Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Yes.

If you still want God in your life, there are options that have nothing to do with Scripture. Or Religion. Deism: The God of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote our Constitution -- and Thomas Paine, author of "The Age of Reason". Deism posits a God behind Creation -- who started everything up -- and stopped. No revelation. No involvement. No Scripture. No response to prayer. We are on our own. Pantheism: The God of Spinoza and Einstein. The God of Nature. The God of the Universe. God is everything and everything is God. God without Anthropomorphism. Without primitive mythology. The Universe is sacred. Taoism: The wisdom of Lao Tzu, expressed as poetry. A set of contemplations on the nature of reality. "The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao." Jediism: Warmed over Taoism, for the modern age. It's amazing how much the movies got wrong. Still, the idea of The Force, has a lot of appeal for people. All of this overlooks the obvious. The God of your truth. Search your heart. What do you believe? What do you really believe? Not my belief system and not Dan's. Your beliefs. Your true beliefs. No need to put it into words. It's your beliefs. Not anybody else's.

Yes. RabbiO gave us excellent advice. I have come to embrace it with a whole heart. Another good bit of wisdom, though I don't know the source. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. The attempt is doomed to fail -- and it annoys the pig." Well, the horse is dead. The stink is deep and the flies are busy. It's time to let go and walk away.

The basic point of contention with Dan, is not the nature of our non-belief. It is the meaning of different words. Since Dan only cares about the nature of his belief -- and he is tone deaf to the nuance of words -- further discussion is pointless. I know. I've tried. Agnosticism is beyond Dan's understanding. The idea that God's existence is not knowable -- that nothing about God is knowable or known -- is beyond Dan. There is no point in arguing. The idea is beyond his ability. No matter what we say, he will be convinced, that we can't make a simple decision. It isn't worth arguing about. Certainly, not with Dan. Atheism is beyond Dan's understanding. He can not grasp the simple idea -- that we do not believe, because there is no reason to believe. At least, no good evidenced based reason. Dan will always insist that we hate God --or Jesus -- or religion -- or the Bible -- or something. Another distinction that is beyond Dan's ability is -- I don't believe in God and I believe there is no God. Trust me. I've tried. You know Dan's beliefs. So far as Dan is concerned, if we don't believe as he believes -- then we are wrong and nothing else matters. Not the details of how we are wrong and not the nuances. That covers not knowing and not believing. I have since gone on to not caring, which is Apatheism. That is, I don't care whether or not God exists. Even the question is a waste of time. A God which neither helps, nor hinders, is irrelevant, and does not matter. Dan actually helped me get there. I doubt that this is what he intended, but he was an influence. I thought that this was an idiot proof term. I was mistaken. Dan found ways. Still, I rather like Apatheism as a label. It removes all that stupid arguing based on metaphysics. A true waste of time and effort. You do have Dan's number. He cares only about his beliefs, which of course are right. He engages us, only to explain how right he is -- and how wrong we are. Yes. This is frustrating for us. Also pointless and silly. That is why I have stopped arguing with Dan. It is both pointless and futile. I can't be bothered. Life is too short. Still, I don't like being rude. So I give Dan a friendly wave. From the side of reason, across the huge gap, to the side of faith. It's time to let go -- and stop. It's time to disengage.

Pete: There is no arguing with faith. Certainly, not with Dan's faith.

You're arguing -- about flexibility -- and Agnosticism -- with Dan. Which part do you think is going to work? Reason? Facts? Reality? Against Dan's all consuming faith?

Your quotation stinks of fraud. I don't believe it.

I like the idea of Pantheism. I think it condenses down to -- the Universe is sacred. The problem with Pantheism -- the word -- is basic. The moment we say God -- the religious clamp down on it and won't let go. I don't find this useful. Life is too short, to be forever arguing about what words mean. I started on this board as a Pantheist. Imagine my surprise, when Dan insisted, that I was an unbeliever. No. It's not worth the arguing. Still, a thoughtful piece. Thank you.

And finally getting it right. It's long past time to give up childish things.

I'm reporting this, not because it is important, but because it's funny. At least, I think it's funny. The Templeton Foundation has chosen to side with Agnostics -- over Atheists. Yes. The great war of words between the Agnostics and Atheists, has heated up. Templeton has taken sides. The author of this article, looks to be an irritated Atheist. Now, there's money involved. Let the good times roll. Enjoy. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2019/06/fence-sitting-agnostics/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=44

A slightly deeper response: Over the years, I have changed my understanding and gone off in different directions. None of it has been linear. There were periods in my life when I was devoutly, religiously, Jewish. I have also gone to Jewish Atheism. (There is no God and we are his people.) Jewish humor. What do you call a Jewish Atheist? Jewish. I don't expect you to get it. Different labels at different times. Pantheist -- Agnostic -- Atheist -- Apatheist. Some people on this board, might remember my Pantheist days. I have never been Christian. Please. Not even in jest. If I were to revert to my earlier God belief -- it would be the Jewish God. There is a gigantic leap between Judaism and Christianity. This is a leap that I'm never going to make. Or I could possibly revert to Pantheism. That is also unlikely at this point. The general drift of my personal development, these days, is Apatheism. It just doesn't matter. Even if God could be demonstrated to exist -- it still wouldn't matter. A God that neither helps nor hinders is irrelevant. At least -- to me. At minimum, I am done with arguing metaphysics. Life is too short. Enjoy the day. In your particular case -- Enjoy the Dei.

Don't hold your breath. If I did revert to my earlier God beliefs -- it would be the Jewish version. It is a huge leap, to go from Judaism to Christianity. You are making a lot of invisible assumptions. For the rest -- try to understand this one point. There is a difference between -- I don't believe in God -- and "I believe there is no God". I know you can't tell the difference. There is a difference.

I was determined to respond to you, only with the friendly wave. I will now, briefly, break my own rules. 1. Whereby, God cannot exist on a different plane because there is no spiritual realm. According to every Christian Apologetic that I have seen, God -- the unbounded, limitless -- has to be in all planes. It goes with being omnipresent. 1.1 a parallel universe is science fiction, I really like the idea of the multiverse. It has great appeal for me. Until we have much better evidence for the multiverse -- than we currently have -- yes. It's fiction. Just because I like the idea, does not make it true. 2. f it can't be perceived, if it can't be understood, if it can't be proven, then it can't be known, and what can't be known cannot possibly exist. You still don't understand my position, regarding God. Alright. One more time. Maybe this time, it will penetrate. God could exist. I think God's existence is unlikely. I think God's existence is implausible. I think the evidence for God's existence is lacking. I think that God's existence -- until proven -- is unimportant. But yes. God could exist. You also seem to think, that God beliefs are the only beliefs that matter. You seem to think that my attitude towards God, makes me a hard core materialist. In fact -- you say I have a one dimensional mind. That I lack imagination. You are mistaken. I have my own beliefs that I can not prove. I would rather not go into detail here. I practice Reiki and Qi Gong. I am comfortable with realities, that you know nothing about. Unproven, but real to me. I said more than I intended. As you were.

A one dimensional anything is only a single point. It is the two dimensional mind that lacks depth. That must be what you intended.

I'm not suggesting that you go looking for snakes. Still, even chance encounters might as well be friendly. At least, neutral. I've met some skunks over the years. They are placid creatures. They went peacefully about their business and I did nothing to alarm them. It worked out.

This is good. You understand the snake's limitations. It doesn't move in a straight line; because it can't move in a straight line. Did you give it a friendly wave?

You're a reasonable fellow. Consider: If a man has a stiff and rigid body, due to a condition such as Arthritis, we make allowances. We do not expect him to move like an agile man, of great dexterity. He can't do it. He simply can't. There is no point in being mean about it. He has limitations. If a man has a stiff and rigid mind, due to a condition such as religious belief, we make allowances. We do not expect him to think like a man of mental agility and dexterity. He simply can't. There is no point in being mean about it. He has limitations. That being said, we can still be friendly and wave. Like this. If the religious man -- who is shocked and appalled by us -- also responds by waving ( ) we at least have a friendly space. It comes to perspective. From Dan's vantage point, we are faithless and Godless. If he can live with us -- then we can live with him.

I forget which thread it was. RabbiO suggested that we cease arguing -- and instead, simply wave at each ( ) other, across the huge gap of our differences. This makes a great deal of sense to me. I'm tired of arguing with you. It's not fun. Truly, you are what you are. You have the right to your integrity of belief. It is not for me to change you. Neither am I motivated to try. There is no competition here, and nothing to win. So, I wave. Not in agreement. Not in hostility. Simply to let you know that I saw.

I understand your outrage. Still, it's Dan. There is nothing to gain by the use of reason and facts. Neither intelligence nor logic will prevail. It's Dan. The man who puts faith above all other things. Now, a philosophy question, for you. How does a Stoic deal with barking dogs? He does not bark back. He ignores them. At minimum, he does not concern himself with the dog's thoughts.

Relax. It's just Dan, being Dan. Let it bounce off your umbrella. Are you in the mood for some silly humor? Dan said that you're "living in denial". No. You don't live in Egypt. I couldn't resist. Stay happy.

Yes. You are. It helps that you're not trying to prove the absurd -- with the inadequate. Then again, you understand the meaning of evidence. That also helps. Still, one suggestion. ( Hi, Dan. )

The guards have a strange responsibility. In their place, I would not know how to stop people from praying. Or prevent prayer. Prayer Patrol? They have to first detect prayer, then stop it. These orders are beyond absurd.