Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

by Nate Merit 73 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Nate Merit

  Hi jgnat
  
  At least it was a real piano playing, not Midi. Midi is worse than elevator music.
  
  I like vanilla better than chocolate.
  
  Nate
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hello Narkissos
  
  I primarily say Mystery myself, because that is what It is.
  
  Thanks for dropping in.
  Nate
• 

  zen nudist

  I became a pan-me-ist when I realized that I am a manifestation of the whole of reality and everything I know is my own minds invention so there really is nothing but me in existance... and all of you are just aspects of me.
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Hi Nate and welcome!

  I'm an agnostic. I believe there is a top-god-entity, but this god is not worthy of nor desirus of our adulation and worship.

  I believe in Christ and Buddha, but I consider myself neither Christian nor Buddhist.

  I believe in other sub-dieties like the Masters Kwan Yin, Dwal Kuhl, etc., including Hawaiian Dieties (I owe Mdm Pele an obeysance).

  I am very spiritual in my actions and opinions and beliefs.
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  Yet I touch the Mystery every day.

  Good term. I call that the Universes. Plural.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Hi Nate,

  Ever see that poster of the Pleiadian beamship over a tree with the words "I Want To Believe" under it? A small part of me resonates with that sentiment in regards to "God". If it weren't for that, I'd be a full blown atheist. I don't believe there's any evidence for a personal god. Most of our reality (if not all of it), can be explained without the supernatural. Even from a young age, I didn't really find myself moved to believe in anything supernatural [ edit: by that I mean like demons, angels, Big J ]. I guess alot of that has to do with growing up in a religiously divided household. At the same time though, I'm still drawn to the possibility of a god or a "greater reality". Rationally, I acknowledge our own limitations in perceiving material reality, and the degree of subjectivity involved just with that. We simply may not have the tools (and maybe never will) to detect "god" or any non-material aspect of "reality". Its enough of a question, to make me reserve judgment and move over to the edge of agnosticism. Beyond that, I only have this bit of a feeling, a desire. But thats enough to make me want to explore.
• 

  jgnat

  Hey, Nate. The link was mostly for defd's benefit. JW's have a soft spot for pretty pictures. A bit of a poke in the eye from the Babylon contingent.
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hello Gary Buss
  
  I recall a nursery-rhyme character saying: "A word means precisely what I wish it to mean, nothing more and nothing less."
  
  If we invent our own meanings to words, communication/dialogue becomes impossible.
  
  We learn the meanings of words as we interact with other human beings while growing up. Meanings emerge in a shared social context, not a purely private context. You have invented your own meaning for 'mystic' which is not the shared meaning. It is your own private meaning. You are, of course, free to define words any way you please, just be aware that doing so will make meaningful dialogue with you more and more difficult until at last you inhabit your own world with your own private language which the rest of cannot share.
  
  I cannot read your mind, but I can hazard an intelligent guess as to why you have concocted your own meaning for 'mystic.' Since no one can live up to your private definition, your ideas remain safe and unassailable. It is rather like the type of kid we all grew up knowing, the one who at the last moment in a losing game suddenly changes the rules, or invents his own rules, so that he 'wins' no matter what. Fortunately, as we grew older, our childhood games became supervised by adults who enforced group-accepted and group-defined rules, and the irritating "rules are what I say they are" kid had to play by the rules or go play with himself. (Double entendre)
  
  As much of a non-conformist and individualist that I am, I recognize the need to use language in it's group context. I cannot, as you do, mimic the WTBTS and redefine words so that I 'win.' You and your pals at the Skeptical Inquirer can laugh and pat yourselves on the back that "no true mystics exist." At least, as defined by your own artifically concocted definition.
  
  So, since you have made it clear that dialogue with you is a waste of time, have a good day,
  
  Nate
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hello AlmostAtheist
  
  "I can't see any evidence for a true, interested deity, nor can I see any benefit to be had from pursuing a relationship with one."
  
  Neither can I. That's why I used the very nebulous phrase 'divinity.' To have a subjective experience of this Mystery is not exactly the same as having a relationship. I can experience ice-cream but I cannot have a personal relationship with it. So too with the Divine Mystery.
  
  Thank you for posting AlmostAtheist.
  Nate
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hi Daystar!
  
  You wrote:
  
  "I believe in the power of archtypal symbolism within the human psyche, but don't believe in their objective counterparts. I think belief in the objectivity of such beings to be superstitious remnants of the monkey (or lizard) minds"
  
  I concur. I've learned a lot from the great genius Carl Gustav Jung. He and Joseph Campbell are the great superluminaries that enabled me to find an intelligent spirituality fit for a modern human.
  
  Thanks for stopping by and posting!
  
  Nate