Chart: Gnostic, Agnostic, Theist, Atheist

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

Perhaps even united in one persona?

I take it as a given.  Humanity creates their gods.  All of them.      

I don't mean to suggest that the gods are a fiction.  I regard them as personifications of something real.  All of them.      

There is a Buddhist statement that I enjoy.  "The gods are illusory, but if we call upon them for assistance, they will help us anyway."      

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Gruffydd y Dryw]

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Sometimes, we can see the old gods being worshiped.  Consider old Hermes, the "messenger of the gods."  We see him depicted even now as the symbol of FTD Florists, winged sandals and all.  Hermes had an interesting development.  He started off as "messenger of the gods."  From there, god of the roads.  Then god of the cross roads.  What happened at the cross roads?  Hermes became the god of commerce, physicians, thieves and gamblers.

Yes.  Gamblers.  What do people shout when they are throwing the dice?  "C'mon Seven!  Daddy needs a new pair of shoes!"  It makes sense.  Nobody understands the need for nice footwear like the "messenger of the gods" who also has a special interest in gambling.

Hermes, messenger of the gods, also had a well known staff.  Messengers would have a staff.  Look at Hermes's staff.  It is the symbol of the American Medical Association.  He is the god of physicians.  When we look at the staff, what do we see? Wrapped around the staff, there are two snakes.  The staff represents the human spine.  The two snakes are the energies that travel up and down the spine.  Where they meet are the seven major chakras in the head and spine.

Santa Claus is an interesting deity.  He keeps lists of who's "naughty and nice."  He knows when we are sleeping and he knows when we are awake.........  He sure looks like a god.

Jack Frost paints our windows with Frost.  He sure looks like a minor weather deity.

Old Man Winter is used to sell snow tires.  Our old enemy, out to get us.

Who is Lady Luck?  The ancient Greeks and the ancient Norse knew all about the Three Fates.  The Fates have consolidated into Luck, but the line is clear enough.

Mother Nature looks a lot like the old Earth goddess, known by many names.

So it goes.  You would never guess that Monotheism had won out.

Hi Jonathan ,

No one can say you aren't paying attention

I have many relatives who are evangelical Christians that want nothing that smacks of Paganism or idolatry in their home but have wall calendars honoring Tiw's Day (Tuesday) , Woden's Day (Wednesday), Thor's Day (Thursday), and Frigg's Day (Friday)  

BTW, I loved your Buddhist quote.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Gruffydd y Dryw

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

13 hours ago, Gruffydd y Dryw said:

Hi Jonathan ,

No one can say you aren't paying attention

I have many relatives who are evangelical Christians that want nothing that smacks of Paganism or idolatry in their home but have wall calendars honoring Tiw's Day (Tuesday) , Woden's Day (Wednesday), Thor's Day (Thursday), and Frigg's Day (Friday)  

BTW, I loved your Buddhist quote.

 

Let us not forget Sunday and Moonday.  Two more gods on the calendar.  As described in Genesis, the Sun and Moon are both gods.  They have to be gods.  They both "rule."     

 

Genesis 1:16

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

      

[inner searcher]

Hmmmmm, reducing the spiritual experience to a graph and four terms that dont explain much of anything..... if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears, was the tree even there?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

11 minutes ago, inner searcher said:

Hmmmmm, reducing the spiritual experience to a graph and four terms that dont explain much of anything..... if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears, was the tree even there?

 

Yes.  Acts of Nature do not require a witness.  

[inner searcher]

So, if there is a tree, and I dont believe in it, it still real?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, inner searcher said:

So, if there is a tree, and I dont believe in it, it still real?

 

Yes.  Your lack of belief will not cause a tree to vanish from existence.

I think I see where this is going.

Lack of belief will also not cause God to vanish from existence.

Neither will belief cause God to come into existence.

Belief, non-belief and disbelief are all equally irrelevant.  

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

9 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Belief, non-belief and disbelief are all equally irrelevant.  

That is an interesting belief.

Edited May 26, 2016 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

That is an interesting belief.

 

As you wish.  "In my opinion."

[inner searcher]

Quite by accident, I seem to have lost my own point, let me clarify, my point (such as it was) was that the chart at the beginning of this thread attempted to pigeon hole various levels or forms of belief, and that attempting to apply any scientific means to faith, (graphs, flow charts, whatever.) is, speaking for myself, counter-intuitive. Of all the things if life and the world, faith is the one thing that defies all reason and explanation. Even something as simple as picking a square that best fits a persons perception of their own beliefs limits that perception to a category. The quicksilver nature of faith should never be limited, even momentarily to a particular spot. My simile with the tree was a rather poor attempt to illustrate the point that Jonathan did far better, although I disagree with the last point.

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Lack of belief will also not cause God to vanish from existence.

Neither will belief cause God to come into existence.

Belief, non-belief and disbelief are all equally irrelevant.  

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, inner searcher said:

Quite by accident, I seem to have lost my own point, let me clarify, my point (such as it was) was that the chart at the beginning of this thread attempted to pigeon hole various levels or forms of belief, and that attempting to apply any scientific means to faith, (graphs, flow charts, whatever.) is, speaking for myself, counter-intuitive. Of all the things if life and the world, faith is the one thing that defies all reason and explanation. Even something as simple as picking a square that best fits a persons perception of their own beliefs limits that perception to a category. The quicksilver nature of faith should never be limited, even momentarily to a particular spot. My simile with the tree was a rather poor attempt to illustrate the point that Jonathan did far better, although I disagree with the last point.

 

 

Alright.  Now a question for you.  Is it good to have "faith" which is not supported by "reason?"

If I am talking about what I "know" -- I can be reasoned with.

If I am talking about what I "believe" -- reason never enters into it and there is nothing left to say after, "I believe."

[inner searcher]

I would say, that yes, it is good to have "faith" unsupported by reason. To me, again, only for me, faith is not a thing of reason or logic. In fact it is quite the opposite. However faith should not be a foolish thing, going back to the tree, if I stand under it as it falls expecting God to stop IT or move ME, that is not faith, that is suicide in denial. I do however believe that after the tree squishes me like a bug that the God of my understanding would collect my immortal remains and deal with me accordingly, probably starting with a speech about dumping funeral expenses on my unsuspecting family.

I dont mean to imply that I know anything no-one else knows, faith in anything is a constant struggle for me, I am not a great thinker, I hold no degrees or letters of merit, I didnt even graduate high school. I am just one man on a personal journey. I dont think I would want any kind of "faith" that would stand up to logic or reason. That would make it just another Google search result.

[Key]

On 5/28/2016 at 7:21 AM, inner searcher said:

I would say, that yes, it is good to have "faith" unsupported by reason. To me, again, only for me, faith is not a thing of reason or logic. In fact it is quite the opposite. However faith should not be a foolish thing, going back to the tree, if I stand under it as it falls expecting God to stop IT or move ME, that is not faith, that is suicide in denial. I do however believe that after the tree squishes me like a bug that the God of my understanding would collect my immortal remains and deal with me accordingly, probably starting with a speech about dumping funeral expenses on my unsuspecting family.

I dont mean to imply that I know anything no-one else knows, faith in anything is a constant struggle for me, I am not a great thinker, I hold no degrees or letters of merit, I didnt even graduate high school. I am just one man on a personal journey. I dont think I would want any kind of "faith" that would stand up to logic or reason. That would make it just another Google search result.

Great analogy that makes a equally great point. Thanks for that.

[Natureboy]

According to the chart, I am a Gnostic Theist.  I've actually always considered myself as an Acetic Gnostic. 

[Maria Dwight]

Funny. I fall under the tree of Gnostic Theist. However, just because I believe with 100% certainty doesn't mean I have the desire to prove it to somebody else. It's just my experience that makes it true for me. 

[John]

Is indifferent the point in the middle or off the chart doing other things? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

That is the problem with trying to force everybody into a single issue, two dimensional chart.  My own position floats.

Atheism -- If we specify that the God under discussion is the God of the Bible or Koran:  I need a reason to believe that something exists.  To my knowledge, there is no good reason to believe that this particular God exists.

Agnosticism:  Maybe this God exists.  Maybe this God does not exist.  I don't "know."  In the absences of proof or reason, the default position is no.  Pending further evidence.

Apatheism:  I'm not at all sure it actually matters whether or not God exists.  There is a simple thought experiment.  Pretend that God exists.  What changes?  Nothing.  Now, pretend that God does not exist.  What changes?  Nothing.

Pantheism:  The God of Spinoza and Einstein.  Well, maybe.  I'm not at all sure this is a legitimate use of the God word -- but maybe.

I also have affiliations.

I was ordained by the Apathetic Agnostic Church (UCTAA).  The motto is - "We don't know and we don't care.".  

I was also ordained by the First Church of Atheism.  Yes.  I know.  Not a religion.  I thought it was funny.  The humor is wearing thin.

 

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In the absences of proof or reason, the default position is no.

Why is that the default position? With other subjects, the default position in the absence of proof or reason is usually more along the lines of "Someone should probably look into that."

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Why is that the default position? With other subjects, the default position in the absence of proof or reason is usually more along the lines of "Someone should probably look into that."

Since I sincerely do not want to step on anybody's feelings, without a reason; I will not use God as my example.  Instead, let us speak of  The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

For the sake of argument, let us suggest that you tell me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.  I take a few moments to wonder if you have lost your mind.  You then tell me that I have to accept the reality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on faith alone.  At this point, I tell you, as a good non-theist -- that I will consider the reality that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, just as soon as I have proof.  Or at least something resembling evidence.

I am not obligated to accept every silly assertion without a reason.  Not the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Not the Invisible Pink Unicorn (who is both invisible and pink).  Not the Purple Oyster of Doom.  Not even God.

Unless somebody shows me something -- the default position is that it doesn't exist.  I can not possibly be expected to disprove every silly flight of imagination.  For instance, The Hollow Earth.   Or the flat Earth.

For some things, the default position could be -- as you suggested -- "Someone should probably look into that."  An example here would be the efficacy of Homeopathic remedies.  I am dubious, but willing to be persuaded.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Pastor Dave]

16 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Unless somebody shows me something -- the default position is that it doesn't exist.

Interesting position.

That statement suggests, to me, that, for you, molecules and atoms did not exist until recently. I say did not because it wasn't until 2013 that the first "picture" of a molecule was ever produced. First-ever high-resolution images of a molecule. We had lots of drawings but no actual pictures. We took it on faith in the scientific community that molecules and atoms were real. I'm fairly sure that is not actually the case. You likely believed scientists were right even though the best they could do was draw pictures of what they believed molecules and atoms looked like.