Neither a theist nor an atheist

As a follower of the middle path I consider myself to be neither a theist nor an atheist.
No I'm not agnostic either. I'm not undecided. I have decided and I choose neither.Sometimes the answer to a question is that it's the wrong question to ask.
Whats north of the North Pole? Whats 1/0? Have you stopped beating your wife?
Do you believe in an absolute moral standard that you must live up to to avoid hell or do you believe that you can lie and cheat and steal and do whatever you want without any consequences?A rational person could answer the question "do black people exist" with a yes or no but a rational person would not be able to answer the question "Do n-----s exist" with a yes or no. A bigot would not be able to understand why not and would keep insisting that the answer must be either yes or no.The difference between a black person and a n----- is that we see the latter as being all bad
The difference between poo and s--- is that we see the latter as being all bad. Good for nothing. Fit only for damnation.In reality nothing is all good or all bad. Even God would have a shadow, though many people, consciously or unconsciously, think otherwise.
(the difference between a God with a shadow and a God without a shadow might seem trivial but a little leaven leavens the whole)The concept of God, like the concept of n----, is such that its impossible to answer the question "does God exist" with a simple yes or no.The false dichotomy of atheism vs theism is like the false dichotomy of selfless vs selfish. Its all-or-nothing.
The middle path, on the other hand, is not all-or-nothing. It is cooperation vs competition.Mark 8:15 (NKJV)
15 Then He charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven (all-or-nothing thinking) of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.
(i.e. all-or-nothing thinking is like an infectious disease or a computer virus)hypocrisy = υπόκρισις = under-judge = hidden judging
to judge someone is to see that person as either all good or all bad with nothing in betweenEmpiricism is certainly not wrong but, without rationalism, it is a shallow and incomplete world view. In the purely empirical world view, a person is seen as just a "collection of atoms" and since it is not morally wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate atoms to one's own ends it is, therefore, not thought morally wrong to use, abuse, or manipulate people to one's own ends. On the face of it, this almost seems reasonable. After all, we are indeed made entirely of atoms (or some other units that can be modeled mathematically). It fails, however, to take into account the complex emergent phenomena that make a human being so much more than "just atoms". Atoms don't have thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams, or aspirations but people do. These emergent phenomena may not be empirically observable but they are immediately perceptible to intuition just as one can "hear" things that cannot be "seen".(Psychology is an emergent property of biology which is an emergent property of chemistry which is an emergent property of particle physics).Clearly, being "made of" something (for example atoms) is not the same as "being" something. But this brings up an even deeper issue. What does it mean to "be" something? In the purely empirical world view it doesn't mean anything. In the purely empirical world view names are arbitrary and meaningless labels. This is confusion. (I would compare this to believing that its OK to be a thief as long as you don't steal anything). Words are categories and the phenomenon of Convergent evolution clearly shows that those categories are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.People subscribing to the purely empirical world view think that since we are "just atoms" therefore everything is, as the saying goes, "all-good" and that therefore "anything goes". (Following this sort of reasoning if people are just atoms and eating atoms is okay then it would follow that eating people was okay, which is clearly absurd) This is an example of all-or-nothing thinking. It is certainly true that nothing is a "sin" (nothing is "all-bad") and that people should not be "judged" (because nobody is "all-bad" and therefore nobody deserves condemnation or rather "damnation") but it does not automatically follow that everyone and everything is all-good. That is the opposite mistake. Everything is definitely not all-good and anarchy is definitely not freedom. the only laws people were ever required to keep are the Noahide laws. If you keep those then you are righteous and that is all anybody needs to be.It is true that if you want to be Jewish then you do have to keep certain other laws but there is not now nor has there ever been any requirement that you be JewishNoahidism - WikipediaNoahidism is a Biblical-Talmudic and monotheistic ideology based on the Seven Laws of Noah, and on their traditional interpretations within Rabbinic Judaism. According to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : added link to ontologyEdited by granpa, : moved a parenthesisEdited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : moved a sentence from one paragraph to anotherEdited by granpa, : removed an unnecessary periodEdited by granpa, : Added image

your brain is divided into 3 main parts each of which is capable of thinking and acting autonomously:
Forebrain (CEO) decides what to do
Midbrain (input) decides when to do it
Cerebellum (output) decides how to do itthe cerebral cortex (forebrain) is CEO.
The forebrain is the source of imagination
You are the forebrain.
The midbrain and cerebellum are your helpers that take care of routine tasks so you can concentrate on more important things.
Most information goes straight from input to output bypassing the forebrain.the midbrain is input.
The midbrain has thousands of eyes and can raise the alarm when something needs attention
These alarms exert an irresistible all-powerful force upon you.
Fortunately for us the midbrain only wants what is best for us and never asks anything for itself.
These alarms are capable of giving us infinite power.
The midbrain is the true "sun" that lights up our mind.the cerebellum (hindbrain) is output.
The cerebellum has thousands of hands and can juggle thousands of things at once but has no clue "what" it is doing.
The cerebellum takes care of simple procedures so the forebrain can concentrate on more important issues.
It also helps the midbrain accomplish its tasks.
You point at the target and the cerebellum shoots.
(But sometimes it "misses the mark" that you set for it)When we fall from the garden we become disconnected from the midbrain and the cerebellum usurps many of its functionsEach of these 3 parts is likewise divided into an input, output, and CEO each of which is likewise divided into an input, output, and CEO.
This continues right down to the level of neurons.
As a result your brain is a city full of independent units (See HOW THE MIND WORKS by Steven Pinker), organized into a fractal pyramid, that are constantly talking back and forth, buying and selling, living and dying. Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : removing some redundant stuff to make it more readableEdited by granpa, : added some line breaks that somehow got removed

that's like saying that since Republicans and Democrats are opposites that everything in existence including rocks and trees must be either a Republican or a Democrat.And first of all, you have to define GodEdited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : Fixed quote

No, atheists are not sociopaths and I didn't say they were.
I do, however, believe that both theists and atheists are infected with all or nothing thinking and that the only way to rid oneself of this infection is to find the middle pathOne of the seven laws of Noah is the requirement to have laws and set up a governing body of justice (e.g. courts)Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : Added quoteEdited by granpa, : Minor rewording and capitalization

I didnt call it empiricism. I called it the purely empirical world view (i.e. complete rejection of rationalism)Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

No they wont fail to do so if they are also rationalistsEdited by granpa, : No reason given.

People subscribing to the purely empirical world view think that since we are "just atoms" therefore everything is, as the saying goes, "all-good" and that therefore "anything goes".
Such a person lives in a world where freewill reigns and cause and effect is virtually non-existent.This is clearly an unreasonable position and anyone holding it is clearly unreasonable.
Their lack of, and therefore need for, reason should be obvious.
Such a person would see reason, and anyone teaching reason, as trying to take away their freedom and enslave them.emergence creates difficulties even for rational people much less irrational peopleThe mind is an emergent property and the whole world is still arguing over the reasons why people behave the way they do and especially why people commit crimes. how would u empirically determine why people commit crimes?emergence is one of those concepts that is simple and obvious once you understand it but which can be quite slippery and hard to grasp for those that are unfamiliar with itEdited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : Added slippery lineEdited by granpa, : Added "and hard" to make it less clunky

I would have added the following to my previous post but I just got into trouble for editing my posts late so instead I'll just create a new post in reply to to previous onewhat is the reason why the dinosaurs went extinct?
There are clues but in the end this is something we are simply never going to be able to empirically see.
We must instead rely on our intuition and reasonI guess what I should have said is that the reasons why things happen arent necessarily empirically observable but are perceptible to intuition.
Without intuition people subscribing to the purely empirical world view see a world devoid of reasons and resort to reductionism (which fails to take into account emergence)Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

At this point someone usually interjects "But all information comes to us through our senses therefore all information is empirical". That may be true, but the way we process that information isn't always empirical. Intuition can give true and justified results yet because of its nature it is impossible to prove it to someone else. There is nothing magical about intuition. Intuition is simply the brain using inductive reasoning and massive parallel processing to determine the reasonableness (plausibility) of certain possibilities. You suspend your disbelief long enough to get a "feel" for how well the idea "fits" with everything else you know. Does it conflict with other things you know? Does it require that you make many other assumptions? Or would it, in fact, explain things that would otherwise be unexplained?Intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is true or not, but if used properly, it does tell you whether that idea is reasonable or not. Occam's razor states that the most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one. This is an important principle in understanding Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.It really is as they say: "you see what you want to see". And if you truly want to see what the facts say when they are allowed to speak for themselves then you will indeed see that too.

something is either reasonable or it is not. Our "ideas" have nothing to do with itEdited by granpa, : No reason given.

something is reasonable if there is a reason why it could happen

as I clearly stated earlier intuition can not tell you whether something is true or not. It can only tell you whether it is a reasonable possibility or notonce you see what he is wearing then you know beyond a reasonable doubt whether its true or notEdited by granpa, : No reason given.Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

other universes are a reasonable possibility but magic is certainly not

the possibility that other universes might have different laws from our own is a reasonable possibility. But they must follow some sort of laws of cause and effect and that means it isn't magicEdited by granpa, : No reason given.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no? Or are you asking agnostic?and first of all you have to define GodEdited by granpa, : No reason given.