What Am I?

[philian]

I normally don't post in philosophy, but it seemed the proper place for this question. This is an issue that's been on my mind for years now.

The problem is what philosphy I fall under (atheist or agnostic or even pagan).
Here's the break down;
I believe in the possability that gods can exist (gods not God, I'll explain in a moment). I even accept the possibility that magic, fortune telling, ghosts, etc may exist. It may seem cut and dry here, that this simply makes me an agnostic, but here's the problem. I firmly believe that if any of these things exist, they exist as part of the natural world. If any of these things exist, they must fall under the rules of the physical universe, even if they are rules we aren't aware of.

Like many people, I've had a number of religious experiences, both as a xian, and later as a pagan. And most of those experiences have a rational explanation. I'm not saying that that is the explanation, just that there is a rational explanation. Only there were a couple of experiences that no one has been able to explain (including myself). As a side note, both of these experiences happened in my pagan days, which is why Pascals Wager doesn't work on me :)

I don't consider myself an agnostic, because I absolutely do not believe in the supernatural. But my way of thinking seems to fall under that category. So I thought I would present the situation and get some feedback.

Thanx for reading :)

[kennethamy]

I normally don't post in philosophy, but it seemed the proper place for this question. This is an issue that's been on my mind for years now.

The problem is what philosphy I fall under (atheist or agnostic or even pagan).
Here's the break down;
I believe in the possability that gods can exist (gods not God, I'll explain in a moment). I even accept the possibility that magic, fortune telling, ghosts, etc may exist. It may seem cut and dry here, that this simply makes me an agnostic, but here's the problem. I firmly believe that if any of these things exist, they exist as part of the natural world. If any of these things exist, they must fall under the rules of the physical universe, even if they are rules we aren't aware of.

Like many people, I've had a number of religious experiences, both as a xian, and later as a pagan. And most of those experiences have a rational explanation. I'm not saying that that is the explanation, just that there is a rational explanation. Only there were a couple of experiences that no one has been able to explain (including myself). As a side note, both of these experiences happened in my pagan days, which is why Pascals Wager doesn't work on me :)

I don't consider myself an agnostic, because I absolutely do not believe in the supernatural. But my way of thinking seems to fall under that category. So I thought I would present the situation and get some feedback.

Thanx for reading :)

There may be natural explanations of what people have supposed are supernatural phenomena. But the things you mention are not natural. When you say that gods might be natural things you would have to explain what you understand by the word, "god". In Salem, Massachusetts in the 17th century, there were women some believed were witches. It is now thought that those women were demented hysterics. But that doesn't show that witches are demented hysterics. What it shows is that there really were no witches.

[philian]

Good point, thnx. I'll try to be clear, since I haven't clearly defined my own thoughts on this (which is why I am asking). I guess I kind of agree with what you're saying. I gues what I'm saying, is I don't believe in gods per-se. even if I were to come face to face with a 'god' as described in the Bible, Koran, etc, I would not accept that it is exactly what those books say it is. I would consider it more along the lines of the Ori.

I guess the best way to explain it is to use a situation similar to what you used. I don't believe someone can be possessed by demons, but I would not discount the actual events of any of the cases of demon posession, just because no one back in olden times knew what epilepsy was.

So I guess that answers my question. I think that would qualify me as an atheist. Thanx for the feedback :)

[kennethamy]

Good point, thnx. I'll try to be clear, since I haven't clearly defined my own thoughts on this (which is why I am asking). I guess I kind of agree with what you're saying. I gues what I'm saying, is I don't believe in gods per-se. even if I were to come face to face with a 'god' as described in the Bible, Koran, etc, I would not accept that it is exactly what those books say it is. I would consider it more along the lines of the Ori.

I guess the best way to explain it is to use a situation similar to what you used. I don't believe someone can be possessed by demons, but I would not discount the actual events of any of the cases of demon posession, just because no one back in olden times knew what epilepsy was.

So I guess that answers my question. I think that would qualify me as an atheist. Thanx for the feedback :)

A lot of philosophy is clarification (which is sometimes hard). When the issue has been clarified, the problem sort of vanishes. It isn't that what I said gave you any reason to be an atheist. You just discovered you were one all along when I helped you to clarify your thinking on the subject. That is largely what philosophy does.

[Cheerful Charlie]

I normally don't post in philosophy, but it seemed the proper place for this question. This is an issue that's been on my mind for years now.

The problem is what philosphy I fall under (atheist or agnostic or even pagan).
Here's the break down;
I believe in the possability that gods can exist (gods not God, I'll explain in a moment). I even accept the possibility that magic, fortune telling, ghosts, etc may exist. It may seem cut and dry here, that this simply makes me an agnostic, but here's the problem. I firmly believe that if any of these things exist, they exist as part of the natural world. If any of these things exist, they must fall under the rules of the physical universe, even if they are rules we aren't aware of.

Like many people, I've had a number of religious experiences, both as a xian, and later as a pagan. And most of those experiences have a rational explanation. I'm not saying that that is the explanation, just that there is a rational explanation. Only there were a couple of experiences that no one has been able to explain (including myself). As a side note, both of these experiences happened in my pagan days, which is why Pascals Wager doesn't work on me :)

I don't consider myself an agnostic, because I absolutely do not believe in the supernatural. But my way of thinking seems to fall under that category. So I thought I would present the situation and get some feedback.

Thanx for reading :)


A little of everything. Its no tnecessairily all one or the other. You can be atheist as far as the God o fthe bible or Quran and agnostic about all others, weak atheist agostiic, not much belief but holding possibilities as you do, open. Rationalist in that you hold reason highly, naturalist as you reject pure supernaturalism. Strato was a Greek thinker who first openly held the notion of naturalism you lay put here. Some philosophers have adopted the term Stratonian naturalism, or even Stratonian atheism for this stance (Antony Flew). It was an outgrowth of Hippcratian naturalism that stated that in medicine, what counted was empirical observation, tracking medical procedures for success or failure, and rejecting superstitions, religious mumbo jumbo and empty philosophical school theorization as a basis of medical procedure. We may not know why somebody got ill,or how to cure them, but we can reject obscurantism, it will be some sort of natural cause, whatever that is.

Cheerful Charlie

[naturalist.atheist]

Like many people, I've had a number of religious experiences, both as a xian, and later as a pagan. And most of those experiences have a rational explanation. I'm not saying that that is the explanation, just that there is a rational explanation. Only there were a couple of experiences that no one has been able to explain (including myself). As a side note, both of these experiences happened in my pagan days, which is why Pascals Wager doesn't work on me :)

So if you were presented with several explanations of these experieces what criteria of preference would you use to prefer one over the other? Not saying that you could actually make a choice, but if you tried what criteria of preference would you use to try to make that choice of explanation?