Ignosticism

I think the delineation of reasons shakes out like this, we call for things out of desire or perceived necessity and the questioning of god or events is an authority problem.

 

I agree with most of this, except the bolded one as I think the average sports afficinado tends to put athletes on a superhuman pedestal and feel the athletes can assuage the fans worries themselves, but I digress, I do think Karen_J's mention of self-awareness is an aspect which is key to contemplating God as well.

Having previously attempted to call upon God to no avail in a potential relationship situation, practically the only things I contemplate about such an idea of God are those of seeming awareness within the Universe, things like The Earth in a Goldilocks zone being habitable for life. Some continuity in my self-awareness provides the ability to contemplate other possible types of awareness.

Perhaps it's a difference in our geographical location but I don't see something along the lines of the Intelligent Design type of contemplation of God that uncommon in my area.

 

I didn't get the point about the bold type, unless it was intended as a joke. I personally think the notion that God takes sides at football games is absurd, but I know that quite a few people think prayer can give their team an edge. Obviously, atheists will find the whole idea of God pointless, but what we're looking for here is a common definition that allows us to discuss (or argue about) God without the apples versus oranges problem. I agree that self-awareness should be included. Self-awareness isn't the matter of contention--it's the bit about being outside time and space, which, whether true or false is difficult to conceptualize and I don't think central to the minds of most believers. Intelligent design is certainly common in my area, as well, so maybe we should add intelligence in addition to self-awareness.

 

Again might be a geographical difference. We have 2 professional football teams and 2 professional baseball teams within 20 minutes of each other, I don't hear or see that type of sentiment even among religious people.

 

It's probably a cultural difference, and also a function of particular coaches. We had a coach at one of the state universities who was very big on prayer and Jesus, and was riding high when the team was winning. When the team started losing, he was replaced and I don't think Jesus gets as much team attention anymore, which as a Christian, I think is a good thing. I did notice that players for the rival university were praising Jesus with great fervor during TV interviews. Maybe that explains the reverse in fortunes. On the West Coast, some teams and players get greater mileage out of Buddhism.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ieve_god_rewards_faithful_sports_players.html

 

That's true for us, because we don't have a choice about it.
:bomb:

The existence question I quoted is extremely close to contemplating self-awareness, whether people use that terminology or not.

 

Of course in the Hindu tradition, in which physical reality and self are illusions and we are all part of the divine consciousness, self-awareness would be of central importance, so yes, we probably should include that.

 

.

 

Interesting article...

If that's the case, that's a major FAIL on the editors part for picturing Tebow as an example. He is not even in the NFL anymore, even when that pic was taken he was a backup, hardly an illustration of those being rewarded with success on the field for their faith.

 

So where are we on this? God is an intelligent, self-aware Higher Power. What else? Responsible for the creativity and integrated complexity of the universe? Earlier tonight a friend was talking about Guiding Ordering and Directing (GOD) energy. Too hokey?

 

The whole defines the parts but the part does not define the whole. Dejavu objects to the veracity of that statement, at least in part.

 

The synthesis of the Whole was known for itself before you were born. Since the beginning of emergence into life it is delusional analysis over the whole Synthesis. And Nietszche can agree with Kant. Kierkegaard said so by the negative of the negative.

 

In secular terms,
A part is an abstraction.

 

And the Whole is concrete (capable of being delusion). there is simply a integral whol(istic) abstract as well. I judge this Now.

 

Nonsense. It is only capable of what it is. It is the finite that are capable of cutting up what is whole.

 

All true, but consciously. The abstraction of "Part" is abstractly made conscious of.

 

Consciously the abstraction of the "whole" is only a part and arrow to the "whole" which can't be consciously experienced fully.

 

There are potentially an infinity of concrete parts, or concretely an infinity of parts. Get it; the whole remains the same either way and the abstract Part is determining the whole by that basic abstract Judgment. The abstract judgment should be the Ego for the Whole. What causes me to hurt is a wholeness within the Gestalt at the gestalt-ed sensation. I know that because the ego is judged.