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 between
Empiricism 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. If people are just atoms and eating atoms is okay then it would follow that eating people was okay, which is clearly absurd.
(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". 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 Jewish
Noahidism - Wikipedia
Noahidism 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 (to find favor with God)
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.