For the context of the following comments please click on the hyperlinks above them.
There are “atheists”.
And there are “atheist/anti-religionists”.
The “anti-religionist” protrusion makes the latter spin in wobbly orbits.
Sabio Lantz - “I agree, and believe it or not, I am not of the anti-religion group.
In fact, see my most recent post called False generalization about ‘religion'”
Thank you for the clarification, I will adjust my conceptions about your purpose.
Now that someone has finally forced me to look up “heuristic”, I will have to apologize to any future readers. It will probably get used ad-infinitum.
However, since all understanding in relative experience is “approximate”, I’m not sure what the “not guaranteed to be optimal” in it’s definition pertains to.
Unless of course, we are talking about enlightenment. And no phenomena of consciousness could be more heuristic or optimal. This is very confusing.
All kidding aside though, I enjoyed your blog and marvel at how you beat me to the “wobbly orbits” analogy.
Sabio Lantz - “LOL: Glad you enjoyed the ‘wobbly orbit’ value in my diagram. Feel free to comment there any time you wish. Challenges to my perceptions, my ideas and my rhetoric are coveted.”
(Responding to a blog by Harry M. McCall titled “Debunking Christianity – The Evolution of God from Yahweh in a Box to the Super Mega Deity of the Universe”. )
Of course it is just human beings that you ridicule. The evolution of their conceptualizations could be a source of celebration. But then, who would read your blog? Your talent would be wasted. Your readers appetites left unappeased.
Or, as you have eloquently described by exaggerated contrast; As our heads increasingly wrap themselves around the ineffable infinitude of the foundation, the storyline changes. Since this is nature, it behaves like nature. Always reaching, for a more “optimal” expression of itself.
Yes! Let the telling about God increase in coherence. Until there is no external reference point to sustain the telling. No one “left behind.”
Atheist or Theist. Not really relevant.
Harry H. McCall - “Your points are only valid if your god is not the historical textual God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Only if your god is derived from Processed Theology; but then you are now your own deity master who has, to reference Mark Twain, created a god in your own image.
Secondly, you’ve proven my thesis in that the god (I’m using a small ‘g’ on purpose) you have referenced would never be accept as the doctrinally dying, blood atoning, resurrected, coming future judge of the world. Your concept . . . and a concept is just that with out any historical doctrines, is not the Christian God, but a quick philosophical Heat and Eat mental creation that might make you feel warm and tingly all over, but essentially is a God with no, past, no demands on humanity to prove he exists or as one pastor put it; ‘A God which doesn’t cost anything isn’t worth anything’.
In conclusion, if your theological really was credible (apart from Processed Theology), then, as you pointed out, this blog would not be here neither would anyone be reading a blog you could could create on the do-it-yourself universal theological god you invented.”
“Your points are only valid if …”
Harry H. McCall – “Odd . . . you are disturbed enough to post a comment, but now find my response to your comments (points) meaningless.
OK, you’ve proven your illusive god with an illusive reply.”
Not meaningless. It was a fair question. Since your response seemed more rhetorical than reflective, relative to what I said. Perhaps I am wrong, and will take a longer look at it soon, and see if I can followup. Don’t want to waste either of our times though, if my view is not of interest.
“…Odd…you are disturbed enough to post a comment…”
I was not disturbed, but rather, thought I should highlight something that may have been overlooked.
Harry H. McCall - “Personally, I think you’ve presented a God from John B. Cobb’s volume on Process Theology: A Christian Natural Theology, Second Edition: Based on the Thought of Alfred North Whitehead.
First Mark Twain and now John B. Cobb’s. I suppose most people have given some thought to the nature of our existence and what it means.
I took a look a the wikipedia article on Process Theology, and saw some things that seem to express something similar to what I have said or might say.
Harry H. McCall - “You and I have more in common than I appear to admit. My college and seminary education was in Bible and Christianity before I left due to religious politics . . . a Lutheran turned Baptists, who studied at a Wesleyan University and finally studied at a Presbyterian seminary.
If you pull up John B Cobb (the leading scholar of Process Theology) he was once a Biblical literalist who realized that the Bible could not continued to be believed in this manner and be meaningful. I think Rudolf Bultmann ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R… ) had a large impact on him as Bultmann had on me.
You seem like and interesting person, very different from the average Christian who comes to DC to attack and defend the orthodox doctrines of the Faith.
Anyway, I’ve enjoyed our dialogue. Thanks
GearHedEd - “That’s the problem: there isn’t any higher meaning to our lives.”
This isn’t a truth, just an attitude. I’m wondering why you have cultivated it, despite so many alternative examples all around.
Is it lack of imagination? Attachment to some disappointment? Judgement of others?
Without more input I can only guess, and point out that it is the result of choices and habits of thought.
” Once you’ve reproduced, you’re truly extraneous. So am I, but I’m honest enough to admit it”
The self that you refer to as “you” and “I”, seems to be limited in scope to the perishable echo of the absolute “I Am”. This personally useful, but finite organ, rides along with the body on it’s arc of relative existence, but it is not the sum of Being or Awareness.
Why do you infer that I am “dishonest” if I have come to a different conclusion about the nature and purpose of evolution?