On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 06:09:10 GMT, okamuraNO at SPAMapexmail.com (Okamura)
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:52:57 GMT, flannel at mindless.com (Flannel)
>wrote:
>>>As far as agnosticism being intellectually superior, how would I know?
>>I'm an agnostic. Agnostics are ignorant. For myself, I choose the
>>terms agnostic and agnosticism because they appear to be the most
>>accurate terms to describe me and my outlook.
>>For the record since my last splurge at this NG I have changed
>classification albeit not changed that much philosopohically. I now
>class myself as a Philosophical Taoist.
Your heretic!! or is it apostate? Well, we won't burn you at the
stake till we sort out which one you are. (Darn red tape!)
>Most people don't know what
>the hell that means in relation to anything (well AFAIK) so not as
>many preconceived notions. But a Phil. Taoist is inherently agnostic
>anyways..
I read the Tao (which I always pronounce wrong) a couple of years ago.
I found it to be very enjoyable. I usually think of it as good poetry
although it probably isn't technically. The part that sticks with me
that I usually find beneficial is a line that goes something like:
"The tao that is spoken and the tao that is thought is not the actual
tao."
(that probably isn't anywhere near an exact quote but I think its
close enough for the meaning to stay intact.)
>>Agnostic and atheist can be overlapping terms. I know weak atheist
>>that state that they are also technically agnostic and agnostics that
>>state that they are technically weak atheist. Their viewpoints seem
>>to be nearly identical with the main difference being the label they
>>choose to call themselves. I'm not going to quibble over labels.
>>Come on, it is usually the backbone of all atheist/agnostic NG
>posts... that and theist trolls.
Well, yeah. If you took away the arguements about labels and the
trolls there wouldn't be many posts.
>>>Personally, I don't know if there is a god or not. As to whether it
>>is likely there is a god, that depends on what kind of god you are
>>talking about. Are you talking about the old gods that were numerous
>>and fallible, or the western version of god that is singular,
>>omnipotent, etc; or one of those fairly new definitions of god such as
>>"god is the sum total of the universe" or "god is collective of
>>physical laws that determine the universe?" God is a vague term and
>>agnostic is flexible enough term to answer it. I use it because it
>>is a useful term that addresses more than just god. I use the term to
>>mean that I don't see the big picture. Is there a big picture?
>>Soliphicism could be correct as far as I know.
>>I used to know what that mean, now I am clueless.
><Okamura browses a dictionary>
>Oh, I see. But going by this overly generalised definition you would
>believe only in yourself.
I wouldn't neccessarily phrase it like that, but its accurate enough.
Soliphicism, as I understand it, is basically the outlook where
everthing is an illusional creation of the soliphicist.
It appears to me that there are forms of Buddism that seem to follow
somewhere along those lines. I believe it is expressed in the form of
"everything is maya" or something like that.
> Have you changed your belief in this
>regard? Like last time I talked to you you had doubts over your own
>existence (IIRC).
I'm not sure it would be called a belief, but yes my viewpoint is
still the same. I still have a doubt as to whether I exist. (And it
still seems wierd when I read that. It always appears, at least to
me, to give the impression that I have more doubt than I actually do.
Oh well.)
I don't spend as much time examining that doubt as much, even though
it is still there. But whenever I do, I find that it tends to be a
pleasurable evening. I guess that I am easily amused.
Lately, and this is really getting off topic, I have been brushing up
on my studying of evolution. If you remember, and you may not, I'm
not a big evolution enthusiast. I generally find that it is an
extremely boring subject. I find the general parts of it interesting
but when one starts getting into the details...well.... I'd rather
watch grass grow.
Anyway, I find evolution very hard to swallow, which is one thing, but
the part that really fasicnates me is a single pregnancy. Evolution,
in a nutshell, a single cell species evolves eventually into the much
more complex human species in a very, very long time period. Human
pregnancy, in a nutshell, a single cell develops into a human being in
nine months. Everything being equal, I would give more credence to
babies being delivered by storks than the whole pregnancy thing if it
weren't for all the pregnant women I've known.
>>> I don't use agnostic to portray some logical superiority, I use it to
>>attempt an accurate portrayal of ignorance. I don't have the big
>>answers. I don't trust anyone who claims to have the big answers. I
>>live in ignorance, not because of choice, but IMHO, ignorance is our
>>inherent state. Any thing and possibly everything that I might think
>>could be wrong. That, to me, is agnosticism.
>>Just out of curiousity do you use agnostic more widely as an adjective
>for anything which your agnosticism lends its uncertainty upon?
>Like, "Do you think that we have a soul?", "Well, I am kinda agnostic
>on that point."
In normal conversation, I generally only use the term when asked if I
am a christian (happens about once a week.) My reply is, "No, I'm
agnostic." Interestingly enough, there are two responses. One is to
ask what I mean by that (I consider this to be the inteligent
response.) The other is the person tells me what I meant by that (and
when I tell the person that he is using a different meaning than the
one I intended, he tells me that I don't know what I am talking about)
>>I have a deep distrust of anyone who is not insecure.
>> Roger A. Bird
>>Still?? Ahhh well.
Roger Bird posted that on alt.agnosticism a while back. I have no
idea who the guy actually is, but he said he wasn't agnostic and he
only posted for a couple of days, but his little line seemed to sum up
my view of agnosticism. Actually, I'm kind of mad that he posted it
instead of me.
Flannel
*******
Those are my principals. If you don't like them, I have others.
-Groucho Marx
