Ah, I see where the confusion is coming from.
You were thinking that I have concluded that there are no gods simply because I have no emotional drive to regard any gods.
That is not the case, as they were separate commentaries.
Firstly, I’m an existentialist and a student of history. There’s no room in these for arguments from emotion, especially ones which - as you thought I was doing - then are used to argue an absolute.
As I state regularly around here, I am foremost a transtheist; meaning that I don’t care if there are or are not gods (this is the emotional part); this is not why I am interested in religion or spirituality.
If I am pressed, then I would then explain that I don’t believe it to be likely for there to be gods (this is the logical part, not related to the emotional part previous).
Even as a young child who was Christian and assumed the god of my parents by default and had never thought about the idea of this god not being true, I was not interested in my god.
I was interested in the nature of being, how to live.
When we studied Jesus and the class would center around the divinity of Jesus, I would be interested in the behavior of Jesus.
When pat question and answer time came and answers to “Why do you love Jesus?” were met with alterations of “Because he first loved me” or “Because he died for my sins”, I was responding with, “But what if he didn’t?”, because to me; that was kind of Jesus’ point - unmerited compassion.
I’ll cut the tangent there, but my point in that example is that I’ve never been interested in my relationship to any god personally.
I also don’t happen to believe any are existent, but I also do not claim to show that such is the case in argument.
I don’t care to convince anyone of such, so I was not stating that I believe gods are non-existent simply because I do not feel an emotional drive towards them.
Again, that logic would make about as much sense as me claiming that because I don’t feel an emotional drive towards a sexual orientation that therefore such sexual orientation simply does not exist.
No, sorry if that’s what you collected from my comments; but this was not my point.
Also, to be more explicit; I still have a deep emotional drive to be spiritual, and I actively am deeply spiritual.
Hopefully that helps clear some of the confusion up.
So the next part:
I wasn’t outlining a philosophy.
I have only outlined two philosophies: Bomanism, and Modular Spirituality.
The central focus in the former is a type of relationship with, “I”; the second is more a philosophy of how to build a spiritual philosophy.
My second passion is neurology.
It was not clear to me at all, that you were interested in the identity of, “I”.
If that is your interest, simple enough.
That is a very long discussion; and perhaps one we should open in a different thread so that we don’t completely derail this one.
But in brevity, “I”, is a culminating identity held in conceptual focal of our consciousness largely derived from implicit assimilation over time and is not the same as, what in Bomanism I call, “self nature”; but to express it without lingo, “me now”, without conception in mind of, “I”, as myself.
I wasn’t angry, though.
I was flummoxed, and at a loss of the basis of the discourses direction, but now I can see what was causing the confusion and it should be easier.
My primary point in this thread was a discussion of what our “divine anxiety” is.
To loop back, my original and continual focus has been based on this post:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=178005#p2283034
I had no interest in making claims about what does or does not exist in realms of divinity, and certainly would not make such a case based on emotional plea.