[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"] I really don't know if I would be considered agnostic, or some sort of derivative of it. Though I don't really like the idea of having to attribute my line of thinking to a set of standards that I don't find to be concise and accurate in accordance to myself, hence I can't really say as to what I should be considered to be.
But basically my line of thinking is that I haven't found a belief or set of beliefs that I can agree with, so I don't really have any beliefs. I feel as though that from what I've seen regarding that issue, it seems as though they all tend to be a little too solipsistic and audacious for my tastes, and I simply cannot abide by that since it conflicts with the way that I perceive things.
Anyway, I don't really feel like elaborating on it right now, and I'm working on a new sig in photoshop, so if someone actually wants to hear what I have to say, then I might explain it all later.
Mr_Sesshomaru
I would like to hear when you get finished. But judging from what your post says, I think you would be categorized as a weak atheist.Eh, screw it, I'll finish my photoshop project later.
Anyway, the way I see it, since I haven't found a belief or set of beliefs that does not entail an apparent yet shaky sense of certainty, I am left with none, and I have since discarded what I used to believe in after realizing a fault that I noticed. By definition, a belief would mean that you find some sort of occurrence, idea, or set of standards to be a given truth, but my view is that I find it highly doubtful that something can be regarded as such by human standards, and ultimately, through human-derived senses and perceptions. So my problem is that believing in things, or more rather, what I've seen from the beliefs that I have been presented with, is that the certainty and conviction of them is rather doubtful in my eyes, and I'd even say that I find it to be flat-out audacious to say that we as human beings can be so unreliant on the misgivings of our perceptions and methods regarding scrutiny, to the point where we can draw a conclusion that something can be regarded as truthful for all given sets of instances and standards, and agreeable for all sentient beings that can come to comprehend what's being examined.
Though that's not to say that my previous statements were ultimately truthful, as they are merely my interpretation of how beliefs work as statements and conjectures regarding truths. But then again, what's to say that anything can really be regarded as truth? Humans have long since debated as to what's truthful and what's not truthful, and it's hard to really disambiguate the two and actually come to an agreement since there's another problem with the way that humans conceive, perceive, and convey ideas (or maybe I'm the only one with a flawed perception of things, but whatever. As far as I can tell, I don't think that it's possible for me to see things other than the way that I do. I don't think it would be tenable to say that I can view things through a consciousness other than my own, hence I end up with a huge factor of doubt regarding truths, beliefs, or what have you. So then that means that our methods of communication are rather limited, and are usually highly susceptible to varied interpretations and understandings, which leaves too much room for misunderstanding. So then I feel that ideas and views cannot be truly conveyed through words and body-language alone, and to really get down to how someone can come to their views regarding life and just how they think, one would have to be telepathic, but even then, it would not be completely synonymous with what the original thought was, as the receiver is not the sender, and probably never will be, so then I don't think it's possible to completely understand a person, their ideas, or why they think the way they do. So then to say that you can be in complete agreement with someone else's beliefs, or to say that your belief is truthful, or that anything can really be truthful, seems to be hindered by the fact that you can only be yourself, hence I'm quite incredulous to someone who says that they believe in something because it's the truth
So then because of that, I have a hard time trying to find a statement that I can agree with to the point of which it can be assessed and attributed as being true, applicable to an understanding of the implications of existence and its tenants, and agreeable for all beings that can interpret it as such. So basically the way that I scrutinize ideas and beliefs and my interpretations of them come to fault due to the way that I think. By that virtue alone, it's possible that I won't be able to find a belief or set of beliefs that I can apply myself to, so I'm not so sure I can be categorized as an agnostic, or weak atheist, or whatever.
Even with everything that's been stated, I don't feel as though I can give a comprehensive sense of understanding as to what I'm trying to convey. I just don't know how to explain it completely, and I doubt I really can do it. But whatever the case, that's what I have to say here.
Log in to comment