Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 5, 2024, 10:56 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheist vs Pantheist
#39
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist
(January 14, 2015 at 7:00 pm)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: There is no god. Everything is Easter Bunny. Isn't argument by empty assertion fun?

Well, the funny part about the easter bunny is it is really all about the sex goddess whom the word Easter came from. Bunny is spirit speak for sex, breed like rabbits archetype. Pagan spring celebration. Fertility Goddess worship. So, I actually do believe in the easter bunny goddess. She is as real as fairies or Jesus to me. Actually sex Goddess Ishtar is very similar to Jesus archetypically speaking. The story follows similar themes.

Everything is Ishtar bunny because Goddess is everything, obviously, except the male half of the universe. She gets the female and male "confused" (well, she know's what she is doing) sometimes though and traps herself in male bodies in her religion. Go figure. Gay sex slave priests. Think of that next time easter comes around.....

(January 14, 2015 at 7:09 pm)abaris Wrote: I drank god from a can, then I pissed him back in the toilet where he belongs. But wait a minute, the toilet is also god.

Sacred and profane together. Beautiful expression of how it is.

(January 14, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote:
(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.

That is the mystery of the monotheistic nature of pantheism. It’s like deity is the universal intelligence behind reality, so it can take many polytheistic forms, typically for the purpose of instructing on a certain aspect of reality. The Hindu and American Native religions are good examples of this. Natives believe in different powers, power animals represent the spiritual forces that interplay, and animals can be the shapeshifter form deity takes to instruct about it’s different facets a sort of polytheistic way. In Hinduism, powers are represented, or spiritual forces from the same deity, as different deities with different mythological teachings to offer. Hinduism is clear though, despite it’s polytheism, that there is one Supreme Reality transcending all deities. In Buddhism deities as spiritual powers and instructors are transcended, as they were by the Buddha during his enlightenment under the boddhi tree. Buddha is “above deities” because he mastered all the lesson’s those power instructors have to offer. He became the everythingness of pantheistic thought the way I see it.

The way that even inanimate objects even can be defined as deity is simply because they are composed of the same universal life force energy that could be defined as the pantheistic deity to begin with. Like the force in Star Wars, (which is based on ancient myth according to expert Joseph Campbell, as well as the author).

The source and end of all creation is the same universal sentient energy. Qi basically. All of existence is simply manifestations of it. Existence is simply the body of the divine, housing eternal sentience. Kind of like Shiva Shakti in Hinduism. Shakti is the force that provides movement, or life, to the material realm, as it’s body or house. They are one though. They are really the same being, kind of a hermaphrodite. God/Goddess. Twin gender forms of deity are common in myth, like the male and female image divinity poetically paints itself as in Genesis.

The deities teach “look at me, reality is kind of like my story, or archetype”. In fact many look to statues perhaps because they were or are illiterate. A deity statue tells the story of the deity symbolically, without using words. In trance people often see these statues as possessed by their deity. Empowered by it, kind of like the Jews with their relics. So many deities to learn from, so many cultures, but really just like Jesus said he is the vine we are the branches, it’s all the same plant. Masks of the same God as Campbell put it.

Unknown source once said it is like 3 blind people all touching an elephant which is defined as the supreme being. One says divinity is like a wall, touching only the elephant’s side. Another says it is like a snake, holding the elephant’s tail, another like trees, feeling the elephant’s huge feet. Experiencers often don’t see the whole picture of the divine and therefore focus on certain aspects. Or they focus on one aspect as their way of life where another focuses on another deity as theirs. Praying to different “Gods” so to speak, but really just aligning with differrent powers stemming from the same One.

There is a static aspect to the inner realm that Carl Jung pointed out, which is why he termed it universal. It actually exists in collective awareness, subconsciously and who is to say that the collective unconscious isn’t really the spirit realm. We don’t know how it works really. Science doesn’t know. Jung offer’s a working theory. Best one I have seen so far.

(January 14, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Michael Schubert Wrote: 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?

I expected to run into the same semantical argument over and over again about the definition of the word science before I came to this forum. In college English class one of the first things it teaches about writing is starting by defining terms.

Perhaps from the way you look at it theism is the wrong way to look at it. I figured pantheist fits my philosophy, and it falls into the theistic category, though it is somewhat of a grey area when everything is God.

Deities are anthropomorphic due to the fact that they have to use some kind of form that relates to human experience. Really, deity can take whatever form teaches the lesson. It’s all the same shapeshifting deity though, from the highest perspective. From a lower perspective of separation, such as the teaching that there is a difference between you and I, subject and object, it is a bunch different energies working together but that are separate in awareness from each other. In higher realms, there are multi beings, aware of many experiences at once. Like a multi being, millions under them, or unified with them. Collective awareness beings in other dimensions basically. They could be considered cultural deities, rulers of the myth/spell they created as spiritual powers. That’s why when a NDE happens people generally see the deity of their culture, whether its Jesus, if they believe the God spell, or Buddha etc. at the end of the tunnel. The meet the power that has been behind the scenes as a multi being that is literally them the whole time and unify with it, becoming the multi being but really, they were it the whole time. More like just waking up to multi awareness, expanded consciousness, kind of like the gatekeeper in the modern movie Thor, he watches the souls of trillions. Higher being.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Atheist vs Pantheist - by schizo pantheist - January 14, 2015 at 1:20 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Surgenator - January 14, 2015 at 1:30 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by psychoslice - January 15, 2015 at 12:14 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by dyresand - January 14, 2015 at 1:39 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by IATIA - January 14, 2015 at 1:40 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by schizo pantheist - January 14, 2015 at 8:51 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Michael Schubert - January 15, 2015 at 1:58 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Surgenator - January 14, 2015 at 2:01 am
response - by schizo pantheist - January 15, 2015 at 12:05 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Surgenator - January 15, 2015 at 1:55 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by robvalue - January 14, 2015 at 7:06 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Davka - January 14, 2015 at 11:03 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Darkstar - January 14, 2015 at 12:32 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by TheRealJoeFish - January 14, 2015 at 8:20 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by FatAndFaithless - January 14, 2015 at 11:05 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Davka - January 14, 2015 at 11:09 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Alex K - January 14, 2015 at 11:18 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by schizo pantheist - January 20, 2015 at 9:40 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Faith No More - January 14, 2015 at 11:56 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by The Grand Nudger - January 14, 2015 at 12:54 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by schizo pantheist - January 20, 2015 at 11:07 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by downbeatplumb - January 14, 2015 at 1:11 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Davka - January 14, 2015 at 1:22 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Cheerful Charlie - January 14, 2015 at 7:00 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by schizo pantheist - January 20, 2015 at 11:15 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by abaris - January 14, 2015 at 7:09 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Michael Schubert - January 14, 2015 at 8:10 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by The Grand Nudger - January 14, 2015 at 8:14 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Michael Schubert - January 14, 2015 at 8:27 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by The Grand Nudger - January 14, 2015 at 9:51 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Faith No More - January 14, 2015 at 10:08 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Davka - January 15, 2015 at 12:06 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by schizo pantheist - January 20, 2015 at 8:14 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by robvalue - January 15, 2015 at 12:22 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Whateverist - January 15, 2015 at 1:21 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Cheerful Charlie - January 15, 2015 at 9:23 am
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by JonDarbyXIII - January 15, 2015 at 9:51 am
Atheist vs Pantheist - by KUSA - January 20, 2015 at 10:40 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Silver - January 20, 2015 at 11:10 pm
RE: Atheist vs Pantheist - by Creed of Heresy - January 25, 2015 at 8:01 am



Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)