thormas

I think bubbles are over (and, thus erroneous) simplifications of complex isms.

If nothing matters, why do you write anything? By writing anything you seem to be suggest something matters. Self contradictory? Regardless, I simply disagree with your definitions. For example, a theist is one who accepts there is no proof, no evidence for or against the existence of God - yet believes God exists and holds certain beliefs about the 'nature' of God or, better, how man experiences God. An agnostic theist is redundant and, as such, unnecessary. There is evidence that a place, that has the name Sweden, exists. To find someone who is skeptical that Sweden exists is to have bigger problems that this site can handle. As my great aunt use to say of such a person, "poor dear." I suggest most people assume that we are not talking about many gods, so the 'god' that seems to be in play (or not) for the atheist or the agnostic is your vague unrevealed god. Would such a vague, unrevealed god be something like the One that some of us discussed on this site months ago? Speaking of unrevealed (or revealed) and to complicate the matter even more: I don't accept the classic theistic understanding or the generally accepted understanding of revelation. I do not believe there is revelation from God, if by that we mean information about God (that he shares) or, for example, laws that he gives so men can abide by their relationship with him. I have a panentheistic take (belief) on revelation: God or, if you prefer, the One, or Reality, reveals (him)Self. In our most intimate human relationships (with the lover, with a child, with friends) we do not merely or even primarily give 'information' - we give 'self.' This self giving is the revealing (disclosing, making known) of self. There is no revelation from (or about) God, there is only the Self-revealing, the giving of Self to creation, to man. Further, I believe that throughout history, men and women, out of their particular situations and circumstances, have developed 'insights' about the God (they believe) they experience in life. And such insights (may) resonate with others: they enable others to say something, to make sense, to 'name' what they experience. So, in a real way, the 'God' I believe in is both unrevealed (as explained above) and a bit vague. Thus a previous point I made that some religious/spiritual people are very comfortable with uncertainty. One such 'insight' in Christianity (not to say it is not in other religious expressions but this is the one I am familiar with) is that God is ...........Love. Further, the insight is that God is the giver of life, is immanent in everyday life, is the destiny of life (Alpha & Omega): that God is Life. So the Christian insight is that God, Life It-Self (so to speak) is Love. So not a mere property, rather the essence, the being of I AM or God. If you don't believe it I have no issue with that (your choice) but it is a religious insight of a particular (and again not exclusive to them) religious community that goes back a bit (gospels) and back a bit more (Jesus) and back a bit more (Judaism).

Sorry, I was trying to take it slowly for you since you're a bubble guy. I understand but, as noted, disagree with the set of overlapping bubbles. While the recent bubble (the Rom original), also as noted, looks like a rash especially when set against 'pure' (no rash) panentheism. So, I am disagreeing with all the bubbles because they are either wrong or inexplicable.

Now, now you can't try to co-opt my expression. Oh, well - can't please everyone, but have no idea what your little picture means (looks like a rash). Is it from an official bubble site or is it an original Rom?

Say what??

Where the little film fails is that it reveres the unity of the One but that is a limited beauty. A field of one kind of flower has its beauty, but a field of many different flowers, create a Unity that is a higher Beauty. The unity of the One is not as dynamic, not as interesting, not as beautiful, not the accomplishment as the unity of the many. You do have a fixation on one - which is the loneliest number!

Actually, no: when you love there must first be another, and, if lucky, be it a friend, a lover or a child - there are two becoming more, maybe not one but what is shared, what is created - is more than if there were no love. As for the tango: feel free to take to the floor on your own, I would always go with another. It is both more fun and much less silly looking. HNY 2018!

takes more than one to have love........there must be the other. and/or it takes two to tango.

Maybe not you but you tend toward pantheistic agnosticism or is it agnostic pantheism. See what I did there? Typically a self-confessed confabulist can't get out of his own way :+{ Whereas, the panentheist is in with god :+}

I do disagree but no need to travel that road and once again cites its flaws and now you have moved to gnostic atheists. I don't accept the validity of agnostic atheism - when in an exchange with you I am assuming you are a self confessed confabulist :+}

The author's take on panentheism is a bit off. The 'world is in God' but not God; there is immanence but there is also transcendence. There is no identify as in pantheism, there is a dialectic between these two realities. Classical theism tends to overemphasize the transcendence of God, pantheism the immanence - whereas panentheism attempts to do justice to both realities of God relating to creation. In addition, he seems to be taking a literalist view of creation (from nothing). Such an ontological difference also leads to problems with understanding incarnation, Jesus as God and man, natural vs. adopted son of god, theodicy, etc.

missed this one ....... If, as indicated in the bubble, strong means that one knows and knows means proof /evidence - then there is no strong ism. You believe most are agnostic atheists........................ An agnostic believes they cannot know whether god exists or does not exist. The theist, on the other hand, believes that 'god' exists. 'Knowing for sure' suggests proof or evidence and there is no proof for any belief. However, many/most are sure of their beliefs: aren't you sure that you're an agnostic and that your agnostic stance is correct? So too, I am sure of my belief and that my stance is correct.* If one were not sure of their belief, it would be meaningless: he could not live it. and living it is the whole point of belief/faith. *my stance is correct for me but I also believe it is correct for all; this recognizes that there is only one way to be human but the One Way is seen in many ways, particular to where it finds different men and women.

Didn't think you were but I think any book from the King Alien, might have the same inspiration as did King David :+} Now that is an interesting point on monotheism but I wonder if it sounded ridiculous. I suspect the Progressive Monotheists had tablets they passed back and forth on many topics......

I guess there are but websites on aliens is a bridge too far - whether they have credibility is indeed the sticking point.

Thanks Paul for the clarification and the information. I will check on Lanza. It is intriguing as even with Buddhism there is, I believe, a recognition of the transcendent nature of man: he is 'called' or it is 'in his nature' to become more than he is and ultimately achieve Nirvana. When we get to transcendence and becoming, it immediately speaks of divinity (for lack of a better word) to me and so even with Buddhism. Buddhism always struck me as a form of pantheism - but again I am not versed in Buddhism. Aliens - I don't even have a reference point but I'm not sure the idea of alien 'creation' and how they came to be (or their afterlife) has been explored. Ancestor worship is an intriguing one.

Possibly, thanks. Such as? Examples, please. The ghost that comes to mind is Marley and that obviously has ties to redemption and god. Even Shakespeare wrote in the age of Elizabeth and a Protestant England. Then there was Casper, the friendly ghost, can't remember any obvious god connection but, again, written from within a 1930's culture steeped in religion. Even animism is a religious belief. And ghosts in ancient Greece and Rome - part and parcel of their religion? But I remain open and hopeful. One still wonders though about Huxley - was he referring to ghosts with no connection to religion and thus God?

Yet there are many who understand the uncertainty of faith - and I have broadened beyond Christian to religious/spiritual. But to be clear, I am associating certainty with evidence/proof. Such certainty, as has been discussed, is not the stuff of faith. I am not Burl and I have both acknowledged the importance of definitions and allowed for the evolution of meaning. Precise categorization is not always possible (cf, the belief bubble). I think there are more Christians than you realize but I never came from a fundamentalist, literalist expression of Christianity. I don't think I know any historic examples of an afterlife separate from a people's concept of God. Did Huxley indicate that this was his point? So gravity by another name or a more nuanced understanding - actually, an alternative explanation is what has been happening with biblical scholarship and with classical theism.

Yet there are many who are not threatened by uncertainty - and it is a very powerful tool - recognized as such by many 'religious'/spiritual people: faith, properly understood, is a leap from uncertainty to uncertainty. And Huxley's quote is dated: some fundamentalists might call him atheist and infidel, but many other Christians and religious people, more liberal or progressive, would either accept his agnosticism at face value and/or simply not care. Most would assume that if (one believed that) one could not know if there was a God, so too, one could not know if there was an afterlife with him or what is called heaven. Although I get the point about science and truth, it does seem that science provides some truth for example gravity: either it exists (is true) or the earth sucks.

Interesting. However I don't think, as defined, a 'strong' anything (atheism, theism or gnosticism) is truly possible because none have definitive proof/evidence for their positions. These are all beliefs: the theist believes god exists, the atheist believes that god does not exist and the gnostic believes that we cannot know. Also, weak theism is, as seemingly indicated, atheism. I'm not sure I agree that gnosticism (i.e. special knowledge that one receives or can achieve) fits on the continuum and I don't think I have ever heard of a modern day gnostic. I'm still not buying into the agnostic atheist: if one doesn't believe, they appear to be an atheist and if one lacks belief or disbelief because they believe we cannot know, they appear to be an agnostic. And, both gnostic atheist and agnostic theists make even less sense: a agnostic believes we cannot/do not know while a theist, regardless if we cannot know (i.e. proof/evidence), believes god exists. The bubble is beginning to break down for me - the definitions are off and, I agree, it is difficult (impossible) to reconcile the various combos like agnostic theist. I believe it doesn't resonate! Again. definitions are important but meaning evolves (and I have not gone to the dictionary). Even in the great theistic religions there is an understanding of the immanence of God. The problem (I believe) with theism is the overemphasis on transcendence, while the problem with pantheism is the overemphasis on immanence (to the point of identifying 'god' with creation). What I like about panentheism, called dialectical theism by John Macquarrie, is that there is just that: a dialectic, a balance between the transcendence and immanence of god. Also, I think defining transcendence, not as beyond or above, but 'more than' ( or beyond as long as it is not understood spatially) is more helpful (and does greater justice to the human experience of or insight into God that is captured in the NT (and Christianity). I still don't see theism in deism (literally). I think they are very different (Christianity is not a deistic religion) and is fun information to 'share' with those that say the US was created a Christian nation. Plus, although I see the word theism in the other expressions above, pantheism, for example, is so the opposite of theism that it is simply not truly theistic: there is no 'beyond' there is sameness. With panentheism, it is not that god is not limited to earthly existence, it is that god is neither identified with or so removed from man (that we look for miracles, incarnations, virgin births, recognize our world as natural and fallen and long the other supernatural world of God) but that we live, move and have our being in God. And that not just one person or mode of God but God (himself, so to speak) is immanent in creation. For the panentheist, God is always incarnate in creation.

Burl seems to be making a valid point: an atheist is a non-theist whereas there are a variety of theistic positions. As Rom pointed out (other literal, theistic notions of god) include Abrahamic, Greek, Roman, Norse Gods and Burl, earlier, included panentheists, pantheists and polytheists. I never thought deists were theists but if theism means or includes a supreme being(s), then deism is more theism than is panentheism or pantheism. If a religion posits a God/god/goddesses of some sort, are these variations of theism? If so, and, if atheism does not accept that there is a God, then atheism seems to be a-theistic. If the above are variations on theism, what other gods/deities are there? I ask this sincerely. Also, definitions are important (ala Burl) but the use of words does evolve over time (ala Paul). So too with the definition of agnostic but I can accept Paul's variation on that word. Agnostic atheists are a bit confusing because if one does not believe in the existence of any deity then it does not matter if such non existence is knowable or unknowable: they do not believe! I would hope a true atheist would still not believe even if there were evidence - otherwise they were just an agnostic and not firm in their atheism. I am a panentheistic who does not believe in 'a' or 'the' Supreme Being and do not accept traditional notions of revelation - so it seems I am not a theist, by definition. Yet I think/believe there is 'more' to humanity than meets the eye.

Oh, well............

Enlighten us

I read Aquinas a lifetime ago but never gave much weight to his proofs since I don't accept that God is an object that one can gather evidence of, weight and say, "God exists (or doesn't)." I will read the site you provided after the day's activities. Thanks. I can't speak for Christianity but for myself, as a Christian, I have grown comfortable with uncertainty, including definitive knowledge of God. Not happening. The funny thing is that Christianity and all such belief systems, reveal their uncertainty in the word: belief (systems). In the history of Christianity (and the other religions), belief has morphed into 'knowledge and certainity' - but, in truth, it was and always will be belief. Christianity, is (one of) man's attempt to Answer life and, thereby, to live an 'authentic human life.' One makes a faith decision: 'the' Answer resonates in one's life, it 'speaks' to them and he/she 'gives oneself' to it. And it is in living/doing the Answer that one knows if their Answer is (one of) 'the' Way of Life (life giving/enhancing). So for the Christian (who understands) "we don't know (no certainty, no evidence)" - yet we give ourselves (faith decision) and in the doing, we 'know' (experiential knowing). Spong years ago said God is a verb, so too the Answer (God/Life/the One) is not an object to be coveted, it is a verb, a reality, to be lived. For Chesterton, "the Christian is sure of the ground on which he walks" - but it is only in the walking that one becomes 'sure.'

I am answering here because this was the thread I responded to, touching on a number of topics and don't want to lose any interested parties. Rom asks: So if you agree there is no evidence either way especially of deistic type God's ... why do you believe? The answer is in the question: without evidence, it is (a question of) belief. I believe (detailed in various places within this site) because it resonates: it provides answers to the basic questions that men ask in life (see Greeley, The Jesus Myth); I find it reasonable and it is a piece with other human insights that attempt to put answers to Life's questions. I have done and continue my parsing (which generally falls under Christian Panentheism) so there are definitions that have already been dismissed or never considered, including your Norse gods. Actually the atheists I know and have had such discussions with do not seriously consider polytheism (Norse, Greek, Roman or even more ancient beliefs), grew up in the Jewish/Christian tradition and find affinity with my understanding - in that it does not take a literal, inerrant biblical view, is panentheistic and, therefore, decidedly not theistic, utilizes a modern understandings of human development, employs process philosophy, appreciates and incorporates Eastern Christian Theology and on and on. None considerate it ill defined or nebulous, so no need to get bunchy Rom simply because you don't follow or disagree. I agree we might never know but Love is not a default position: it is central to the religions that trace back to Abraham (and also ties to other religions/insights). Love answers the age old questions: announced in the words of Jesus, it is lived/made flesh in him, it is remembered and shared in the gospels, it is the understanding of the mystics, it in the works of theologians who re-present it is for today's audience. Hardly a default, it is an answer presented and a choice given. It is time to finish wrapping presents. If you respond here, I will try to respond when possible - but it is the Eve of the incarnation of ..........Love. Merry, Merry!