Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


thormas last won the day on September 3 2018

thormas had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

30 Very Good

About thormas

  • Rank
    Master Contributing Member
  • Birthday July 20

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    North Carolina

Recent Profile Visitors

972 profile views
  1. thormas

    First Principles

    I'll be glad to follow your example Paul, lead on............
  2. That is precisely the point: the terminology has not developed or it is simply outdated altogether - unless it is someone like John Macquarie in his Dialectical Theism who indeed clarifies for modern readers.Sure pantheism, denim and panentheism might fall under the gereral term theism but when compared and contrasted they all radically differ from each other.So in effect and in reality they are not the same - unless someone is trying to oversimplify. Well, since I just said they were different this is a mute point but (just for fun) if one talks about God sustaining creation there is the external, outside view of theism, the more mechanical view of the deist and then there is the inside view of panentheism which in turn is radically different from pantheism. Classical theism would aay the same thing but the theistic God is external and outside the world and the primary ontological act is the moment of creation. Whereas, for the panentheism or dialectical theist God as the the logical and ontological necessity is not removed from or external from the world but present in all the ordinary, everyday moment of creation, sustaining and healing humanity/creation until it is fulfilled - with man, of course, as the co-creator. So since I reject the scale because i don't accept that one can 'know' (especially with certainty) that God either does or doesn't exist. I am not even on the scale. However, as I change know to believe I am a full fledge 1 (0r 1.1 if it pleases you) since I believe, without doubt that God IS. I don't was lie goose or gander sauce but I like Italian sauces for all.
  3. To say I'm not a theistic is simply to say I don't believe God is supernaturally revealed to man. I am a panentheist in that God is not a supreme being, outside of creation who must supernaturally reveal himself to man to be known. I don't believe in gods or god but I do believe that God IS (that all that is- is of god or in God or has its being in Being which is God. I believe in revelation but in a radically different way (explained in previous posts), I do belief God sustains humanity and creation but again in a very different way than mainstream christianity (again previously discussed). I do believe in evolution and am against creationism and finally I believe the God is the logical and ontological necessity for all (previously discussed).
  4. Well, of course: 'having' belief or simply believing is to believe. I always read you. But it is apparent the pure theism (1) and pure atheism (&) do exclude agnosticism. Actually, I'm not a theist but to go along with the though the theist(1) ejects the polytheistic Roman and Greek religions.
  5. thormas

    The Purpose of Life

    If some don't get it then it eventually it's too late for the some, so there is a 'too late?"
  6. thormas

    First Principles

    Rom, What is it, a day, maybe 2 that a code of respect was initiated "derogatory remarks of a personal nature to any other member is not an acceptable" and here you are making a judgement and stating that Burl's reason has little value and you then call it a fallacy. We wait and see if the rule has 'teeth' or whether you are given free reign, if the latter, then, I guess all is fair game.
  7. Actually I'm nothing (lacking belief is to not believe). Plus Rom, as mentioned before I'm working off your sources and there is a distinction between the Oxford and Dawkins. And actually I refered to the great middle ground of agnosticism which by its very nature in nuanced. These are flavors but a chasm in belief (or flavor of belief) is based on and supported by 'something.' No answers to what the 'somethings' are between the flavors. Finally a for of answer.I am less familiar because this is not a priority for me. However, different or or not the word gnostic carries meaning and you have not explained its use................so do you have one? Ro, Rom, Rom, As Gggole is to me, reading carefully is to you, so, see earlier posts. Maybe, but does Dawkins use this language in the scale or generally. And since there is no certainty, I see no difference between the atheist and so-called gnostic atheist.
  8. Should read "not a full theist."
  9. I desire no distinction. I am clearly stating that atheism, theism, denim, pantheism,panentheism, agnosticism are beliefs (there is no certainty, there is no knowing God does or doesn't exist - as described in the scale). I don't care if I'm a 1 or 1.1 as I see no essential difference. Again, the Oxford speaks of atheism differently than is presented in the scale. Which is it for you. And I still await the chasms of difference between 6.9 and 7 that Paul said existed, Pluralm what are those chasms in detail? Okay, I'll bite. Gnosticism is about special or even secret knowledge that is the purview of the few. Therefore what is a gnostic atheism? How does saying he is 6.9 establish that he is pointing to and dismissing the preposterous arguments for God? It would seem if one is all the way to a 6.9, he is already far beyond those arguments, having dismissed them long ago. I agree the difference between 6.9 and 7 is the same as 1.1 and 1. that's why I chose 1.1 instead of 1 - the difference is the same and that difference is negligible. Here is where we differ: a 7 is the atheist position or perhaps the full atheist position, stating, "there is no God.' There is no doubt, there is no hint of uncertainty. Now if one is wavering on this to any degree, (to me) this is an agnostic position (there are degrees here): "there is no God, at least I think" or "but I'm not really sure" or some other version. So too theism: the full theist position, states, "God IS" or, if some prefer, "there is a God." Someone can be leaning theistically but if they are saying, "at least I think" or "but I'm not really sure" or some other version they are not a theist. Seemingly the agnostic position holds a huge middle ground. There are no 100% atheists? How do you know this? Again (for me) it is not based on certainty, it is belief.
  10. Not the issue. My supposed 'lack of knowledge' is based on accepting your statement that 5, 6 & 7 are atheist positions, There is no lack of knowledge on my part unless there was a prior mistake on your part in listing these as atheism. Rom, that's the point: you gave the Oxford quote about atheism and it was about believing as opposed to the scale which is about knowing (God does or doesn't exist). So, I ask again: "Who is right, is it (atheism) about believing or knowing that doesn't exist?"
  11. My point: there is no knowing, it is about believing (cf Oxford). There is no certainty, it is a belief (cf Oxford).
  12. And yet again, with imputing bad motives to other people.
  13. Wrong again, see above. 1 or 1.1 are about belief not knowing (ala the scale).
  14. Rom, Rom, Rom you are the one who said that 5, 6 & 7 on the scale are atheist positions so it's all about your 'mistake.' 6.00: 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'7:00: 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.' So the Oxford (atheist lacks belief) disagrees with the Dawkin's scale (which is about knowing)? So you're not accusing Dawkins of a lack of knowledge given the Oxford dictionary. Really? Who is right, is it about belief or knowing, including knowing for certain?
  15. Rom, Paul used the plural so he should had had some rather specific chasms in mind. Wiggle room? If we are talking about know vs. belief, you have taken the liberty to say you hate(?) the scale and I have taken the liberty to disagree with the basic premise that one can 'know.' I am simply saying that no one knows if God exists or he doesn't. This is a belief statement. In theology, discussed previously, God does not exist (like every thing else), God is the very possibility of anything existing at all. This is ............a belief statement. However, within the limits of the scale I am saying there is no difference in reality and I am puzzled why you won't recognize that Richard is an atheist on this scale and the difference between 6.9 and 7 is negligible. As above, #6: 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' This is the atheist position, one cannot know for certain yet, in spite of this, one lives assuming that God is not - there is no place else to go since there is no absolute certainty and no Jungian conviction that would follow. Unless you are saying that no one ever has been, ever will be or is presently an atheist because you agree with me that there is no certainty..........ever.