and it’s true – once you’ve adopted a common moniker, you inherit ALL the people that ALSO share that same moniker to those who do not share that moniker.
I never liked monikers but I begrudgingly accept Agnostic because I can explain myself and anybody who says, “Yeah, well what about “so-and-so who also says they’re Agnostic”, I can usually find something ok about it. Besides, it’s the closest to accurate enough for me for now.
Another one that took me a long time to “get to” is “I’m a fan of embodied cognition”. It was eye opening to find it, as I was teetering around areas like an Ecological viewpoint, which is _basically_ a systems view, but it had some ‘extras’ I didn’t like… and the Holographic viewpoint, which had a bit more ‘woo’ than I’d like…
..and I kept hovering around these and other areas, trying to find the “it” that I could stand behind. So when I came across the Embodied Cognition family of concepts I thought, “Ah! Ok, even though I can poke holes in it like anybody else can, I’m ok with the flaws”.
Somebody once ran me through the standard 20 questions to try to atheize/theize my agnosticism.
They _did_ hit upon an interesting point in the… conversation, such as it was, though, which made it worth my time.
I was able to identify Systems as the closest thing to a god concept. I’m ok with that. Systems neither require a designer for the systems BUT THEY COULD and neither must they spontaneously arise due to subsystems nor do they require a magical randomness either. In short, God/not-God, wasn’t really an issue for me as I’m fine with either way.
In short, my big fat “I don’t know” fits perfectly fine there in the inertial frame. smile emoticon