Alright, it's not that I feel a real need to stereotype myself into a specific group or philosophy, but I really need someone to explain what exactly I qualify as.

My general thoughts of the world and my morals are that thought processes are superior to belief processes, and that I should believe as little as possible, since I think that beliefs are generally dangerous and place limits on your mind. Therefore, religious-wise, I'm definitely not Christian, but I'm not atheist, as atheism applies to believing that there is no God. Some have said I'm an agnostic or skeptic, but I'm not really sure about either.

I kind of feel like I'm going into unexplored territory, even though I know of people that live by my values- for instance, the band Tool regularly spreads this message of anti-belief, and the movie Dogma discusses the topic.

I do not think that there is an afterlife, as I take a purely scientific approach to death... once the mind ceases to function, awareness is gone. I feel the reason many people hope for an afterlife is because the possibility of simply not existing at all is simply beyond the brain's comprehension, and the hole in human logic must be filled. This is where the agnostic in me comes in, because I think that things like death the human mind simply cannot grasp, and thus, there are things beyond human understanding.

My social compass is very objectionist, but only in the sense that if someone wants you to do something that you don't want to do, you don't. In other words, if you truly feel you should do it, then you should do it, regadless of whether someone else wants you to. It's a simple noncomformist credo.

Anyone have any idea what philosophy these ideas fall into? Please respond!

QUOTE

Alright, it's not that I feel a real need to stereotype myself into a specific group or philosophy, but I really need someone to explain what exactly I qualify as.

I would have to say from that basically your confused, your statement above shows this confusion.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a bad thing, infact it's a much better state to be in than one where you are too confident of your position and push your views on to others. I question everything, all the time, and I don't stop until I am happy with the answers, or I know enough to answer my own questions.

There is an interesting contradiction in your post, you say:

QUOTE

My general thoughts of the world and my morals are that thought processes are superior to belief processes,

but then you contradict yourself:

QUOTE

My social compass is very objectionist, but only in the sense that if someone wants you to do something that you don't want to do, you don't. In other words, if you truly feel you should do it, then you should do it, regadless of whether someone else wants you to.

So what are you saying here, are thoughts more important than beliefs? I don't think so, although i'm struggling with the same argument in my head all the time.

I feel that thoughts are becomming secondary to feelings for me. They are a way of translating the feelings/beliefs/desires into language and enable you to communicate those feelings to others, but they do not originate anything in themselves.

With regard to what philosophy your ideas fall into; they fall into your own philosophy, and that's all they need to do.

Don't follow others, learn from them and then present your own view.

  The problem with the whole thing is this: I get really tired of explaining myself to people, you know? It's hard to have to spout my thoughts on life everytime someone asks my religion or philosophy. That's what genres are for: not to stereotype but to shortcut.
 
  I'm just asking: am I onto something that hasn't been done yet? I think I'm just looking at things from a scientific standpoint, and that's not changing anything. I'm not saying thought processes are nesacarilly better than beliefs, but there is scientific evidence that belief systems lead to your thoughts being controlled by those systems. Once you succumb to belief systems, your mind literally "shuts down" certain areas, since your beliefs have done the thinking for you.

  I know that my philosophy will be different than any other preset, I'm just asking for something that's close so I don't have to go through all the trouble of explaining myself.

QUOTE

I'm not saying thought processes are nesacarilly better than beliefs, but there is scientific evidence that belief systems lead to your thoughts being controlled by those systems. Once you succumb to belief systems, your mind literally "shuts down" certain areas, since your beliefs have done the thinking for you.

Really? have you got a link to web pages about this, or any references I could look up? I would be interested to read up on this.

I feel that the beliefs that I have, have not been implanted and are controlling my thoughts, rather the other way around. I subscribe to a belief because I think it explains the things I felt were true anyway.

However I take your point, and I will keep questioning.

As for your pigeon hole, i would guess at existentialism, see if you recognise your self in the following excerpt:

The existentialist...thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be a priori of God, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is that we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible. That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. --Jean Paul Sartre

"This sort of behavior is left to the psychotic, dogmatic, fundamentalist believers you see on T.V. everyday letting off bombs and killing people in the name of God. Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing." - excerpt linear notes from 'AEnima', Tool.

Go to http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm for some scientific analysis.

"Think for yourself. Question authority. Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself. Think for yourself. Question authority." - Timothy Leary

Whew... I've heard some bad stuff about existentialism. I've never heard a clear definition of what it IS. I probably never will. Feel free to try to give one, but it will probably be wrong, as most people can't explain it.

By the way, the Tool excerpt I posted.... I have the full print, which is very long....

"The anesthetic state produced does not fit into the conventional classification of stages of anesthesia, but instead produces a state of unconsciousness which has been termed "dissociative" anesthesia in that it appears to selectively interrupt association pathways to the brain before producing somesthetic sensory blockage. In contrast to other anesthetics, protective reflexes, such as coughing and swallowing are maintained under anesthesia. Variations in body temperature may occur. Although some salivation is occasionally noted, the persistence of the swallowing reflex aids in minimizing the hazards associated with pytalism. Single intramuscular injection usually has a wide margin of safety select patience. Fasting prior to induction is not essential; however, when preparing for elective surgery, it is advisable to withhold food for at least six hours prior to administration. Restraint in subhuman primate neonates is difficult to achieve. The recommended restraint dosages for the following are: Papio cynocephalus, Pongo pygmaeus, 5 to 7.5 mg/kg; Aotus trivirgatus 10 to 12 mg/kg, Macaca facicularis 12 to 15 mg/kg. A single intramuscluar injection produces restraint suitable for TB testing; radiography, physical examination or blood collection. To reduce the incidence of emergence reactions, subjects should not be stimulated by sound or handling during the recovery period. Apnea, respiratory arrest, cardiac arrest and death have occasionally been reported when used in conjunction with sedatives or other anesthetics. Close monitoring of patients is strongly advised during induction, maintenance and recovery. Timothy Leary identified a genetic type whose future circuits have begun to be activated and coined them FUTANTS. Futants are naturally selected to facilitate survival by being adapted to explore the future and take risks through their genetic characteristics. Unless we provide a proper environment of freedom in which this positive genetic type can be recognized, operate in and the dross be separated from the valuable information, we will be depriving the race of a vital resource. Every time a scientist, philosopher, artist, or athlete pushes our threshold to new ground the entire race evolves. Ritual Magik is a system of disciplines and exercises aimed at activating parts of the mind we might normally never use (about 85%). Through this system of better understanding of ourselves is attained. No true Ritual Magician has ever sacrificed life, drank goats blood, or taken part in any other stupid urban legend ritual. This sort of behavior is left to the psychotic, dogmatic, fundamentalist believers you see on your T.V. everyday letting off bombs and killing people in the name of God. Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.... "

I have no idea who originally said this, or if it was written by Tool themselves. Much of it is not understandable to a scientific layman until near the end. Odd and enlightening.

         

Thanks, I'll go and look this up.

You're right about not being able to define existentialism. here's a webpage that does the opposite and tells you what it is not:
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html#basics

QUOTE

"This sort of behavior is left to the psychotic, dogmatic, fundamentalist believers you see on T.V. everyday letting off bombs and killing people in the name of God. Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing." - excerpt linear notes from 'AEnima', Tool.

As much as I like Tool, I have trouble seeing Maynard as a philosopher and is as contradictary as the next man.

I hesitate to paste the whole of Lateralus in here as an example, oh what the hell, i like it  

QUOTE

Black then white are all I see in my infancy. red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me. lets me see. As below, so above and beyond, I imagine drawn beyond the lines of reason. Push the envelope. Watch it bend. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind. Withering my intuition, missing opportunities and I must Feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines. Black then white are all I see in my infancy. red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me. lets me see there is so much more and beckons me to look through to these infinite possibilities. As below, so above and beyond, I imagine drawn outside the lines of reason. Push the envelope. Watch it bend. Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind. Withering my intuition leaving all these opportunities behind. Feed my will to feel this moment urging me to cross the line. Reaching out to embrace the random. Reaching out to embrace whatever may come. I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm, to feel connected enough to step aside and weep like a widow to feel inspired, to fathom the power, to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain, to swing on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human. With my feet upon the ground I lose myself between the sounds and open wide to suck it in, I feel it move across my skin. I'm reaching up and reaching out, I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me. And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been. We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been. Spiral out. Keep going, going...

Just to add a foot note:

We could argue belief Vs Thought all day long. What we need to do is step back from this. Experience is the only reality here, without it; thought and belief exist just as faith.

 If Existentialism is what this says, which means that nature typically is aginanst man, and the only truly good way to live is to work against it, then I am Existentialist. However, nowhere in the realm of Existentialism do my anti-belief thoughts come into play that I can find. Maybe another part of my philosophy is in some other "ism."

 About Existentialism...... I agree with much of the Existentialist thought supplied by your link. However, as of late, Existentialism really has no meaning to me. Saying "I'm Existentialist" requires you to explain what that means, and I'm pretty sure I can't do that without (A) another Existentialist saying I'm wrong about Existentialism, or ( just plain being wrong about Existentialism. It's a lot like being Transcendentalist. I remember studying the Transcendentalist writing period, and wondering why they couldn't explain it to me. I can't be something I can't rightfully explain.

By the way, if you haven't, I suggest you and anyone else who is reading this to read the graphic novel Watchmen by Alan Moore. Yes, it is a comic book.... but it has changed my life.

QUOTE

However, nowhere in the realm of Existentialism do my anti-belief thoughts come into play that I can find.

I thought occurs to me, i don't think you are anti belief. I think like me, you are anti religion; which is a different thing altogether.

QUOTE

Saying "I'm Existentialist" requires you to explain what that means, and I'm pretty sure I can't do that

It's a difficult subject, unless you talk with others that have the same level of understanding it will take work to explain it. So pigeon holing your self is probably no better than saying you don't prescribe to anyones definition.

 I used to think so too, that I was only anti-religion.... but the thing is, beliefs can be abused as they are religiously in all sorts of ways. I think that to believe is to take things for granted. I understand that belief may be required for some things, but I try to avoid it at all costs. Maybe it's just the problem with probability that even science can't explain....

 Lemme put it this way, in the way it was presented in Watchmen: Think about the probability of your best friend, of a single sperm out of thousands happening to penetrate a specific egg in order to create the embryo that became that person, the probability of all the events in that persons's life happening the way they did. It's scientific proof that life is a miracle, the thermodynamic miracle. The ever-changing probability of all events in the past causing the present is proof that the truly impossible thing with an astronomical probability of happening is possible.

 There's some food for thought.

Okay, i'm going to stop projecting onto you now, very bad of me, sorry.  :-[

For my own sanity, reflection, and learning though, I would like to ask you what you think of this premise:

Thought and belief are one in the same, they are only revealed through experience, and lead to a knowing that something is true at a fundamental level.

Just reading through the article you recommended:

QUOTE

Note that in most instances, one can replace the word "believe" with the word "think". For example: "I believe it will rain tonight." can transpose into: "I think it will rain tonight." ... Belief represents a type of mental thought, a subclass of many kinds of mental activity. Thinking may or may not include beliefs or faiths. Therefore, when I use the word "think" I mean it to represent thought absent of belief.

This is interesting, I don't draw the distinction between thought and belief in the way i think. My choice to use the different words is purely down to the subject matter.

At least i think/feel that this is the case, i'll have to keep watch...

 I admit that both thought and belief rely on experience, but they are definitely not one and the same. I've seen first hand how beliefs literally shut down sections of your brain. When you explain yourself to a typical Christian, they don't listen or try to understand your side. They shut you out, because their beliefs override any thoughts on the subject.
 
 Beliefs can be changed, but that involves a change in lifestyle. Thoughts are simple to change, you just change your mind.

 I make a habit of saying "I think" instead of "I believe" because it actually makes you do so. You do it subconsciously, but you start simply having ideas about these subjects instead of beliefs.

I'd say that a belief can be a type of thought, but a thought is not necessarily a belief. As for belief vs. thought, you seem to be advocating rational thought over a belief system. It all comes down to personal choice - either/or, or a mix of both. I think belief helps to get a handle on life - I wouldn't say I know that the sun will come up tommorow, but I believe it will, because that way i don't spend all my time worrying whether it will or not. I don't see any reason to do that. With religion, I don't mind people being believers - that's their truth and I'm not the one to go around saying 'I'm right and your wrong (except when i get annoyed, and then I regret it) - as long as they realise it's not for me and don't try to press it on me.

I have enjoyed reading the posts above, [and Hi, Agnostic4now - welcome to the site].

I have given thought to some of the aspects raised.
I don't believe in a God as portrayed in the literature or by any religion.

I seek to identify that in which I will KNOW, holds the Truth.
I don't yet have a belief, except that whatever caused us to BE was marvellous beyond comprehension [so far]. I doubt that I will find the Truth!

Some, seeking the Truth, identify a 'premise' [somebody elses thoughts]that fits their thoughts and/or experiences and accept such premise as their belief.
Some just automatically copy their parents or friends beliefs.
Some seeking the Truth, fail to find it, so they choose an existing 'premise' and accept that as their 'belief', so that they are more free to get on with their lives [but at the cost of being blinkered or dangerous if wrong, as has been pointed out].
The rest are like me and you, ie., still seeking.

So, I think that beliefs are basically what we end up with after we think about the topic. Beliefs are the results of thinking!
You may or may not feel confident to continue searching.
In my opinion, a person continuing to search for the truth, takes far more responsibilty in life.
After all, the way you behave, is the way you choose to behave, not just the carrying out of pre-programmed responses or actions. [I'll bet you follow principles that are laid down in at least one existing religion, though].
So, I suppose I am saying that ones present behaviour effectively defines ones present 'Faith', without it even being categorised eg., Isalm, Christian.

You should, therefore, feel proud and strong in your present beliefs, but you should also take into consideration the thoughts of other people, and the reactions you receive. By the way, you are under no obligation to disclose your present thoughts [feelings or beliefs] to anyone, except perhaps a possible life-long partner. A suitably vague answer, like 'Christian principles' serves very well to give an indication of the direction in which you tend to operate.

Just to show the confusing situations which can arise, I being a 'non-believer' have written poems aimed at believers, which are intended to convey supportive messages. Is this hypocrisy?

I have not the slightest disrespect for any believer, including terrorists.
Terrorists fall into one of the categories I listed above, and their actions show quite clearly the potential dangers of Faith.
I have not the slightest respect for those who preach in a way which produces terrorists through brainwashing, or false promise of '72 virgins in Paradise', if they kill innocent people by suicidal acts.
Best regards, Bill.

I would say that you could fall into one of the following categories:

1) Rationalist
2) Realist
3) Objectivist

All of the above emphasize the scientific method, reason, and logic in human understanding.

From a moral perspective, it is difficult to say without further clarification.  You don't believe in God and you think that institutionalized systems of belief are detrimental to the believer.

It could be that you are a secular humanist.  This is how I would like to classify myself, but I have reservations regarding its enlightenment optimism.

QUOTE

I have not the slightest respect for those who preach in a way which produces terrorists through brainwashing, or false promise of '72 virgins in Paradise', if they kill innocent people by suicidal acts. I don't yet have a belief, except that whatever caused us to BE was marvellous beyond comprehension

You sound confused Bill. You have no respect for the creation but the creator whoever he/it is is marvelous?
The same marvelous creator created all that be including the terrorist who kills innocent people.
But then you don't have a belief in he/it being real or not real. It's safe to reamain uncommitted, but you often contadict yourself.
Which brings up the topic of giving a label to Agnostic4now!?
Agno' you're not seriously considering taking on someones label are you about what or who you are?
Who am I? I know I'll ask someone................
 Chances are if you follow your own train of thoughts you are going to end up going back to your own opinions about yourself regardless of what anyone else says, even if someone knows you better than you do.

Joe, he wasn't asking to be defined by someone else.  He was merely asking if there was some name which corresponds to his pre-existing worldview.

Secondly, and in response to Agnostic4Now:

In your first post you argued that atheism is the positive belief that there is no God, which is the negation of the positive belief of theism that there is a God.  Therefore, on the basis that atheism, like theism, is a system of belief, you are reluctant to associate yourself with it.  This is a common concern for many non-believers, but it is one that, as I will try to show, is unfounded.

For something to be rightly considered a belief, a positive assertion about something must be made.  Imagine a hypothetical man born on an Island and who has never had any human contact.  Such a man might never come to formulate the concept of God and as such could not be considered a theist.  He holds no positive assertion about the existence of God.  If he were to suddenly be rescued from his island and introduced to the doctrine of God, he would have to choose between two options: 1) accept the positive assertion of theism, or 2) deny that assertion.  In the case of 1) we can say that he has adopted a belief (God exists), but in the case of 2) it would be incorrect to assume that he has adopted a contrary belief (God does not exist).  In choosing 2) he has not entered into a belief in something, but rather has chosen to remain without belief.  Atheism in this sense is the absense of belief.  It is not a positive claim like theism, as some would construe it; it is in fact the denial of a positive claim.  If someone were to tell me that a purple unicorn is floating in the other room, it would be silly to say that my disbelief of such a statement constitutes a positive claim that should be evaluated as an alternative to other positive claims.  My position with respect to some purple floating unicorn is no position at all.  A belief, to be properly considered a belief, must be a positive claim.  Positive claims, if they are not tautologies or truisms, are falsifiable and therefore testable.  It is not inappropriate to be incredulous to positive claims (God exists) when evidence for such a claim is lacking.  It is the responsibility of the intellectually honest individual to remain skeptical about every positive claim until its veracity or probability has been sufficiently established.  Where some atheists err, is when they make the positive claim that the existence of God is not possible.  The impossibility of God is not something that is provable, but this does not mean we ought to believe in such a concept.

Way too much thinking there Tim.
Since the beginning of time man has beheld the wonder of creation and the instinct that there is a connection not only to themselves but the entire world around them. Nature in itself seems to have a sytem of self regeneration or preservation and the ability to recover even when man gets to thinking he can destroy it or rise above it in arrogance and superiority.
These things in the world have led the mind to wonder about what creates and maintains such a dynamic presence in the world about them, and in themselves.
Even in the darkness of negativity, man looks to a presence that has either been responsible or not responsible for the affects that cause mans suffering in the creation about him.
Without cause and without the presence of books or religion the very idea of God is inherant in the heart and sought in the mind of man.
Religions are formed from beliefs that man needs to do something to find favor and gain relief from suffering, as well as following of magnetic personalities that eminate the same presence that has drawn man to wonder.

You and your absence of belief is in itself a belief. Where one stands on the soap box singing the praise of God, you stand on yours protesting the inner faith that resides in humanity only because you have lost yours.
People like you are as common as those that follow others without their own experience, to believe what others tell them, the ones that fuel the hope that there is something alive within them and creation that inspires hope and faith. You and they are no different both want proof, but the ones that deny any presence are just plain angry at God for their own misery and need to find a reason that there is no God to end their suffering, no presence within nature and creation that is bigger than their anger and their suffering and self pity.
This type of thinking is self defeating and weak. It's easy to say what you say that there is no proof that God exists outside of belief but it is easy to say there is no proof that God doesn't exist.
It would all be relative to your point of view and your beliefs.
 Beliefs cloud the innocence of what is inside of you and all around you. The more you think you know about the world and God the less you can know of God for you layer ideas that are limited to sensory perceptions and memories laced in stress and learned opinions.
What I haven't heard from you is what you know rather than what you believe. You stay in the center of the field and play in niether reality because there is no commitment to your ideas and no direction as you wait and tiptoe around your own creation of your world, hoping to find someone to validate you and your perspective.
You and Agnostic4now are both looking for an answer to your question of reality and a definition that will feel good to you.
There's nothing to look for it is right in front of you and you continue to try and ignore it and give a rational name for the ignorance, all the while trying to look intelligent by spinning the wheels of the intellect to try and paint a picture of intelligence.
The lines of division have always been constantly repainted by the likes of you. Few will ever erase the lines and draw the halves together to really see the totality of themselves in the world and realise God within themselves and as a result rise above beliefs and judgment.
Continue to preach the teachings of others and the books they write or stand in your own right and state what you know or don't say anything at all if you can't say it comes from you.
You sound like you are trying to convince yourself more than making any convincing statement that anyone might agree with as anything other than hypothetical and politically correct.

Ok, you lot have worried me a bit here, am I missing out on the big weight attached to the word belief ???
Why is it so important to you?

I have to admit that the article that agno referred me to:http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm made me mad with anger and I couldn't read all of it feeling that it was bullshit.

Perhaps i'm better off keeping my view of belief as being unimportant in my life and equal to thought.

Bubba

QUOTE

Way too much thinking there Tim.

Only a person who stands to lose credibility when critical thought is applied to their perspective would make a ridiculous statement like that.

QUOTE

You and your absence of belief is in itself a belief.

The entire point of my previous post was to prove the opposite.  If you wish to make an argument which contravenes those claims, you are welcome to do so, but until that point, I think I have more than sufficiently established my case, and no amount of empty denial will cause me to think otherwise.

QUOTE

Since the beginning of time man has beheld the wonder of creation and the instinct that there is a connection not only to themselves but the entire world around them.

Man has not existed 'since the beginning of time,' nor was man created, nor was this planet.  A basic understanding evolutionary theory and cosmology lay waste to these fallacies.  Furthermore, it does not matter what mankind has traditionally thought about the world in which he exists, most 'traditional' knowledge has been shown to be wrong.

QUOTE

People like you are as common as those that follow others without their own experience, to believe what others tell them, the ones that fuel the hope that there is something alive within them and creation that inspires hope and faith.

This is one nasty sentence fragment.  As it is, it is not even understandable, much like the rest of your 'explanations.'  Somehow I think that even if it were coherent, it would still be categorically wrong.  The fact of the matter is, people like me are not common at all.  Atheists are a small minority world population while theists exist as an overwhelming majority.  It should be interesting to note however, that those proportions reverse themselves as the level of education increases.  That is to say, the ignorant masses predominantly believe in God while the educated minority are more reserved about such concepts.  Draw what inferences you will.

QUOTE

You and they are no different both want proof, but the ones that deny any presence are just plain angry at God for their own misery and need to find a reason that there is no God to end their suffering, no presence within nature and creation that is bigger than their anger and their suffering and self pity.

This is a false generalization and furthermore is irrelevent to whether or not either claim is accurate.  I am not angry at God.  I am not miserable.  I am not suffering and I certainly do not need atheism to relieve this alleged suffering.  I would be thrilled if God existed.  As Pascal said, I have everything to gain and nothing to lose.  I do not believe in God, not because of some inner psychological inadequacy, but because there is no good reason to believe in God.  I think the majority of non-believers feel the same way.  Please stop making these wild and unfounded accusations.

QUOTE

This type of thinking is self defeating and weak. It's easy to say what you say that there is no proof that God exists outside of belief but it is easy to say there is no proof that God doesn't exist. [...] It would all be relative to your point of view and your beliefs. [...] Beliefs cloud the innocence of what is inside of you and all around you. The more you think you know about the world and God the less you can know of God for you layer ideas that are limited to sensory perceptions and memories laced in stress and learned opinions.

This type of articulation is self-defeating and weak.  Your point, if it exists at all, is so obscure and obfuscated that it is damn near impossible to even understand what you are saying--a welcome convenience, to be sure, when your position demands espousing absurdities as frequently as yours does.

QUOTE

What I haven't heard from you is what you know rather than what you believe.

When have you asked?  But I think you just did.  Epistemologically, I tend toward the nominological theory of truth, which is to say I don't really have an epistemology.  My metaphysics affirms only experience qua experience.  My ethics consist of reasoned tolerance and respect for man as a moral end, never a means.  And as Socrates, the ony credo which I consider absolute is the knowledge that I know nothing with certainty.

QUOTE

You and Agnostic4now are both looking for an answer to your question of reality and a definition that will feel good to you.

Wrong again.  If I were looking for an answer that would make me feel good, I would still be religious.

QUOTE

The lines of division have always been constantly repainted by the likes of you. Few will ever erase the lines and draw the halves together to really see the totality of themselves in the world and realise God within themselves and as a result rise above beliefs and judgment.

This is simplistic and says nothing more than that the human mind divides reality, which is exists as an indivisible whole (totality), in order to understand it.  You have yet to show that real knowledge of the whole, or even part of the whole is possible, without this process of division and categorization and even if you could, which I find unlikely considering that many great thinkers before you have tried and failed, you would still have to show that this whole is God.

QUOTE

You sound like you are trying to convince yourself more than making any convincing statement that anyone might agree with as anything other than hypothetical and politically correct.

Don't worry about me Joe.  I am convinced that I have yet to find a good reason to believe in God.  If you think you can change my mind, I welcome the effort, but somehow I think you will revert to ad hominem arguments about my anger toward God and my 'blind' and 'narrow-minded' need for evidence.  Sorry Joe, but I think it's unethical to play fast and lose with the limits of science.

With my Moderators hat firmly in place...

If you guys want to make this personal, argue, attack eachother, and ignore the subject thread, i'm going to start removing your posts.

Take it outside, or at least start a thread for it; Joe Vs Tim or something.

A couple of points I'd like to raise:

agnostic4now, why do you believe that man and nature must be in opposition? It seems obvious to me that the opposite must be true. Man in a product of nature and should learn to live in harmony with it. This does not imply some kind of limp hippy utopia but simply a more integrated attitude to our place in the universe. This is why, for me, existentialism falls down.

Tim, your take on atheism is interesting and probably describes where I'm at, but I can see a small logical flaw - non-belief in A is not the same as belief in not-A, therefore some atheists may argue their position as not the negation of belief, but the belief in negation.

Oh, and I apologise for the rarity of my contributions - I've taken on some projects (website design and business spreadsheets) for a friend, and just don't get the time I'd like to drop in here and keep up.

Ian

Restored thread to last on topic post.

Laz your last post didn't have anything to do with the topic................... >:(




Restored confusion and point of irritation to censorship of posts by moderator.

 Alright, kids.... it's like your fighting over a woman here. Just chill out... I havent been around the board for a while. I appreciate that the thread is taking off like it is. I understand that you aren't fighting, it's just constructive arguing. I don't expect any mindless personal attacks, so don't worry about it Laz.

Absence in belief is not belief. Do I have to define belief for you? I don't believe that I shouldn't believe things, I think I shouldn't believe things. As Chris Rock said in Dogma, "An idea is simple to change, you just change your mind. A belief is trickier. People die for beliefs." Now do you see what I'm saying? All it takes for me to start believing things is for me to accept some sort of logic that makes me feel it's OK to. If I believed that I shouldn't have beliefs, then I would never be open to having them. It makes my options much simpler.

 To all the posters who feel that there is a primary human feeling or instict torward a supreme being existing, I can explain that simply from my point of view. There are holes in human logic (such as nonexistence), ideas that humans cannot comprehend. And there is the agnostic in me. Most people who embrace religion and beliefs must fill that hole, as it is unexplainable. I simply choose not to, and accept that is uncomprehendable by man. Do you remember anything before you were born? No. Because your brain had not been able to comprehend when you were an embryo. Thus, there is no afterlife, only nonexistence, just as before birth. I simply accept that this state of nonexistence is not able to be comprehended by your mind.
 
 There are comments about how beliefs make your life easier. By believing the world is the way it is, and it will stay that way (generally), sections of your brain are shut down. But this is the mistake of belief. As soon as you believe something, you accept the way it is, that it won't change. And when it does, you are forced to change your entire life, such as when a relative or lover dies. You set yourself up for dissappointment, and I don't do that. Nothing should be taken for granted. You may say that pigs won't fly, but think about it this way: the probability of a pig flying as a lot less than the probability of everything that has ever happened leading up to the way the world is right this very second. Anything is possible. You just have to be open to that fact so you can adjust to the miraculous world accordingly.

 ID, you can look at it either way, whether man is working with nature or against it. I just choose to think that man is more like a virus, living off of nature instead of working with it. The idea that this is humankind's choice doesn't work for me. It seems to me that no matter what your way of living is, you're going to live off nature in one way or another, and most likely abuse it, even if unknowingly. Other life forms on Earth have typical trends of population, increases and decreases, but humanity doesn't do this. It has steadily grown and shows no sign of decreasing. The plagues and mass spread of viruses throughout history just seem like failed attempts by nature to stop mankind and its parasitic nature, to remove the tick from the planet.

  Laz, I put emphasis on simply saying "I think" rather than "I believe", because you tend to do what you say, since your subconscious accepts it (as long as you attach the action with your words). I know it sounds silly, but I just make it a habit not to do it, and I  place more thought on things than belief.

 Bill, I would never accept any preconceived notion as a lifestyle. All this thread is meant to do is to open not only my mind but yours, in order to discover the way you and I are. I don't excpect to go around being a textbook philosphy "member." This goes against how I think in almost every way. You also must realize that genres are meant as shortcuts, and stereotypes are meant as biased definitions. It's not me saying I am a certain philosophy, it's the other person stereotyping that philosophy. Stereotyping is another result of taking things for granted.

  Bubba, to say that all I'm living off of others is not only an uninformed statement on your part, but you have failed to judge yourself before judging others. Your beliefs are allowing you to take me, a person you don't even know for granted. Everyone is influenced by something. Are you telling me not to be influenced by anything? Because that makes a person an empty shell, without any thoughts. If people were not meant to influence others, then they wouldn't be able to communicate or even act. You are making an assumption that I am trying to stereotype myself. I am fully aware that no matter what genre I apply to, I won't be a poster boy for that philosophy or religion. I am a person, I think for myself, but thoughts are influenced by others. Would Einstein have accomplished scientific success without former pioneers whose shoulderrs he was able to stand on?

 I appreciate the Existentialist thought that there is no escape from suffering. Your comment that people seek out religion when they want relief from suffering and despair is true, but they will not reach that goal of true happiness. No matter how religious you are, there will be terrible things that will happen to you, and nothing will let you escape that, not money, fame, philosophy, religion, love, or anything else. I don't use philosophy to escape from suffering, because I know it's not possible. I am simply trying to open my mind, as good philosophers do. You say I paint lines of division, but by saying that, your belief in your statement is seperating you from me. By not believing things, I see things for what they are, instead of seperating. Yes, people are different and unique, but that is a product of nature. But I am seeing the totality of things by not believing, since beliefs are the true seperators. But if your belief systems have taken over your mind, none of what I have said will matter, since your beliefs will shut my thoughts out by default. It is the equivalent of the response I so often recieve from Christians. "You're going to hell", "Your opinion will not change me." I don't want to change you. I want you to open your mind. If that changes you, then it changes the world for the better.

 Any more questions or thoughts? As long as we keep biased statements to a low, I will answer any question you offer me.

You assume I make assumptions. This is what you have learned through the influence of others.
You started out in life not as an empty shell but as an infinite being. What you have learned from others is to place the shell around you paint it and label what is inside as finite.

I will answer any question you have no matter how absurd or combative because I see and know no evil or boundary that another may place on me or themselves.
What I am cannot be influenced into boundaries once freed from them unless I choose to self inflict them into my reality.

I bet you could be 'influenced' by the 'boundary' of a speeding bus.  Please confirm and report back with proof to the contrary.

PS - Don't assume others assume that you are assuming.  You are limiting the infinite self you claim to be.

Too easy Joe.

QUOTE

I bet you could be 'influenced' by the 'boundary' of a speeding bus.  Please confirm and report back with proof to the contrary. PS - Don't assume others assume that you are assuming.  You are limiting the infinite self you claim to be. Too easy Joe.

Influenced in what way?

Traumatized and fearful of speeding busses?
Shake a stick at it and call it names?
Notice it and step out of the way if it appears to be in my space?

Many take their past experiences and pile them up into truths to project into the future.

People believe that money can provide stability and yet if the banks crash like they did in the 30's then there would be no security in money.
People also eat healthy in hopes that they will not age quickly or get sick only to be hit and killed by a speeding bus, so there is no stability in gathering ideas that change and are threatened by unknowns. Also what is true for one is not true for another.
Mostly people in general are searching for stability in that which is not stable. The everchanging outside reality. This hardly seems intelligent if there is something that is infinitely more stable.
So to continue to allow influence by changing realities and experiences doesn't seem wise in view of the common results which seem to be, judgment, fear sickness and death.

Joey, you have not answered the question.

allow me to restate simply so that your meditation-damaged brain can comprehend the idea being presented:

if you find yourself sitting in a lotus position on a railroad track deeply contemplating your profound existential 'security', and you (hopefully) notice a choo-choo train bearing down on you at ass-whoopin' speed, do you leap off the railroad track because you wish to 'avoid' getting squished by the choo-choo train (implying a 'projection into the future of gettin' waxed by the choo-choo train'), do you just sit there like a tool and watch the pretty choo-choo train, or do you leap off the railroad and make up a lame explanation that the reason for moving off the railroad track is not due to the choo-choo train but because God or the Flow just made it feel good?

I 'project' that you want to dodge this question by generating some gay monologue implying that I am dodging your 'wisdom lesson'.

 Joe, if by saying that I'm "assuming you are assuming", then that's garbage. I know you're assuming, because you quite simply typed your assumptions out in your post, accusing me of teaching the beliefs and thoughts of others, simply because I offer evidence of what I'm saying! Would you like to explain to me how such biased and unorthodox accusations are not assumptions?

  You for some reason accuse me of not committing, but what you're not realizing is that you're right: I don't commit to things by having beliefs, and I don't want to. You tell me that I talk a lot about what I think, but not what I know. Well, you don't know that there is a God. Where's your proof?

 I have proof for what I know. Beliefs are scientifically and systematically proven to control your thought systems, close down sections of your mind, and close out outside ideas. Just like how you're shutting out what I'm telling you, and refusing to explain yourself. I know that beliefs are dangerous. But you live off faith like so many other believers. Why? Are you scared of going to Hell? Or maybe you've been told to by so many other Christians and their Holy Book of Rules that was written and created by their corrupt churches? You're not open to outside ideas and probably never will be, all because of what you truly and blindly believe. I know all of this, because you have written it and supplied evidence of this in your posts. Are you a hypocrite?

 I don't expect you to explain yourself or contradict any of what I've said about you. But I hope you will, because I don't want to misunderstand you or your ideas. I hope you can answer the questions I have given you, and back up your answers, as you have said you would.

Gay mologue?
Well lets answer the question by asking a question.
If you didn't know what a choo choo train was would you know enough to get out of the way? Would you be likely to place yourself in front of a speeding train to give cause for the ridiculaous analogy in the first place?
I would say yes to the first and no to the second and without the benefit of being influenced by previous ideas.
Then there is the influence of popular belief and ideas that aren't so beneficial.
Example:
The cold and flu season is here and the TV advertisements are flooding the airwaves with cold and flu remedies.
A month before there was no rampant spreading of the flu bug but it seems with a little help from popular belief and influence that it is the season for the cold and flu.
Another example: popular notions indicate that certain lifestyles are more healthy than others like eating right and exercising regularly yet two people, identical twins in fact live totally different lifestyles. One is a health nut, eats organic foods and jogs every day, while the other eats what she wants and gets out on occasion to walk her dog and watches alot of TV.
Both have the same body size and structure and are of the same health, the one less active and less concerned about her diet is as healthy as the active health conscious one.
I think in the vain of trying to be right and on top of this subject there are certain issues that can be taken into consideration. I think Someone said something about having a meaningful conversation only if one has had a unitive experience. That experience would necessitate the leaving behind of individualism and the influencing factors that build and maintain competition and the self maintaining feedback loop that necessitates a form of food for the ego. The need to validate ones beliefs by making them right and opposing ideas wrong so as not to break down the illusiory self feeding cycle.
In regards to influence I was making reference to the need for validation that is built on influencing factors that have been taught and accepted as normal programs in behavior and beliefs that are nothing other than hypnotic influences. Ones that are countered by those that don't maintain the same beleifs and see the world completely different.
Here I simply suggested that what is relevant is in the personal beliefs of the individual and programs that are just programs.
We like to believe that what we know is real and what we know came from something real. Unfortunately there is always the x factor which doesn't follow the same rules and does not accept the same reality that exists in any situation.
There are commonalities within the structure of life that conscious co-creation agrees on but inside the builder of these structures is the ability to change the structure and change the agreement.
All I am suggesting is why limit ones self to what is known when there is always more.
What influences direction today will be outdated 20 years from now and to get a glimpse of the Self in its possibilites would be to drop the illusion of influence that one adopts for even a moment to see what potential really is rather than leave it up to the concrete idea of evolution.
 Like Darwinism which has its holes, (I think they still are searching for that missing link) people generally tend to adopt what is available because they think there is nothing more available to the structure than the known reality and facts produced by someone who has made a best guess by todays scientific methods which will be outdated by tommorows methods.
This is fine if you wish to accept the inevitable projection, like death, but even if that were true why would so many try to eat healthy or prolong their health and their lives if they were resolved to die anyway.
What would people be thinking in trying to protect themselves from the inevitable. Seatbelt laws, life support, warning labels etc. These things that are influencing people by warning them of the dangers of life give us more to worry about than to just live our lives.
There was an actual event where the doctors in one state went on strike and people actually stopped getting sick and stopped dying.
There is big money to be made in the science of influencing factors that plant beliefs that are fear driven into peoples heads.
If we are consciously aware of our limitations rather than out potential we live by our limitations rather than by our potential.
If a speeding train is heading your way why would you be in its way in the first place unless you were unconscious.
Why would you accept the cold and flu season unless you were unconscious and why would you believe in other influencing factors that are not real unless you were unconscious and succeptable to majority beleifs and programs in stress reality?
More people will argue for their limitations and their supporting ideas than will look beyond them.
The whole spiritual movement is an awakening of a stronger force within than the limiting external forces of an external god, or external programs that perpetuate the merry-go-round of life and death and the hope to grab as much as you can inbetween before you drop into oblivion. The one who has the most toys wins, or the measure of success. This force that drives us on in the face of the inevitable idea of death is the true faith and the affinity we have with our inner knowing, our real relationship with God. People just ignore it for the seemingly more (obvious) hypnotic majority beleif in reality.

To answer your questions Agnostic4now.
My faith is driven by much more than belief, it is elivened by the expanding experience of that which is within all things. This I have had a direct experience of and without the influencing factors of drugs.
I have also had a direct experience of the other, the influencing factors of belief and disbelief. The limited foundations are weak and shallow and do not grow out of expansion or love but of fear and doubt.
The other expands and enlivens when given away to the Self in all of its parts. Omniscience is part of our deeper awareness that lies below the accepted 100,000 thoughts per day that is driven by assumptions and influencing limitations in popular programs of "beliefs."
I once called myself an athiest, the only thing important to me was my Harley and my freedom to keep to myself and my personal opinions and screw anyone that got in my way.
What happened to me was nothing short of a miracle and all my proof to the contrary was shattered only because I hadn't experienced anything else.
It didn't matter what anyone told me and for most it doesn't ever matter what anyone tells them that is contrary to their own experience.
But people in general will fight for the right to keep their beliefs and tell others they are wrong because their conflicting beliefs don't match theirs.
I have never once told another here on this board that they didn't experience what they experienced.
I have though and will continue to challenge anyone to the contray belief that experiences are not pemanent and will change as one evolves so there is nothing real in any experience other than the moments experience.'
To drag anything that is always changing into the present moment and call it permanent is unconscious.
There is only one thing that is never changing and that is the only thing worth focussing on. The rest is a trap into the reality of the changing senses and their manifestations as the idol that is most often worshipped as important, and it is so important that death does not deter one from standing in front of it while it runs you over and kills you.
Ever notice how much energy is projected in name calling and derogatory remarks towards unpopular opinions and experience than the exploration into possibility? People have their shields up and are so easily threatened by others. They have been taught that others have the power to threaten when it is in the power of the perciever to take what comes in form and judge it or integrate it into the whole.
Even in attack a trained fighter can asses and maneuver consciously to avoid the conflict or turn the energy away, where as an unconscious or untrained person takes it all in a panic and violently flails in an attempt to protect themselves. You never know if the person coming at you is attacking from panic and needs help or is psychotic and is a genuine threat. How would you if you weren't able to remain objective, from a stable point of reference.
There is nothing stable in the world other than change and what underlies all of the world. One will give you infinite awareness and the other a whole bunch of ideas to juggle and maybe you can hope to pick one that gives you a sense of stability.
What you focus on grows and what you persue can be achieved.
Beware of what you build your foundations on.

OK, Joey, I can see your brain is still having difficulty with the question.  Again you have not answered the question, and have instead supplied a really big gay monologue that was really really gay.  

I understand your brain has been fried by LSD, weed and doofy eastern religious brainwashing, so I will try again to 'communicate' the question to you in a more denial-resistant way:

If you are sitting in your front yard in a lotus position pontificating the finer points of your imagined genius, and you see and feel a gigantic tornado bearing down directly on you and simultaneously all sorts of neighbors and stuff start hollering at you to save your neck from the tornado by coming into their tornado shelter (as you obviously would not have one), do you:
a) watch the pretty tornado because nature is so beautiful
seek shelter because you value the continued existence of your neck
c) seek shelter, but make a lame excuse afterward that you weren't saving your neck from the tornado but were just going into the tornado shelter for a little aerobic exercise and that it was all just the will of God and that the tornado was not the real issue

now stop being GAY!  answer!!
>:(


8)

 hey there big fella,You left out,
 (d)moving towards the god provided shelter to save the world from themselves as the voice of God because God did have bigger plans than the death of the guru that was admiring the beauty of the God created Tornado that was created to bring the guru and the people in the shelter together.

that was tremendously gay

it seems you would 'redefine' your apparently self preserving action as merely the requirement of your service to humanity.  how totally totally gaygaygay

suk munch  


8)

 Alright, look... it's not like I don't see where you're coming from. For example, some people who have illnesses that they are told they will never recover from attach to a belief, truly believing that this will save them. And miraculously they are cured. This then proves to these people that the thing they believed in was true, that the experience proved them right.

 At least, that's where I think you're coming from with the comments on sickness being projected at the public. But really, I think it's rather obvious that it's all in how you look at things. If people truly believe that they will recover, there are chances that it will affect their health. I still don't like beliefs and I never will, though they have good points, I feel they are few and far between, just like the good points of religion.

But as I have said before, miracles are possible. It's a simple probability. But why do you equate miracles with something of a higher power? You simply have no proof, and faith is what you're holding onto. We've all had amazing experiences. I once was ten minutes late to drive somewhere and when I got on the highway, there was a giant wreck all over the road. I realize that it probably could have been me if I had left on time. I'm not equating my experience to yours, but I'm saying this happens to all people.

I simply admit that there are things I won't know, and that there is no point in attaching a belief to things you can't prove. That's why I'm agnostic. But you say you know there is a God, because you have experienced it. I don't think that God stepped in front of you and said "Hi, I'm God. I'm doing this miracle for you." I think it was something that, to a lot of people, would seem like a tremendous miracle, when it is nothing more than a high probability. Things like that happen everyday, and that's the course of nature. Just because you attach God to that event or feeling does not mean that it is true. It is the same as a dying person's mind believing they are not sick and healing them, except the healing is going on in your psyche: you're fixing your mental outlook so it is fit to your experience. That never makes something true, only speculation.

 

Dan, if your trolling for a butt monkey I'm not your man.

Agnostic..
What you deny on the basis of common reality or common experience leaves out any room for building upon the more subtle experiences you had say when you experienced the accident.
The awareness of God is elusive only because people tend to project literal meanings that are formed in ignorance.
Consciousness is not limited. It is unlimited and the unlimited can be experienced. There are no limits to it and as a result there are no limits to the Self other than what is self imposed.
How does any one validate anothers experience even if they have the same experience. Language gets in the way for if it were possible for any two to experience the exact same thoughts and experiences it would be uncanny if the interpretaion that is built on past accumulation of knowledge and experience would be the same.
The mind has to be able to drop below the usual surface stagnation it has built in the 5-10% level of thought and reason.
Resonance is a crucial aspect but innocence is key in experiencing and attuning to it.
Just as a person acutely tuned to the other in a close relationship can feel another when they are stressed so can anyone tune into the subtler aspects of themselves and the others levels of awareness.
Without getting any more complicated this is a simple as I can make it.
What is God? if you are looking for particulars you won't find but an idea and it will not be the totality of God. One has to expand the awareness outside of the normal box. It is relatively simple and often sloughed off as imaginary but the imagination is what has been shut down in most at childhood by the adults that reason that childish innicense and insight is not real.

God is tangible because it is inside of you, you just separate yourself from it and the ability to be aware of it. You will have to learn it, and as with anything else it will  take some time and some effort to learn. How much time and effort depends on you and your focus.
It can come quickly or easily, but the foundation of experience and stability doesn't start with show me and I'll believe. It starts with an honest, earnest desire to want to know. wanting to win an argument is not the basis or desire that creates the movement within.

QUOTE

Dan, if your trolling for a butt monkey I'm not your man.

I take it you're the 'meatpacker' in the relationship?  :-*

were in a relationship already? that was quick....
When are we meeting your parents?

Good post Joe, The big one I mean. You can sometimes really pull the truth (even if its gay) from somewhere beyond ascension and really make sense.

More of these please, less of the Car salesman

Truth is easy enough to find, it is everywhere.
Personal experience does not always follow the manifest truths that are available, if it were that easy everyone would be enlightened by the availability of the written and spoken word which points the way.
The offer still stands. Wanna give up your independence and control to see more than you ever could on your own, then you will need to apply yourself to something.
There are many teachings in the world Laz and following more than one spreads you thin and you can never master any one if you are not devoted to it.
If not Ascension than another. But the requirements are the same. Devotion to the process and the willingness to give up your ideas in pride and control.

Stop trying to project your personal experiences on us Joe!  Oh wait, that doesn't apply to you...only the rest of us narrow-minded fools.  ROFL!  Only Joe's personal experiences are valid.

I like Agnostic4Now's comment.  Perhaps I'll refer to Joe as Belgium Boy (BB for short).  Why?  Because he's the king of all waffles!!

QUOTE

The offer still stands. Wanna give up your independence and control to see more than you ever could on your own, then you will need to apply yourself to something.

 You're not seeing what i'm saying. By expanding my thoughts and not allowing myself to commit my mind to beliefs, I see more than you ever could. Why would I want to give up my independence? So I can be the same as others? Applying yourself to a belief doesn't open your perspective, it limits it. You limit yourself to what you think you know, since that is all a belief ever is: What you think you know. I don't think I know. I accept that I don't.

 Why can't you?

Guys, guys, guys,

Joe has declared his knowledge.
He has explained it the best way he can.

I perceive his knowledge as beliefs, which he has found to be true.
That is my problem.
I do not understand his wording so do not contemplate arguing.
I need a different teacher: one I can understand.
He is happy with his knowledge!
Why not leave him alone?

His knowledge only seems to allow him to control and enjoy his own experiences. He has no power to teach the likes of ignorant me, and presumably you all too  - hence he has no power of conversion on any of us!

I say leave him in peace!
Best regards, Bill.

None of you get it.
It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks or says. the Universe is built upon one single foundation and any house can be built on it.
Finding the freedom in that to see that and experience that for everyone leaves a great peace that anyone can think or be what they want without any conflict.
Thing is everyone wants to find something wrong with any reason or perception that is in conflict with ones own experience.
There has to be a commonality to the foundation of life that allows all and leaves no conflict.
Otherwise this is as good as it gets and that is not enough for most.

 Hey, rhymer, look at the beginning of the thread: I didn't start the argument, I was just lookin' for some clarification. I think it's just a meeting of the minds, and we're not really tearing each other down as much as we are trying to show each other who we are. Nothing's wrong with that.

 And this is my thread, dammit!! No one will be left in peace!!! ;D

 This foundation sounds a lot like the "circle of life". I'm not mocking you, but I understand what you're saying. I think there might be a common trend in all life, a simple cycle to life. Mathemiticians are gettin' pretty close to figuring it out (one claims to have the formula that describes it).  But I wouldn't really attach anything supernatural to this cycle, since no one's going to get any evidence torwards that anytime soon.

 As Jack Nicholson said, "What if this is as good as it gets?" Just cuz it's not enough for most doesn't mean it's wrong. But I don't really understand the question. What's 'it'? Is it life? The universe? Everything?

 Cuz then the answer is 42. Douglas Adams proved that one.

I'm sorry my dear agnostic, Douglas Adams was dead wrong.  The true meaning of life is 69  :-*

8)

 If I were a chick I'd say 77. Why? Cuz you get 8 more.

 You definitely get ate more.  ;D

 No one's really paying attention to the subject at hand: being, "What the hell group would this put me into philisophically?"

philosophically speaking, the group that asks others to label the group they are in.