shop in Louisiana, and we have psychics who work there and give readings for a living. *Pausing, waiting for the generic mockery to subside*. No but seriously, I was not at all religious before working there, and I didn't believe in psychic phenomenon or spirits. I've worked there for 5 years now, and believe in them. For the skeptics, it's not about telling you what you had for dinner last night, or what's gonna happen in the next 12 hours of your life. These people are human, and prone to the same errors that everyone else makes when looking at say, a radar screen, or using a metal detector, or using binoculars to survey an area. Just because your perception is enhanced beyond what is considered normal, doesn't mean you have all the answers. I've had enough "goosebumps" moments with our psychics as they mock me with some of my more inner thoughts, to know that they do have an ability. I've also witnessed things that could be referred to as blessings and curses. Such as having bad luck for a few days after insulting a priest, or having a great night after doing a favor for one. But I know, evidence or it never happened, ok fine. I digress.
Another moment of rhetoric though...Do you think that they burned witches simply because they weren't Christian? I have a slight hunch that these ladies were indeed using the occult arts in the same way many of my coworkers are, and scared the sh*t out of some pious villagers. Doesn't mean they were all powerful, it just means they outed themselves in the wrooong crowd.

>
>> 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.

Well, yeah but...I agree with you... Sure, empathy exists and is the main "driving force" behind morality. Aaand,
I believe that there is a more universal influence of these moralities, rather than a voting system among civilians. I was just calling emotions experiences, because...they kinda are. But defining empathy doesn't really negate what I was talking about. I was expanding on some of the potential ideas of why brain matter is capable of empathy in the first place.

>
>>
>>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...

Or am I?

This could be the case, though you could not prove the opposite either. That would be very, omniscient of you to do so. I'm just saying, I believe it is feasible that we are all connected in a way that is not readily apparent, and would describe why many facial expressions and non-verbal vocal expressions (gasps, chuckles, Hey!'s) remain very similar in different cultures and languages. Even prior to the internet age. Please don't confuse this with, "There is only One and the rest are pawns" type of hive mind. More like, we are connected on a mental plane that is hard to describe due to it's intangible nature and the mysteries of the mind, but I've witnessed some things that make me ponder those mysteries. It's hard to determine what is coincidence sometimes.

>
>>
>>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.

Fair enough. Skepticism is healthy, yes. And I suppose I was aiming that argument more on the Anti-theists rather than the Atheists. I find that many people hide behind clinical "reality" because it is more comfortable. When we can rely on doctors, politicians, and scientists to define our reality for us, then we don't have to worry as much and have more time for T.V. and video games. Speaking of Scientists, it seems many members of NASA have had experiences with many similarities to some of the things I've noted on. But hey, those friggin astronauts must had gravity-shifts damage their brains or something cause it doesn't match the empirical schematics of logic 4.01 as agreed upon by the richest of universities. Okay, I suppose I tend to use wordings that makes me sound like a smart ass. It's not meant to be offensive, it's just the only way I know how to send a jolt in people's sometimes rigid frames of mind. I could probably use some more education on some things, but who couldn't eh? (Here's the NASA link) http://www.upworthy.com/some-strange-things-are-happening-to-astronauts-returning-to-earth?g=3&c=ufb1
>
>>
>>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.

Alright, alright. I use the term Atheist incorrectly, you're right (again). But then, would you agree that I would kick a nihilists ass with this argument? (joke) But seriously, what you are arguing doesn't negate what I was saying. INDEED! Empathy is the reason why we cannot do whatever we want, because what other people want also has weight in what happens between us all. Wait a minute, does that "connect" us in some sense? Now then, what I'm saying is, do we empathize merely on an instinctual level of survival? Can anger or love be traced down to an ionic property of a molecule? Or because we have metaphorical hearts or souls? Do you love your family and friends because you fear a world alone? Or because you actually love them? Also hard to answer with empiricism, but I think that's what the real power of faith is. To love your wife simply because you want to love her, not because of some factual meaning or logic, per say.
>
>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.

Ehh...You ARE energy sir! It makes everything do everything! as in E=mc2, where the 2 is smaller and levitates above the c. Energy can make you do a lot of things, for instance, a hot enough blast of energy could make you evaporate! I know, I took you slightly out of context, but that's cause you did to me quite a few times, so, nyah!

>
>>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.

No, no, actually, I do remain ignorant on that one, unless of course, you find some definition or clause in a dictionary that makes that sentence seem illogical. I was referring to the origin of the conscious eye, which is a cooler way of saying consciousness. I do not know the origin of consciousness, and am willing to say that neither do you, and that we both remain agnostic as to what the answer to question is "What is the origin of consciousness". Right? Or would you like to enlighten us?

>>
>
>I wrote this very quickly and right before bed. I feel my
>brain was damage somewhat by the nonsense that was spouted.
>
Obviously, because you did not conjugate the word damage correctly, thus nullifying any significant meaning to the entire statement. (feels good, right?). It's like you're a computer programmer, a guy uses a wrong word and the entire paragraph is SYNTAX ERROR : DESCRIPTOR "Agnostic" returned INVALID VALUE, cannot relate MEANING within CONTEXT PERIMETER

>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.

Cheers! And you know, I can tell I'm not as educated as thee, though I get a kick out of kicking the walls of perception and getting reactions. One could say it's slightly trollish, but that's also a matter of opinion. All in all, no hard feelings and you did put me in my place on a few things, so I'm glad! I knew this community would have some thinkers amongst them...