We seek to present a worldview somewhere between the theist and atheist worldviews, a worldview that to some extent resolves the theist/atheist dichotomy. Yet, the worldview we've described so far lies much closer to atheism than theism. For it accepts a natural ontology with no angels, demons or eternal souls; it accepts a natural epistemology and accepts no writings as revealed by God; it considers humanity not the "pinnacle of creation", but merely as one among innumerable life forms (although we acknowledge humanity as the dominant life form on Earth—at present); it regards the human person as lacking an enduring identity that persists beyond death.
True, casting our discussion in a theological framework compelled us to define some conception of God. But the atheist probably finds our concept of God comfortably abstract and philosophical, and can probably tolerate it without much discomfort. The theist, on the other hand, may find our conception of God too philosophical, too abstract, too remote from anything they care about.
For centuries, people have built barn walls on the ground and then had a "barn-raising" event to move them into their proper place. We've built our worldview mostly on the grounds of atheism. To move our worldview into its proper place, we turn to a new topic: the real, objective existence of the One and the possibility of experiencing the One in an immediate, nonmediated manner.