beyelzu

high idealogue,

if you do truly believe that you can discover anything about the world through myth and fantasy, then i have nothing to say to you. because, no amount of logic or reason is ever going to change you mind.

vayo con dio.

(which is kind of funny coming from an atheist.)

High Ideologue

No I do not 'truly believe' that from myth and fantasy I can discover something about the world. You are setting up a straw man and knocking it down. Try sticking to commenting on ideas I did write about.

High Ideologue

Really? What about the post where I thanked an infidel for help me to make a distinction between gnostic theism, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, and agnostic theism? How was thanking that individual for helping me to make a distinction equivalent to saying 'that doesn't invalidate my argument'? It is not.

I never said any such thing. Again you misrepresent my ideas. Again you set up a straw man and knock it down. Why?

You most certainly make a positive assertion. You are a faithful believer in an agnostic atheistic approach to making up your mind about self and world. To you this is the way, the truth and the light. You are making the positive assertion that this is the best approach and you are engaged in trying to convince me that my approach {agnostic theism} and results of my approach are wrong. My approach is to love to take healthy, agnostic, positivistic, nationalistic, spiritization of my model of self and world to an logical extreme. Your approach to making up your mind about self and world is an agnostic atheistic one. My approach for me, and I would argue many others, best produces happiness because the result is a belief in the perfection of an infinite divine eternal one that creates an infinite number, diversity and variety of universes for the divine eternal entertainment of our souls. Your approach leads you to a discovery of the impending disease and death of your seed body. You have yet to prove that your approach is the best one. The burden of proof is on you.

I do not consider others to be fleeing unless they are converted. However, there are those who might dismiss my ideas out hand because their minds are closed. I will grant you that are talking to me. However, in doing so you are frequently misrepresenting my ideas, setting up straw men and knock them down. It is hardly worth talking to someone who lies and claims victory by defeating ideas and argument not made by me.

What do you mean by they? This is a poorly phrased question. If by they you mean that universe as evidence can be interpreted in millions, probably billions, of other ways, then yes it is interpreted in millions, probably billions, of other ways. Each of us is a unique individual. Our models of self and world are unique to us as our finger prints.

High Ideologue

That is a good question that I don't pretend to have an answer to.

Yes, somewhere in an earlier post in this thread, I wrote about the possibility that the universe may be generated from within an infinite singularity. If this were the case, then the blackholes we are finding in the center of galaxies of our universe would be created in the fractal finite image of the infinite singularity.

Theli

High Ideologue...

I tell you, I have never understood this term. Nor have I understood as to why some insist on blending (a)theism and (a)gnosticism together.
It's like trying to decide witch color every letter in the alphabet has. Is an agnostic theist someone who believe god(s) exist but can't make up his mind?
Wouldn't it be more accurate to split (a)theism and (a)gnosticism into 2 seperate issues? Instead of having them answer the same question.


Beyelzu...
I think High.I has left the part of what model of the world that should be considered truest, and ventured into the question of weither we stand to gain from a more man-made view or not.
And in many occations imaginening things that aren't there can be beneficial. It can make it easier to "face life", and I wouldn't condemn it before the person begins to act on that belief. Believing that you can fly may be a good feeling, until you jump of a roof. Just as believing in faith healing can give you a sense of power, until you reject medical treatment and suffer the consequences.

High Ideologue

On page 2 of this thread I explored the topic of the correct use of the words atheist and agnostic with another writer. I was told by Daggah that I should think of atheism, theism, agnosticism, and gnosticism in accord with the following definitions.

1. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god or gods.

2. Theism is simply a belief in some particular god.

3. Agnosticism is a claim of not knowing.

4. Gnosticism is a claim of knowing.

Out of this dialogue came the idea of discussing gnostic theism, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, and agnostic theism. So agnostic theism is a claim of not knowing but having a belief is some particular god for other reasons like a desire enjoy the potential emotional and physiological benefits of doing so.

In the House of Ideology Manifesto however, I split (a)gnostic and (a)theist into two separate issues as you suggest in your question. I guess there is a difference of opinion here.