Nate Merit

Joined

• started 30 topics
• posted 687 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Nate Merit

• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hi Zen Nudist
  
  Having been a Soto Zen priest who helped found Hongaku Jodo ( a Pure Land Buddhist sect) I grok with your statement, as far as it goes. Words really are simply fingers pointing to the moon.
  
  Can I be Everything too? Ah, you weren't referring to the little false-self running around? Good.
  
  Thanks for posting!
  
  nate
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hi Smiles_Smiles
  
  You wrote:
  
  Well, I really don't like to be catagorize as any certain thing or put under any certain group heading. With that said I do believe in spirituality (for lack of a better word). I read and have read everything from christian to buddhist to hindu to mystical stuff to taoism (which I am enjoying right now). I like to stay open to and enjoy all the possibilities. And believe in what ever feels right in that regard for the moment knowing that it may change tomorrow. Open to everything but attached to nothing.

  And as far as 'opinions(beliefs)' go ... they seem to be like assholes ... everybody has 'em.

  So I just try to enjoy and honor each person's belief/opinion and live my own momentary belief authentically.
  
  This is marvelous! I love youur openess and freewheeling way. I confess to sharing much of your approach.
  
  Thanks for dropping by and posting!
  Nate
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hi Greendawn
  
  You wrote:
  
  "I am a theist but I have the impression that most people here are atheists with a portion of them being antitheists which means they hold the view that science has already proved that god doesn't exist. Other atheists are more like agnostics since they allow a slim possibility that one day science may prove that god exists."
  
  I can't see how science could ever prove the existence of God. God is not within the realm of science, and that's a good thing. I think. Regardless, I think God is a term that has been spoiled by Theists. It has so many violent and insane associations (just look at the recent quotation by Pat Robertson! He is not a rarity) that it is best dropped entirely. I have a visceral negative reaction to the word.
  
  There are other socially-defined meanings that are reletively free of kooky associations, such as Ground of Being, Divine Mystery, etc. I prefer one of those. Unless or until they too become corrupted by the religiously insane.
  
  Thabnks for dropping by and posting.
  
  Nate
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hi Jourles
  
  You wrote:
  "Agnostic here. As with most things in my life, I prefer to keep my options open."
  
  
  I like it. If you're on AOL you should use that as your personal quote in your profile.
  
  Thank you for posting!
  Nate
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hello Kid A
  
  Thank you for the welcome. I've been having a lot of fun interacting with everyone here. I should have done this long before now.
  
  This is my proverb about battling fundamentalists: "Debating a fundamentalist is like boxing a robot. No matter how skilled, clever, quick and experienced you are, the mindless robot simply keeps adavancing until you are exhausted."
  
  Have a great weekned.
  Nate
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hey Big Willy
  
  "I identify myself as mostly apathetic with strong anti-christian leanings "
  
  
  
  
  
  The freaking evil hateful spiteful literally DELUSIONAL Pat Robertson is the quintessential Christian Egomaniac run amuck.
  
  Nate
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nate Merit

  Hello Outaservice
  
  I'm pleased you are out of the grasp of the WTBTS.
  
  I too am a Christian in that I practice my spirituality in the context of the Christian Mythos.
  
  Please try to investigate the lives of others who seriously practice their paths. You will find they live lives of gradual transformation as well. Christianity has no monoply on such things.
  
  If you investigate the life of a nominal Buddhist, you will not find much to impress you, same as if a devout Buddhist were to look at the life of a nominal Christian. Christian mainly have evangelistic success amongst other religious folks who are simply nominal Buddhists, Hindus, etc. The same with Buddhists and Hindus seeking converts among Christians. They mainly succeed with only with nominal Christians.
  
  You might wish to investigate a nonliteral approach to Christianity. Then again, you may not. If so, send me a PM and let me know.
  
  All the best to you,
  Nate
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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
• 
  73

  Are Most Folks Here Agnostics and Atheists?

  by Nate Merit in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  that's the overall impression i get from reading the posts.

  i'm very new here, so i could be mistaken.

  if i am, my apologies.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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