I have to go with "other" despite "non-religious" being an option. My position is very "unique" and requires an in-depth response that I wrote a little while ago and will re-post here.
[quote="I"]I believe that it is impossible for anything "supernatural" to "exist," since everything contained within our universe is what is "existence." Everything exterior to that existence, does not "matter" nor can have any effect on this existence. I also find the concepts of omnipotence, omniscience and other divine "powers" that are usually associated with "God" to be incredibly unfounded and almost nonsensical (a discussion for another time).
I described my beliefs about our universe and my own existence as "naturalistic non-theistic monism." Which can be broken down as follows:
1) Naturalistic: I believe that everything in the universe, is what is the universe. Nothing "outside" the universe (i.e. the supernatural or metaphysical) is "the universe." It can't be. It is not of this universe. For it to exist, it has to exist "within" the confines of the universe. However, that doesn't mean that it will be entirely confined to the laws of what we know about the universe currently. There may be a particular level of existence within the universe that is different from our current line of existence (i.e. subspace in Star Trek).
2) Non-theistic: I find both the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" (along with "agnostic atheist") to not describe what I believe well enough, nor do I find that they are represented properly among the general public. Both terms carry heavy stigmas attached to them. "Atheists" are generally seen as "heathen sinners" that will burn in Hell for all eternity (like what my girlfriend's mother thinks)... and not someone who lacks a belief in a God, gods or the supernatural. "Agnostics" are generally seen as "fence-sitters" and the term is usually confused as a belief, and not a position on a belief. Since "lacking knowledge" about religion, isn't a belief, it is a lack of knowledge. Also, I like the term "non-theist" because it gets across my point more emphatically: I refuse to ackowledge that anything supernatural could even exist.
3) Monism: Monism is the idea of "unification" within a given field of inquiry. Whether that be a philosophy, religion or academic study. I define my "monist" ideal as something similar to Brahman in Hinduism. Except, I don't apply a supernatural, transcendental or divine nature to it. I believe that the universe is all the same "thing" and all stemmed from the same source. All the duality and differentiation we see is just an illusion. We are all made up of the same "substance" (not to suggest that we all stem from hydrogen, though) and are only slightly different from everything else, in a way that makes us believe we are actually, fundamentally different... which isn't the case. In Hinduism, this idea is referred to as "Advaita" or "non-dual." i.e. we are not "different" from Brahman, only a slightly varied manifestations of the same whole (while the "Dvaita" or "dualistic" opposite, would claim that we are fundamentally different from Brahman).
I would also like to point out in reference to monism... that I am not referring in any way to pantheism (which implies the use of the term "God" and carries even more confusing labels along with it). Which is specfically why I chose to include "non-theistic." "Brahman" to me is not "God" nor is a supernatural being, essence or consciousness. Brahman is just the universe, Brahman defines what the universe was before the big bang, what it is now, and what it will continue to be indefinitely. Aham Brahmasmi. I am Brahman. You are Brahman. Everything is Brahman.foxhound_fox
I think the category for you is "confused". 
Log in to comment