There has been a lot of talk lately about defining atheism, but little discussion of what exactly it is that atheists don't believe in. I bring this up because over the years, I have spoken with many atheists who don't believe in the jealous, petty deity portrayed inthe Bible, but seem to think that the Santa Claus in the sky model is the only god available.

I felt much the same way, over forty years ago. Once, at age fifteen, Christianity made sense for about twenty minutes, which was how long it took me to suss out the many absurdities and outright contradictions in "God's word." Thinking that the Christian god was the only option, I rejected it. That was the god of the old paradigm, to use Deepak Chopra's term.

Today, the God I know and communicate with, and enjoy a relationship with, is not a discrete entity--that notion limits God, and God is ,by definition, infinite. God is more the sentient and loving intelligence and energy that permeates all life and binds us all together. This God does not judge, reward or punish--we humans are all too good at that. While there is but one Ultimate Reality, we create our own individual realities, including our own heavens and hells. God is infinite, and God is everything. Can we grok God in fullness?

I think not, being that our apprehension is finite. By some definition, that may make me an agnostic; but byo ther definitions, I am a neo-gnostic, as I have experienced, directly, the divine through the seventh level of consciousness.

I do recognize various and sundry spirits, devas, and discarnate entities, all of which--like all of us--together make up God--the Great Spirit--which makes me a polytheist or pagan, I guess. None of them do, I think, have any sort of corporeal form, however.

One reason we have this difficulty with God is due to a linguistic quirk of the Hebrew language--that is, it has no neuter pronoun, so God has to be He or She. I think the Hindus are closer to the mark when they talk about Atman, or j just That.

I do recognize various and sundry spirits, devas, and discarnate entities, all of which--like all of us--together make up God--the Great Spirit.

It's been said that those who reject God are actually rejecting another persons ideas about god. It's all in the definition. IMHO the term "Aggregate of all Being" is useful as a definition, or "All there is". It's a question that's been debated for time immemorial however everyone has a god - when god is defined as the 'highest, or controlling principle'. Whilst science is yet to agree on the definition or ultimate equation describing all existence, the simple assertion that "God is who/whatever one serves" is the one I find most useful. Bob Dylan wrote a song about it: "You're going to have to serve somebody". Everyone has a central idea in their mind, something that is the controlling principle of their thoughts, thus their life, therefore their God.

God is.

Thats the only definition you really need.

Could you please rephrase that using unambiguous, objective terms? I was not aware, for example, that some energy binds me to a cane toad across the planet. In fact, I don't even know how I'd begin to measure and prove the existence of such energy or how to define the bond. That's where I'd like a little more detail.

And I don't think Plato really had a concept of an "Ultimate Reality" in his forms that works with your statement. He did propose that things share certain qualities (such as redness, sharpness, sweetness, etc.), and that there were ultimate forms of these qualities that were above worldly observation, but it was more of a philosophical proposal than a justification of some supernatural entities that actually exist somewhere. I think the closest thing to what you're proposing that Plato believed in was a form of ultimate "goodness", but Aristotle punched holes in this by pointing out that goodness is just capability of a thing to fulfill its purpose--a knife is good because it is sharp, a dog is good because it is loyal, and so on.

And even their philosophies were still not grounded on sound scientific reasoning. Once you get that down, and do a really good job of explaining god in terms of actual existing energy or matter, I think you have a better chance of convincing people.

See, atheists for the most part do believe in an infinite presence. Except we call it the universe and various dimensions of time and space, and we don't call it compassionate or intelligent or anything like that. Personification is good in stories. In science? Not so much.

I've posted this in a few other threads, but I think this idea is a good way of thinking of a 'God.'

Logos, a term used by Greek philosopher Heraclitus to describe the underlying force of the universe. Logos translates to "word" but can also mean "principle" or "order," and is associated with the laws of nature. To Greeks, logic was the guiding force of the universe, giving it structure and form. In an individual the logos can be said to be the higher self, the oversoul or monad, the divine wise part of the self.

In ascension lore, the Logos is the higher self of creation. As there are many levels of each individual being paralleling the many levels of creation, the Logos manifests on many levels. Each Logos is responsible for the development of life in its domain. The concept of the Cosmic Logos is the closest thing we can understand as the creator of all universes, and all reality. From the Cosmic Logos flows the Universal Logos. The Universal Logos is epitomized by the Great Central Sun of our universe. It is the holy, formless fire in the center of the universe, or the mythical "Secret Fire" from The Fellowship of the Ring, which Gandalf describes as his true master. Gandalf, as a force of harmony, serves this Secret Fire and uses its power to stop the demonic Balrog. The universal fire is found in many traditions, myth, and stories. The flow continues to the Galactic Logos, the Solar Logos, and finally the Planetary Logos level. Each universe has its own prime higher self, as does each galaxy, solar system, and planet.

Each Logos is the prime center of power for that structure's hierarchy. The Universal Logos has its own hierarchy, as does the Galactic Logos of our galaxy, and so on through the cycle to the planetary level. Each Logos has several beings in charge of various functions of its being, the administrators of that part of reality. Each is responsible for shaping that level of creation.

One can think of the structure of each system in a manner similar to the Gaia hypothesis. We are like cells in the body of the Earth, as are all living things. Each has its own purpose for the greater functioning of the being, just as the cells within the organs of our body have their own individual purpose. Each planet is like an organ in the solar being's body. Each star is part of the galactic being's body. Each galaxy is a part of the universal being's body, and each universe is a part of the cosmic being's body. Each "cell," each "organ," is alive, and each level of beings has a higher self, a spiritual Logos, guiding this level.

The general idea I had of a 'God' was an omnipotent, omniscient being, which I was of the impression that most people meant when they started arguing philosophy or theology.

The multitude of other definitions are generally considered equally nonexistent, if I am correct, by the same identical logic.

I am God, God is all.

I think Brahman comes close.

I am God, God is all.

I think Brahman comes close.

Why do you appropriate Hindu terminology to explain Solipsism?

Why do you appropriate Hindu terminology to explain Solipsism?

Its a lot easier then explaining it all.

Its a lot easier then explaining it all.

Maybe if you spoke coherent English I wouldn't think you're a cockbasket who posts pseudo-intellectual new-age bullshit that you don't understand.

Alas.

Maybe if you spoke coherent English...

¿qué?

...bullshit that you don't understand.

No, you don't understand.

God is all. It is the source all comes from. God is the soul, God is the air you breathe, all you percieve, God is the 'I'.

¿qué?

No, you don't understand.

God is all. It is the source all comes from. God is the soul, God is the air you breathe, all you percieve, God is the 'I'.

I was under the impression that we call that reality, or the universe, or something along that order. I wasn't aware that we are now calling everything God. Oh, and could you explain what you mean by soul? I just don't really like how you string together little nuggets of evangelical-sounding nonsense, and try to give the impression that you've said something profound. But you'd make a great motivational speaker.

I wasn't aware that we are now calling everything God.

I'm not calling all God, God already is all. Thats not new.

Oh, and could you explain what you mean by soul?

Wow, I think I'm psychic. I see many complaints about 'hijacking' and flames in my future.

The soul is awareness, consciousness, 'the observer', that which experiences. It is the 'self', it is 'being', the presence you are aware of when acknowledging your existence.

That which is one alone without a second, without name and form, and which existed before creation, as well as after creation, as pure Existence alone.

That is the source of all, that is the soul, that is God.

...try to give the impression that you've said something profound.

Keep It Simple Stupid.

To me, I've always thought that there is one all-encompassing feature of all definitions of God (notice capital letter God, not god as a polytheistic religion would speak of) and that is that God is the creator of the universe. Now, beyond that, I assume most versions speak of god as a conscious entity, but some do not.

Soul=self/awareness/consciousness. Okay. Why would you think this has always existed and always will? Or at least, as you say, that it existed before creation? What makes you think it is part of some greater thing?

All I ask is that you substantiate your claims with some logical backing. And the God is all thing still doesn't make sense. You use the word "God" to describe something, and that something happens to be everything, it seems. The thing is, you can't just say that "God is all" without any backing and expect people to be content in taking your oh-so-wise words as truth. I don't care if the idea isn't new. I care that it's all ambiguous and poorly explained and not supported with empirical evidence. That's what pisses me off about pretty much all of your posts, actually.

Its a lot easier then explaining it all.

Do you just nick the terms or are you trying to appropriate the assosciated concepts as well?

I think you'll find some of them would fit, but many wouldn't at all. Then again, if you're going to pick and choose on what constitutes your bizarre worldview this probably won't bother you much.

Also, upon reading your latter questions and responses in this thread, hasn't someone already pointed out to you the logical flaws in your Solipsistic worldview?

Soul=self/awareness/consciousness. Okay. Why would you think this has always existed and always will? Or at least, as you say, that it existed before creation? What makes you think it is part of some greater thing?

Why do you think awareness has a beginning and an end? Did I say it existed before...ahem...'creation'? Alright, if we're going to be saying it like that....then sure it did.

As 'awareness of nothing', a state of simply being. Time doesn't exist there, it is only an illusion. No beginning, no end...everything just is.

I care that it's all ambiguous and poorly explained and not supported with empirical evidence.

Thats because you don't understand that 'empirical evidence' doesn't give you any knowledge.

That's what pisses me off about pretty much all of your posts, actually.

Then perhaps you should ignore them.

...this probably won't bother you much.

Yeah.

...hasn't someone already pointed out to you the logical flaws in your Solipsistic worldview?

No, just how discussion of such views seems pointless.

[QUOTE=AnalDisco;9034230]Could you please rephrase that using unambiguous, objective terms? I was not aware, for example, that some energy binds me to a cane toad across the planet. In fact, I don't even know how I'd begin to measure and prove the existence of such energy or how to define the bond. That's where I'd like a little more detail.

And I don't think Plato really had a concept of an "Ultimate Reality" in his forms that works with your statement. He did propose that things share certain qualities (such as redness, sharpness, sweetness, etc.), and that there were ultimate forms of these qualities that were above worldly observation, but it was more of a philosophical proposal than a justification of some supernatural entities that actually exist somewhere. I think the closest thing to what you're proposing that Plato believed in was a form of ultimate "goodness", but Aristotle punched holes in this by pointing out that goodness is just capability of a thing to fulfill its purpose--a knife is good because it is sharp, a dog is good because it is loyal, and so on.

QUOTE]

There is an awful lot we are not aware of. I have read, and accept as being close ebough to th truth, that our limited senses only process one-billionth of all the information that is out there. The universe is a sort of vast chaotic energy soup--we ingest wee bits of it and create our reality out of that.

When you attain unity consciousness--something I have been able to do in little bits and flashes--it is possible to deeply identify with everything from crystals to spiders to trees. And cane toads. Distance is irrelevant, as the soul is non-local.

As far as Plato goes, I bow to your superor knowledge and will edit my post accordingly. Since it has been like forty-five years since I have read Plato, it is possible I misrecall some of the finer details. Thanks for correcting my error.

Bumped,since it seems to go well with the seven faces of God thread.

I cant describe God...

"Names given to the worldly are very deceptive, for they divert our thoughts from what is correct to what is incorrect. Thus one who hears the word "God" does not perceive what is correct, but perceives what is incorrect." - Gospel of Phillip

"He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him." - Secret Book of John

Posted by ArmsMerchant:
There is an awful lot we are not aware of. I have read, and accept as being close ebough to th truth, that our limited senses only process one-billionth of all the information that is out there. The universe is a sort of vast chaotic energy soup--we ingest wee bits of it and create our reality out of that.

Fucking truth.


When you attain unity consciousness--something I have been able to do in little bits and flashes--it is possible to deeply identify with everything from crystals to spiders to trees. And cane toads. Distance is irrelevant, as the soul is non-local.


Unity Consciousness, as you call it, sounds intriuging. I'll have to check this out...

I do recognize various and sundry spirits, devas, and discarnate entities, all of which--like all of us--together make up God--the Great Spirit. None of them do, I think, have any sort of corporeal form, however.

So if you don't think they're actually real, why do you recognize them?

Could you please rephrase that using unambiguous, objective terms? I was not aware, for example, that some energy binds me to a cane toad across the planet. In fact, I don't even know how I'd begin to measure and prove the existence of such energy or how to define the bond. That's where I'd like a little more detail.

Read about gravity; that is one energy that binds you to absolutely everything. Measuring it is fairly easy, too, with a fair understanding of mathematics.

There is an awful lot we are not aware of. I have read, and accept as being close ebough to th truth, that our limited senses only process one-billionth of all the information that is out there. The universe is a sort of vast chaotic energy soup--we ingest wee bits of it and create our reality out of that.

When you attain unity consciousness--something I have been able to do in little bits and flashes--it is possible to deeply identify with everything from crystals to spiders to trees. And cane toads. Distance is irrelevant, as the soul is non-local.

As far as Plato goes, I bow to your superor knowledge and will edit my post accordingly. Since it has been like forty-five years since I have read Plato, it is possible I misrecall some of the finer details. Thanks for correcting my error.

Damn right there is an awful lot we are not aware of because, we are stuck in a box one that is psychological and physical. Jump out of the box and you are more receptive to the things you currently are not. This Idea is in the western esoteric traditions.

Unity Consciousness is to Depth Psychologist CG Jung that Gnostic Idea of God. Sustains everything, yet is its own thing.

Plato had introduced Neo-Platonism a component of gnosticism.

The term "god" has a rather shady past, personally I'd like to see it pitched when speaking of things unrelated to orthodox religions.

On defining the creator, I think Arms did a pretty good job. As far as our primitive logic can comprehend, it seems to be an infinite intelligence that is the essence of everything; the space between; the space within; the all, the only, the source, the truth; and the one thing that takes deep ignorance to ignore.

The term "god" has a rather shady past, personally I'd like to see it pitched when speaking of things unrelated to orthodox religions.

Who gives a shit what the past associations of those claiming 'god' is? If you're shitty about something that does nothing but give you what you need because people in the past have tried to use concepts of it as control devices, then you're really in need of some sphyncto-facial extraction surgery.

Sorry, I just wanted to say sphynto-facial extraction surgery...it tickled me pink...like a commie.

Pontification on the definitions of words is troublesome. Defining words works better in terms of sociology than in terms of philosophy.

Who gives a shit what the past associations of those claiming 'god' is? If you're shitty about something that does nothing but give you what you need because people in the past have tried to use concepts of it as control devices, then you're really in need of some sphyncto-facial extraction surgery.

Sorry, I just wanted to say sphynto-facial extraction surgery...it tickled me pink...like a commie.

You also seem to be an unwilling slave of stupidity.

God is.

Thats the only definition you really need.

No it isn't.

Yeah, these god things you`ve been posting have been getting really weak. This is like 3am televangelist stuff. What is "the all loving energy that binds us"? Cosmic backround radiation?

Yeah, these god things you`ve been posting have been getting really weak. This is like 3am televangelist stuff. What is "the all loving energy that binds us"? Cosmic backround radiation?

In your spare time, read the following:

Quantum Healing, Deepak Chopra. (New York: Bantam Books, 1989)

David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
!990)

Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (Boston: Shambala Press, 1991)

Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe (New York: HarperCollins, 1991.)

Bumped, the original post having been edited and expanded.

I have yet to see a definition that isn't biased toward the beliefs of the person defining it. And why are there so many people on Totse who don't understand what energy is?