On the contrary, it means a great deal to me, and fits quite neatly into my world view because I postulate that thoughts are things... and that we may very well be living in a thought created reality or universe.

I actually identify 'self' as a 'thinking center.' (Not necessarily my body..)

Not necessarily your body, but necessarily not your body? Or not necessarily either? Not necessarily your body and not necessarily not your body?

(Its fun if you sound it in your head as you read.)

Okay, this is the 'weird part." I have not identified my 'thinking center.' (I have not located 'self' within this universe.)

My body is my living 'house' or environment. It is my living 'universe.'

So how weird is that?

Maybe I'm not understanding you...but as far as I understand you - I don't think its weird. I have never wholly embraced any particular model for locating my 'thinking center', either. When I was younger, I leaned towards the idea that the grey matter of the brain is the primary 'location' where 'thinking' occurs.

Today, I still lean towards 'most of it' happening in the grey matter of the brain, but I also believe that my entire body plays some kind of role in my 'thinking' also. I could be wrong on all counts...but there is something to be made of the observations scientists have made regarding the changes in activity in the brain.

I agree that a lot of the 'thinking' does occur throughout the body as does 'memory.' But I have also experienced a different kind of 'thinking' that exists in what I call a unified field that surrounds my body. There is where 'space-time' is different from this reality.

When there, I can think 20 minutes worth of thoughts in a split second. (In other words, it appears that I have 'frozen' time from the perspective of this world.)

I can relate to this, based on my experiences with a style of meditation about twenty years ago.

Does it bother you when people look for materialistic explanations for things like this?

It is their own way of dealing with it, trying to figure it out so that it fits into their view of reality.

I have been made fun of a lot about my beliefs but bottom line, I am my final authority. What they think is not my concern.

as an atheist i don't worry about these things or jesus freaks either....when i go fishing and some dude parts the ocean i'm fishing in or walks on top of it, then maybe i'll wonder.other than that to me its all BS.

Good answer.

I'm actually an avid agnostic - there's a higher being. I just believe I'm not destined to identify or understand the beauty of it.
However, I am involved in my campus' Secular Humanist community and can share some information I learned in one of our latest forums: How Religion and Science are hand in hand on the basis of Evolution.

As for being dead and never living again, What is more incentive to live your life to the fullest? If you believe there is no after-life, that you turn in to non-human particles and spread in to space, how does that even justify that you wouldn't try to guarantee a simpler and better life for those you care about?
As for spreading genetics in to the world... Its basic nature. Maybe even a tab bit narcissistic. Carbon copies of one self running around to create your legacy after your gone and dead. Its human nature to want to be remembered after you die. ESPECIALLY if you think you turn in to nothing when you do die. Children are the number one way to do that. Sure, its also about nurturing young and the joy of love; but deep down we all want recognition for our products, right?
And of course, it all goes down to experiences in life. We're all raised to believe some of the greatest achievements in life are those that better the human race and/or the environment we depend on.
Its a hard question to ask... and I hope I added to the conversation just a bit? Sorry I'm not more precise in my blabbering!
(also, you might have moved on to another topic. sorry, I'm too tired to read 6 pages of intelligent conversation! ha...)

you are not in the least agnostic by definition if you beleive there is a higher being or deity. i'd call you a theist. an agnostic thinks that the human mind is incapable of knowing of gods, the afterlife or other supernatural phenomena such as higher beings. an agnostic cannot know that "there's a higher being" as you say you know that there is.



in no way, shape or form do science and religion go hand in hand within any scientific discipline; evolutionary biology, physics or anything else.

Your facts are incorrect and your opinion differs with most on this subject. You should look up the words agnostic and Gnostic and do a little reading before you make such outlandish statements.

Since your statements about people, theories, and science always seem to contain absolutes like "In no way, shape or form ..." you are almost absolutely guaranteed to be wrong.

k.

gnos⋅tic  /ˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [nos-tik] Show IPA
Use gnostic in a Sentence
See web results for gnostic
See images of gnostic
–adjective Also, gnos⋅ti⋅cal. 1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3. (initial capital letter) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

and of course:


ag⋅nos⋅tic  /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
Use agnostic in a Sentence
See web results for agnostic
See images of agnostic
–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

–adjective 3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

as you suggested, actually long before you suggested, i looked up those definitions and did more than a little reading. so, can you point out the outlandishness in my statements based on these definitions?

guess not.

I see that this is sometimes true, for some people, but as a blanket statement, I completely disagree.

For someone who is invested in a particular non-materialistic wordlview, every little variation on sensory experience / perception (mild hallucinations, deja vu, light headedness, vertigo, unnatural sense of familiarity) becomes grounds for jumping up and declaring something "spiritual" is going on. Its sad, and I've known many such people.

And for someone who is emotionally invested and committed to a materialistic worldview, I agree with your statement; their motivation for actively seeking a materialistic explanation might be nothing more than a close-minded refusal to even consider anything else.

But I would say that anyone who is interested in truth would be willing to take an honest look at all explanations, including materialistic explanations.



I'm assuming this is over things like "alien abductions really happen" - and that the people who make fun of you believe they are 'more rational' or 'more sane'. Too often, they are just 'willing to agree with socially dominant beliefs'. They are aren't really rational at all.

Very well said.

Yes of all of the things I have investigated, I think alien abductions are one of the things that I am made fun of the most. I do believe they are real. There are some people who get down right irate and angry at the idea and will not hear any of it. Others just laugh and make fun. So I just laugh with them because I too think sometimes that the idea is ridiculous when you think rationally about it.

But I also believe in multi-dimensional universes, and a holographic nature to reality, and that thoughts are things, and that this reality and all space-time systems (like ours) are contained inside of a vast universal mind of some kind. Universes are like bubbles, and each one has its own space-time system.

One thing for sure is... no matter if any of what I believe is true or not... I am sure of one thing... the truth is probably way stranger than anything we can imagine.

1. I don't. I don't care if the human race lives on. I mean, I care if the next few generations or so live a comfortable life, because humans are (I'd like to think) largely altruistic. Much has been written on why we are so.

2. I don't. I imagine many others do because of their personal values. Or perhaps it's their response to our instinctual drive to produce offspring (you can see where this is going).

3. I answered this in my response to question 1.

4. The animal doesn't CARE about passing on his genes. He's genetically predisposed to do so. He's only responding to his natural instinct to mate. Again, if we weren't naturally drawn to it, our species wouldn't exist. There's no thought involved, at the lowest levels. Organisms that are genetically drawn to mate will naturally mate more than those that aren't . Those that aren't will naturally die out. Continue that trend in evolutionary development for a few billion years and tell ME why the animal works so hard to pass on his genes.

5. I already answered this. It has nothing to do with memory. It's genetic predisposition.