(January 14, 2015 at 1:20 am)schizo pantheist Wrote: I am a pantheist, which mean everything is deity. The keyboard is deity, the speck of dust on the screen is deity. I am deity, and so are you, same one. Monotheistic in a way, but includes all forms of deity following what science terms the subconscious collective. Shared mind, so to speak.
The main meat of my position is that there is a ton of science out there that supports theism, especially non dual pantheism such as I use to define myself. It is not found in the hard sciences much, with mathematics and weights and measures, however it can be found over and over again in psychology and philosophy. Particularly, I find atheism an unscientific philosophy, if it does not include the science of countless documented mystical experiences and spiritual emergencies that have happened for millions of years and have formulated the worlds most poetic religious renditions of the divine, from cave art up until modern cannon. Fairy tales included. Fairies are the ancient religion of my ancestors, and to be honest with you, I 100% believe they exist in a multidimensional realm. Ancestral deities is what they are. Their stories are meant to teach wisdom, not literalism. The Bible is similar to an excellent fairy tale. I see all religious texts this way. Don’t really believe them, but if you don’t believe and apply the wisdom they teach you are a fool and will suffer needlessly for your “evil”. Basically, along the evolutionary lines, good = smart and evil = dumb. Survival of the most intelligent, whether that be life form or other entity, animal, plant, anything that survives has inherent wisdom. It is wise enough, or the best and most current idea of the divine, to survive the current conditions and continues to adapt to change, like a mind changes.
So, I find this basic logical argument applies to atheists: the burden of proof is upon you to show your philosophy has merit. How, with all of the evidence from subjective experiencers, and access to your own mystical experiences if you simply try them, to scientifically test via observation, are you able to say for certainty that atheism is correct? I find it sincerely close minded. Dull. Not open to the mysterious possibilities, and continually pushing similar arguments such as “prove it in a lab”. The best lab is the human experience. I’m sorry atheist, but we simply don’t have the technology to rule out the human spirit, the millions of years of observers and philosophers on it separated by geography yet similar in their thought patterns, the uniform collective archetypes that not only existed in history as deities but are equally accessible now in mystical states of transcendence. Modern is not less mystical than ancient. Modern mystic here to tell you about it!
I am in consternation about your first paragraph. You claim that everything is a deity. How can everything, including inanimate objects, be deities? A deity is "divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity. " Please explain this.
Your second paragraph is also a bit abstruse. You say "there is a ton of science out there that supports theism" and then you go on about philosophies and spirituality. An atheist to me is someone who rejects the theistic claims for a supernatural god that defies the laws of physics. Social and physical sciences cannot prove that a supernatural god, as in an anthropomorphic deity with magical powers that sits up in the clouds, exists. I think you're misusing the term, "theism." It's defined as "the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism )." Some religions don't believe God is a supernatural deity that lives in material reality. Instead, they believe in a philosophical god, which atheists (depending on which one you speak to) don't necessarily disagree with.
Can you please address these problems?
