Maybe some of you are like me.

I like the best notions/ideas from many old and new sources.
I pick and choose what makes sense to me, what can be validated, repeated, and rely on some simple dictionary definitions.

Everyone is technically -- agnostic according to this definition.
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable ;


In a broad sense I take this position also.
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Emotional bonding to traditional beliefs, even if thy are weird superstitions overrides logic and reason if one is constantly immersed in talk that is "truth."

Ignorance (lack of knowledge) and superstition require one ignore the questions of an honest skeptic.

About atheism:
Explicit: there are no gods
Implicit a position of non belief in gods due to the lack of evidence.

The default position: non belief in the unsupported theist claim that god exists.

**I am agnostic and take the atheist default position - non belief in the unsupported theist claim of a deity - also, I am part skeptic, part humanist, etc. as defined below**

Those underlying notions in no way deter me from a fulfilled life, filled with fun and laughter, and enjoyment. I am more apt to have a better understanding and able to handle the "bad" times and the ugly behavior of others because I am not relying on a deity to settle the score in some after life.


I am part ----

I am part: AGNOSTIC:
This is safe and the most accurate. To say you are atheist is so politically incorrect, and unacceptable in this day and age that it is suicide to try to run for office, for instance, also, so many people believe that atheism is of the devil that many relationships are cut off before they begin because of this prejudice.

I find that calling myself an agnostic is preferable and works best for my own survival on many levels. Because I live in a predominant Judeo-Christian society (like most of us posting here) to be too far out of it causes more problems that it solves.

I am part SKEPTIC
I want a lot of verifiable information from state of the art sources before I add my allegiance. I do not automatically believe someone because of who they are, what they believe or just because they said so.

I am part HUMANIST
American Humanist - "Humanism is a progressive life stance, free of supernaturalism, which affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives that add to the greater good of humanity."
Again, I am not sure about the "supernaturalism" part, because I allow for all possibilities. Again, I want verifiable evidences.

I like a some Buddhist notions also - not specified here.

I like a lot of Universal Truths: what's not to like about the Christian teaching (and found elsewhere) "Love One Another."

I'm also a believer in the Golden Rule as in treat people the way you want to be treated.

I think that about sums it up!

Quote:
"I am part: AGNOSTIC:
This is safe and the most accurate. To say you are atheist is so politically incorrect, and unacceptable in this day and age that it is suicide to try to run for office, for instance, also, so many people believe that atheism is of the devil that many relationships are cut off before they begin because of this prejudice.

I find that calling myself an agnostic is preferable and works best for my own survival on many levels. Because I live in a predominant Judeo-Christian society (like most of us posting here) to be too far out of it causes more problems that it solves."

Hmmm...I don't understand why you would choose your beliefs based on what's politically correct, or what the rest of the society thinks. Doesn't that mean that your beliefs aren't really yours? It's the same as going along with Mormonism and pretending to believe for the social benefits. That's fine if it's what you choose to tell people you believe - but it's not the same as what you actually think is true. And it doesn't sound like you're being entirely honest with yourself. I'm not trying to be accusatory, but maybe you haven't thought this through all the way.

being cohesive in the society I live in. It's important to me, to not be too far out in left/or right field, so to speak. I prefer a more middle road, common sense, rational approach in my world view. (Very different from when I was a Mormon convert, for instance.)

This is a very short synopsis of my position on how I view the world hitting only on a few areas.

It is part of an evolutionary process over the last decade. What you high lighted is only one small part of it. It's how I see myself in the world around me.

It's part of the core of how I establish how I want to look at the world, at this point; all subject to change at any time as I find other things I want to incorporate or change.

Other posts have elucidated my position on the Power of God Myths and how I understand Mormonism in that category. That too is part of my World View not included in the short list I posted.

But back to my question: what makes up your World View?
You want to talk about that?

It and it's accompanying qualities of forgiveness, gratitude, tolerance, respect, making peace, etc. are important to me in how I live my life at this stage.

Thanks - I think love is important. For the most part, I just decided that I don't know for sure if there is a god or not, and I'm OK with not knowing. I have someone that I'm in love with, and that love is much more important to me than religion. And of course, I love my daughter very much. That's the love I believe in.
When I first was getting out of Mormonism, I liked the idea of choosing ideas that were appealing to me from many different sources. But then I decided that those weren't really my beliefs - because I didn't actually think they were true, I just liked them. Now I just think my World View is my basic understanding of reality.
I don't really like to categorize myself or my beliefs - I think other people are all too willing to do that for me.
I actually made up a little poem once when I was trying to figure out what I believed, here it is:

I believe that birds can fly,
I believe in the sound of the ocean waves.
I believe in the endless depth of space,
I believe in the beauty of a flower.

I don't really believe in universal love for mankind, though. I think it's good to treat others with respect, etc, but if you loved everyone, wouldn't that kind of detract from really loving the people closest to you?

So that you have to deny it to some in order to save it up for others? Would you say the same thing about kindness or politeness?

It seems that such a conception of love quantifies it and makes it subject to time and space: not enough time to relate to everyone, only so much of "me" to go around. But that implies that "you" are your body, so love would be limited to what your body can do. If that's true, then 'others' must be limited to their bodies as well. A very human perspective...but there are other dimensions of love that are not limited. And not to see, or at least grant, the infinity in everyone is not a very "loving" stance.

True, we start to see the infinite in one person, but how--realistically--could that be in one person and not in others...or in every 'other'? If you truly touch this infinity with another person, don't you radiate loving to all? This doesn't mean we have to spend time with every other body...but then, this dimension of love isn't limited to the body. In every passing encounter, we can see past the exterior limitations to what that person really IS, and the thing that can see past those limitations is what we really ARE: Love itself.

You bring up some good points, and it's something I'm still trying to figure out.
It just seems pretentious to me, to claim love for people I haven't even met. I don't think I can love someone unless I know something about that person. I've heard all kinds of poetic sayings that convey universal love, and I think it sounds great - but I just can't figure out how that would work in real life, where we are limited.
It kind of seems to me that because we, as humans, are limited, in a sense we only have a limited capacity for love. We only have so much time, energy, and resources to share - which is why children can feel left out in very large families, and one of the reasons why people have problems with polygamy. Or why children of bishops get upset if the bishop spends more time helping members of his ward than his own family.
You can have a good feeling towards the whole world, but I wouldn't really call that love. Love is about knowing, understanding, caring about, spending time with, and making sacrifices for someone else. That kind of love is limited, but I also think it's the only thing I can really call love.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 05:53PM by loveismyreligion.

I hope you don't mind if I challenge some of your assumptions--that "Love is about knowing, understanding, caring about, spending time with, and making sacrifices for someone else."

1) knowing: what do you know? Really, just the other person's characteristic limitations, that which distinguishes him or her from others. In "knowing" those things, that person becomes 'familiar'...or predictable--but is this familiarity only YOUR picture of the person, and not what he or she really IS? And what if these characteristics change? Exit love?

2) understanding: does this mean imputing understandable-to-you reasons for another's behavior...so if that person does something that you don't understand, exit love?

3) caring about: again, does one care about people the same way one 'cares about' things or situations? In other words, to the degree that they impact you personally? Does this aspect of love signal a personal investment in the other person, and so also signal a kind of contract--that you care about him or her only if it's a worthwhile investment of your time and energy?

4) spending time with: so much depends on the quality of that time, since often 'familiarity breeds contempt,' or at least indifference. What makes a person worth spending time with? And can such a person lose that worthiness,...and exit love?

5) making sacrifices for: this is one of the most common misconceptions--that when you 'love' someone, you give up your self for their self. But what do you actually 'sacrifice'? Ideally, only your not-self, your own shortcomings or limitations. If another really required you to give up your own reality, how could this be love? This sounds like the opposite of 'sharing yourself' with another. In fact, most people conventionally sacrifice for another in order to incur the other's guilt-driven obligation, and if the other doesn't reciprocate in the expected manner, they get angry. Is that love?

These are all characteristics of conditional love...and I throw out the challenges only to help you see if there are other loving possibilities. (I hope you take them like that!)

Well, you know, love isn't a very easy thing to define, but I can try...
For the most part, I'd say love means wanting what is best for another person. You're willing to share everything you have, do nice things for them, etc. It's not conditional on anything superficial, but I suppose in some ways it is conditional. Usually when you love someone, you think that this is a good person. If you were to find out that the person was in fact a sadistic child molester, you probably would stop loving that individual. You would also feel deeply hurt and betrayed. That's because you thought you knew who that person was, and found out that you were wrong.
I guess that's what it comes down to - love is conditional: love means trusting that the other person is "good". If the person ceases to be "good", or was deceptive in the first place, then yes, you probably would stop loving that individual.
I guess now we have to define what "good" means, since we don't have the religious definitions to fall back on. But I think I'll save that for another time.

SusieQ#1...are you there?

loveismyreligion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SusieQ#1...are you there?

I am now. I'm back.

If you are inquiring about my repy to your comments above about love, I think of love in all of it's many varieties and different types.Love, in my view, is more about something you do.

Just was wondering what you thought about my views - but now, rereading what I wrote, I guess I don't really have any views for you to respond to! It's nice to have the freedom to explore different views though, isn't it?

loveismyreligion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just was wondering what you thought about my views
> - but now, rereading what I wrote, I guess I don't
> really have any views for you to respond to! It's
> nice to have the freedom to explore different
> views though, isn't it?

Some specifics re: My World View.

The whole point of using the terms Eccentric Eclectic at the time, was to keep my World View open to new ideas. It sets the core of my thinking scripts.

That leaves me open to add and subtract notions, ideas, theories, beliefs. I can create a mixture from many sources. I can try them on, use them as my thinking mantra for awhile and see how it fits. How does it help me make peace with my life, all of it: before, during and after my membership in the LDS Church.

It's a common theme on RFM: after Mormonism what?
There are a large number of posters over the years that have not just left Mormonism, but have left all religion. They let go of the whole huge package of ideas around a deity and a savior, and the organizational construction of authority, and controls which will bring a reward or punishment in an afterlife.

In my case, I have found that after over 50 some years, I have no need for religion, generally. I like some of the universal truths, ideas for living from religion, but I have no need or desire to subscribe to any organized religion or live it's rules and regulations in an effort to please a deity. Pleasing a deity is as old as human have been creating a deity.
Been there done that, now I am done. :-)

I recognize that most people who ever lived or will live believe in a deity. Some of them believe in a savior also. Today, that's predominately Christianity in it's many forms.

Human beings have been creating deities in their own image since recorded history. Female deities long predate male ones.
It's one of the characteristics of how societies, large and small, are held together throughout history.

I can, now, as an observer enjoy the pageantry, rituals, music, buildings and edifices, traditions, dance, etc. without being a believer in any of it other than it's importance to those that hold those ideas dear. The generational traditions of religion are long standing. They are the core of many governments, also, on some level.

I take a positive view of other people's rights to their religious choices. That is an important part of my World View.
In general, it's a positive part of people's lives. It gives them purpose and community that they are looking for.

I was not dumb, pathetic, stupid, duped, brainwashed, cultist or any of those things when I was a member, neither are others that remain. (There are some extreme cases, of course,) They are exercising their rights to their belief systems, which is as old as humanity.

I think it's very important to remember that to believe in a God Myth (in any form) is a normal and natural part of being human in a familial society always has been and always will be.
There are a small percentage of people who won't go along with the tribe, so to speak.

As human beings we have the ability to exercise a wide range of feelings/emotions. Some negative, some positive. I prefer to stick to those that are positive and constructive (as much as possible), such as: love, gratitude, forgiveness, tolerance, respect, etc., as they are the most conducive to maintaining peace of mind. That is where, in my experience, joy and beauty resides.

I have learned a few things in my personal experiences: negative energy/feelings/emotions will sabotage that. Angry ranting, spewing hateful speech, etc. is harmful to the person (physically, as well as emotionally), as well as those that are in the line of fire.

How I view the world, in my New World View, has a lot to do with my state of mind. The more positive it is, the more fun, and laughter, the more enjoyable life is. That is the kind of life I prefer, although, it's not generally possible ever minute of the day. But, I'm working on it as it is much preferable to negativity.

loveismyreligion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just was wondering what you thought about my views
> - but now, rereading what I wrote, I guess I don't
> really have any views for you to respond to! It's
> nice to have the freedom to explore different
> views though, isn't it?

I think your views and beliefs are fine. They are yours. They fit you. They will probably change and that is OK.
"love is my religion" is a very clear view and message. It's powerful.It sets the tone for the core of your beliefs and views.
I like it! :-)

Thanks! Yes, beliefs can and should change - that's the point of learning, and introspection. But I realized my deepest, core beliefs have nothing to do with religion - the only thing I believe in "religiously" is love.
I liked that you mentioned that "Female deities long predate male ones." If I chose to believe in a deity, I would prefer a Goddess :) But then again, I have the problem that choosing the way I would like things to be, doesn't make it that way - unfortunately. I'd like to believe in a Goddess, but I don't actually believe.
As you mentioned, "I can, now, as an observer enjoy the pageantry, rituals, music, buildings and edifices, traditions, dance, etc. without being a believer in any of it other than it's importance to those that hold those ideas dear."
I do occasionally attend other churches and enjoy their services - most often a non-denominational Christian church and the Krishna temple. It's nice for the social and cultural experiences, and I can enjoy the good aspects of religion without any belief or membership.

loveismyreligion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks! Yes, beliefs can and should change -
> that's the point of learning, and introspection.
> But I realized my deepest, core beliefs have
> nothing to do with religion - the only thing I
> believe in "religiously" is love.
> I liked that you mentioned that "Female deities
> long predate male ones." If I chose to believe in
> a deity, I would prefer a Goddess :) But then
> again, I have the problem that choosing the way I
> would like things to be, doesn't make it that way
> - unfortunately. I'd like to believe in a Goddess,
> but I don't actually believe.
> As you mentioned, "I can, now, as an observer
> enjoy the pageantry, rituals, music, buildings and
> edifices, traditions, dance, etc. without being a
> believer in any of it other than it's importance
> to those that hold those ideas dear."
> I do occasionally attend other churches and enjoy
> their services - most often a non-denominational
> Christian church and the Krishna temple. It's nice
> for the social and cultural experiences, and I can
> enjoy the good aspects of religion without any
> belief or membership.

Oh ya. I'm with you on all of it!

Gosh, I even sing along with Christmas songs, old hymns, and other music and don't have an ounce of belief in the words! :-)
As a musician, I can appreciate all of it!

And that is what life is all about: appreciation, enjoyment, fun, and laughter! Lots of laughter!

CA girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t


Well, thank you very much, CA girlin...( my very best Elvis impersonation!)
Happy New Year to you too! :-)

This was a an interesting conversation. It's what RFM does best, I think. Sharing ideas! How refreshing!