abaddon

Ah, the wondrousness of being an Enlightened One.

Maybe, with this particular theist, his professed acceptance of mystery and uncertainty correlates with his freedom from the "bondage" of atheism. Any concept you invest with such emotional import can act as a blinder to further insights. Perhaps ultimately the choice between atheism and theism is determined by personality, and The Ultimate Truth is for the omniscient only (and the pretenders to it). Tangiellis apparently allows in his "worldview" a more psychological (interior, image-based) approach to understanding reality, in preference to stripping it barren of self as if mind were "inside" only and consequently negligible or "not real enough." The emotional need for definite answers appears, to me, as prevalent among atheists as anyone else.

That's why you're preaching a sermon about how atheism is The One True Way and attempting a conversion. (No, there's no parallel to evangelical fundamentalism here.)

Pompous assumption; atheism is the necessary stance once you know Reality -- there's no interpretation there at all. You outdid the mindreaders who like to secondguess what people think, and actually diagnosed the condition of theist's brains! Tangiellis chose the words "theist" and "god" to help describe some of his ideas because he has an under-developed brain!

abaddon

Lovelock never said the earth itself is a living organism, but rather suggested the complex symbiotic relations among biota and ecosystems are similar to a living organism.

I was under the impression it was gaining strength -- and good thing too, as it is a much needed antidote to the notion of non-human life and "resources" as secondary to humans and their concerns (a notion inherited by secular humanists from Judeo-Christianity: the Christians saw nature as void of soul because that's reserved for humans only, then many secularists turned that into nature as "dead mechanism" and humans as the only life with value, thus justifying environmental abuses).

But if you have information about the hypothesis' debunking, please share some references.

abaddon

Apologies to tangiellis for my use of male pronouns when referring to her! I got a feeling I oughta have checked the profile first, too late.

0

Which is a completely different subject from the one we are talking about right now, which is having a worldview, not how to practice modern medicine.
You can simultaneously have ideas about life and the universe while still adhereing to sound science to save a patient's life. But you already know that.
Funny. This sounds an awful lot like what I posted:
The only difference is that I acknowledge that my limitations may not be the same as your limitations. You have debated me before, Yahzi. At no time on this forum have I ever stated that I have all the answers. I don't. I have also stated before that I am still seeking and looking for answers and I adjust my worldview accordingly with new information that I find.
I have stated that I am still searching for answers. That already acknowledges there are things I fully acknowledge that I don't know.
The same way anybody else's system does. Sounds alot to me like you seem to think I just abandon reason entirely and go for broke. I walk a middle path between reason and intuition. I use both to gain knowledge. And if something doesn't hold true, I discard it the same way anybody else does.
You asked how we could reach an agreement. I stated:
Why do you feel the need to remind me of responsibility and that I affect you in response? It makes absolutely no difference to me what your worldview is. I'm perfectly able to coexist with others; my husband is an atheist. So how exactly is my theism affecting you, Yahzi?
True. But is does mean that in order to find fulfillment, there is a level of risk involved to do so.
Where did I state that? Didn't I state in the OP that I walk a path between mind and heart, reason and intuition? I utilize both to gather knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less than that.
What do you believe I am not verifiying? The conclusions I have come to regarding religion, philosophy and symbology stem from years of research into the subject, not just idle speculation. If I were truly "making things up" then I wouldn't bother to research anything.
As for verifiying my intuition, it is verified when something I have sensed turns out to be spot on. Experience has taught me to trust what I sense intuitively in regards to people and situations. When I second-guess myself and dismiss my intuition because what I sense isn't logical, I am always, always worse off for it.
Therefore, I no longer do that.

My two cents,
Tangie

0

The planet is composed of living organisms that do not speak human language but still thrive with the song of life.
I'm a writer and a poet. When I speak of the earth, prose is far superior in getting the point across.
I am only vaguely familiar with the Gaia hypthesis. Why don't you enlighten me in another thread?

My two cents,
Tangie

0

It's okay. I get that from time to time.

My two cents,
Tangie

TruthPrevails

Best wishes to your quest and journey..
My transition to atheism took quite a while after lots of reading, discussions in various forums and critical thinking. I did extensive readings in the neurosciences, brain/mind, evolutionary psychology, consciousness and all sorts of spiritual practices.
Basically one should BE with whatever (theist or atheist) one is comfortable with in one's current mental state whilst observing the Golden Rule.

I will agree with your disagreement.
For me, it is the mind cos' from what i have read and understand, the mind is indeed a very powerful bio-machine capable of giving truths and lies just to serve the purpose of the selfish-gene. Note the various debates on the color red, the sound of falling trees in a empty forest, & those relating to the mind.
I agree the planet can be considered a 'living' organism short of any consciousness. I am familiar with the GAIA concept as mentioned by MRZYPHL. We as individuals are all inter-dependent variables within our earth as a system.

Since the advent of theism, most religions work effectively by appeal of chauvinism. It is only by eroding such shackles of theism that humans can begin to take a neutral stand and work together. I speculate that when the majority of humans are able to work together, it will NOT be by any means based on deities, god(s) or some invisible being. Whatever it may be, it will be a non-theistic approach, in other word (a)theistic.

I did not mean to be condescending to you personally. My apologies if you see it that way.
I understand theism is a critical necessity for humanity since humans appear on earth, and with improvements till this current age. Humanity would not have evolved so far without it, but..
theism (as practiced by the majority) need to be weaned off like the weaning off a child's dummy (not drug rehab) to enable humanity to mature further. If you note the evolution of theism from its ancient barbaric (inquisition, child sacrifices, witch hunts, etc) days to the more softer approach in modern times, you can extrapolate it's slow weaning in the next 100 -200 hundred years.

To each his own, hopefully you will see that the above are just personal opinions/views.

TruthPrevails

There is a lot of interpretation of atheism depending on one's proclivity, ranging from weak, strong, militants, rationalists, etc.
My practice of atheism is to solely extricate oneself from the emotional reliance to believe in some sort of deity, god-of-the-gap, that-which-is-that, some invisible being, etc.

Note this about beliefs.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
I don't agree with the word 'bad' here, but the reasons given are good food for thought.

I won't insist everyone be an atheist. If one need to be a theist, i will respect that. My wife is a theist. I will not hesistate even if my son want to be a theist if that suits his emotional and psychological state in this moment in time. However, i would encourage (not insisting) that theists be open to different views if possible.

0

I can agree with this.

That neutral stand is a two-way street, you know. Can't exactly stand on neutral ground if you tell the other party they are "shackled" by their worldview. Will there be a middle ground? Yes, I believe there will be. Now as to what that middle ground is, I believe it will be based on the concept of recognizing humanity as a diverse group of human beings, first and foremost. All the other stuff is secondary.

Are you referring to Christianity or religion in general?
Because this "softer approach" has existed in religion for a long time before Christianity was even a thought in anybody's head. The problems with religion in the history of civilization that people like to frequently cite stem from two things: 1) the literalization of symbolic concepts and 2)the mix of religion with the political power structure of the times. Number 2 actually influences number 1 because religion becomes a tool to manipulate the population so those in power can achieve a desired end.
You see theism as a barriar to maturity within humanity. I see humanity as the barriar to maturity within humanity. It doesn't matter what ideology we adopt or come up. With God or without God, we still cannot stop murder, disease and war.
Our modern age has seen a growth in knowledge, but we still haven't caught up to that in terms with responsibility towards our fellow humans. There are still people starving. There is still poverty. There is still greed.
And this doesn't stem from theism. This stems from the basic human notion that catagorizes other humans as "less than." Less than because of wealth, power, race, sexuality, morality, political affliation. You name it.
So it's going to take alot more than weaning the world off of theism to overcome that, IMO.

Same here. Best wishes on your journey, TruthPrevails.

My two cents,
Tangie

JEST2ASK

Thanks ...

I am strugling with being "True to Thine-self" respectful of others and comfortable in my relationships (friends -family etc) ... It is no problem when I am posting on the Net or by myself ... I like how you give freedom to change ... your beliefs based on needs and current growth ... to many are (IMO) locked into a structure ...