Atheist vs Pantheist

[schizo pantheist]

I am new to the forum and decided to challenge the wisdom of the most educated and sincere atheist,

Well then...

I am a pantheist, which mean everything is deity.

Well... ok... you have very low standards.

It is a broad definition. It is a universal mind with everything connected, sentient is the point. Atheism typically denies the sentience of the universe, which is what makes my way different.

A true form of spiritual science, or real science, that includes more dimensional possibilities than 3d. More in line with physics, actually.

I strongly doubt that your subjective interpretation of your senses as multidimensional, or the trivial fact that our senses have more than three independent sensors which could be counted as dimensions of perception, has anything but a superficial similarity to the speculative ideas about higher dimensions as they appear in theoretical physics.

It’s simple logic really. My own perception deserves interpretation, and multidimensional is simply the word choice used to describe the experience of sight into other realms. Seriously, what english term really fits? I have a hard time defining it really. Spirit realm fits, but then one could argue whether or not spirits actually exist, since they get recycled eventually too like everything else apparently. That’s what I get on my channel anyway.

As to it fitting into theoretical physics, I am not that original in this line of thinking. It is a common school of thought actually. Many mystics have had inner revelations that harmonize with what scientists are discovering about the nature of matter. The mystic knowledge however is thousands of years old, whereas the modern science is barely decades. Don’t brush aside the thousands of years of wisdom from our elders as if they were superstitious idiots. They were quite wise for the most part you now. Common trick of the modern generation is to not give credit where due to the older.

I fully support and believe in evolution, using it against me is a waste of time.

Umm... ok... I don't know what you mean by that

Meaning I’m not some fundamentalist creationist who believes the world was created in 6 days, however I will argue that Moses or somebody had a true vision of the evolution of the universe, beginning from darkness and then following 6 yom in Hebrew which means period of time often translated as “day” but in an alphabet with only 3000 words many are used in different contexts and this is one. 6 time periods is more accurate, or the process divided by 6 chapters, actually 7 which is an ancient magical number based on astrology. The seventh day the masculine/feminine goddess/god rested. It describes the entire process from the big bang, darkness, to the creation of land, the evolution of life from aquatic to land dwellers and everything. Quite scientific, except it’s put in mystical poetic form because it is the revelation of a schizo.

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.

If you, as you do above, define deity so broadly that a pebble qualifies, then yes, there is scientific evidence for theism. You just don't learn much new from changing the meaning of words.

Semantics, yes, the problem of linguistics. I start my analysis with definitions of terms like a legal document to be clear so they won’t be minced, however, if you wish to challenge the definition that is the entire point of my argument. I define reality as thus. You disagree. Ok, use logic and show a better way then.

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.

It does include the science of these mystical experiences. It's just that they're in peoples' heads and belong into the realm of neurology and psychology, not physics.

That is the problem with separating science into such distinct realms. You see, if there is no realm to realm communication in the world of science they will never reach the truth. Sciences disagree with each other, likely because they aren’t talking, and usually this is because of the personal philosophy of the scientists.

If what is in people’s heads also is similar to what physicists have found, then perhaps a thorough investigation of the subjective mythological poetries describing the inner realms connection to this outer realm is in order, looking for consistency and patterns. If the human body is really an apparatus for whatever you semantically term awareness, spirit is one word that could be used, then certainly it can be utilized as an instrument to gain more awareness via altering it’s ability to pick up on information from the collective reality. As a schizo, I can definitely say my awareness is altered. Permanent too. It’s altered from normal status doesn’t mean the perceptions don’t have place in reality, especially when the perceptions prove themselves, such as clairvoyance actually happening.

So, I find this basic logical argument applies to atheists: the burden of proof is upon you to show your philosophy has merit.

No.

Why not? You have a philosophy. What evidence do you bring to the table to show it’s validity?

---

The best lab is the human experience.

There's your problem right there. Do a little research on neurology, our perceptions and the fallibility of the human brain. You seek truth from personal experience, but the truth is that our personal experiences are just flawed reflections of reality at their very best. Study after study shows that our brains are very poor at actually determining and understanding what is going on around us.

I agree to a point. However, neurology is limited. I prefer a more broad perspective that takes into consideration the fallibility of the brain, and rather than take human perceptions literally, due to this fallibility, find patterns in human cognition that are consistent with scientific thought, such as the origin of the universe.

My experience of the spiritual is "I can't tell you exactly how it is but I will paint a poetic picture that symbolically helps you understand it" -Spirit. I find this consistent with religious founders and the myths they created. I look at them as masterpiece works of art by creator, channelled through a human in rapture. I don't take any myth literally for this reason, they are all only symbols of how it is. What can be learned from the symbol or pattern is what is important. And, mythological patterns are found in nature. Archetypes. Humans can sense the symbolic nature of the universe instinctually it seems. It's set up that way. People recognize archetypal patterns. Astrology is a good example of connecting the archetypes with the outside world. It really is that interconnected is the astrologist's argument. Our very awareness and experience of earth life is pre determined by universal energies patterned in the heavens. Our soul's journey is mapped out by fate they say. Our very personalities are the result of universal forces alchemically mixing together in different energetic recipes. Perhaps that is the definition of individual spirit. The energy mix.

---

"Everything is god" is functionally equivalent to "nothing is god."

Exactly.





If everything is a deity, then nothing is special relative to anything else in this regard and the term 'deity' becomes meaningless as a label.

Pretty much. That is why I say the word magic is irrelevant too if it is simply a natural phenomenon.
I've heard people argue that the buddhist definition of deity is like this. Kind of meaningless. You can't really call it any kind of theism.

However, the mystical and prophetic are not incompatible with the natural, because it's all deity, and normal stuff. No difference.