Perhaps you are correct Albert...part of the reason I laid my argument out "proof style" was to present my thinking in terms of the simplest logic "switches" that I saw underlying it. Much as in my geometry class way back in the day when the teacher used a proof to show that 1+1 = 3 and asked the class to find the step with the incorrect logic, I was wondering if someone could/would highlight something I was missing in my progressions. Perhaps this is it...although I must say I do find Hyperspace Fool's words compelling as well (nice post, man) and perhaps even moreso than your own. The first paragraph is, I think, exactly what I was driving at in my statement that I "cannot accept" that someone who has engaged with this issue has "an absence of belief"...

I use the dictionary definition. By that definition I am an atheist, but I have no objection to being just called an agnostic. If someone asserts that I am not an atheist I'll direct them to the dictionary, if they don't accept that then that's ok. The words used don't really have any major importance. I'm not interested in labelling children as anything and if I have kids I certainly won't be telling them they are atheists... although, again using the dictionary definition, I think they do fall under that category.

Gnosticism is indeed a branch of Christianity, but the word "gnostic" existed before the term "Gnosticism" was used to describe these people, "gnostic" is an adjective relating to knowledge. That there is a bunch of Christians who are labelled as Gnostics just confuses the situation, but it doesn't change the fact that you CAN be a gnostic theist, with gnostic being used as an adjective denoting absolute knowledge. This is where the term agnostic comes from. Did you think there was no relation between the roots of the words "agnostic" and "Gnosticism" (as in the branch of Christianity), if Gnosticism was the only meaning for the word "gnostic" would that not make an agnostic someone who rejects Gnosticism?



Eliyahu: I am fairly certain that you don't believe your god is flying around in spaceships abducting people, so my question stands. People have these experiences, and they believe them to be real. How do we distinguish between real and delusional?

Sorry, but I have to cry foul here. This is a nice attempt at arguing to authority, but it holds no weight. I have looked at dozens of dictionaries and they all say something slightly different. Let us start with the first one that comes up when I search for dictionary and atheist:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t

a·the·ist   [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Clearly this is not the definition you are claiming to use. To deny or have disbelief is an action... a stance you must take. Not simply being unconvinced or having no belief.

Here they go deeper and quote 10 sources... 9 of which are in line with a more narrow definition. http://ask.reference.com...%20Atheist?&o=100100

Shall we go to the most popular and best selling dictionary in the US?

Merriam Websters says this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

As I have said, you are certainly not the only person to cling to a broad or weak definition of Atheism. But, despite the fact that the dictionary doesn't actually back you up... this is not a debate that is being held in a vacuum. There are decades upon decades of very easily accessed arguments on this very topic. Furthermore, there are volumes of books that delve into this.

Call yourself a weak atheist if you like... it is not a term that seems like something one would want to identify as, but so be it. To claim the term atheism is restricted to your overly broad interpretation, though... simply has no basis in fact, historical precedent, or even semantic usefulness.

Just saying.


I am perfectly aware of the usages of the term gnostic in a broad context. However, in theological and philosophical debates, it is extremely uncommon to use the word as you would like to. This stems from the obvious confusion vis a vis the early Christian sect of the same name... but also because there are other, more common ways to say what you are getting at with your use of the term.

Again, this is not something we are inventing here on this thread. These are debates that have been raging on in certain academic circles for centuries. It makes no sense for you to come along now and try and change the way these things are talked about because you want to preserve your status as an atheist. Call yourself whatever you want, but if you are truly unwilling to stand up--sack up--and admit you deny there are deities... than there are better words for your stance.

Plain and simple.

It seems I have found my term. Thank you once again, HF.

- Electric

Hyperspace Fool:

Ok so we are both asserting that we are using the "correct" definition of atheism, and we are both citing the dictionary as evidence yet different dictionaries give differing definitions. So how about the reality of the matter, which is that under certain definitions (i.e the ones I am using) I am correct and under other definitions (i.e the ones you are using) you are correct... but that in reality there is no ultimate "correct" on this particular issue. Words are used to describe something. I, and the majority of people who identify as atheists, use one definition and conversely you, and bunch of mostly non-atheists, use the word with a different definition. In truth, as I've said, I don't really care what other people choose to label me. Call me an agnostic if you want. the word used has no bearing on the reality of the situation, and the reality of the situation is that most of the people who call themselves atheists are, under your use of words, agnostics.

I'm not convinced that me invoking the dictionary in reference to what a word means is an argument from authority, well it is... but it is a legitimate argument from authority as far as I can tell (argument from authority is not always a fallacy). Dictionaries, for the most part, are how we tell what words mean. If you hear a word that you haven't heard before and you wish to know what it means where do you look? An argument from authority is claiming that because some entity says something that makes it necessarily true, but dictionary DEFINE what is true when it comes to words. Feel free to contradict or correct me on this, it is not a subject I have given much thought. To me if we want to know what a word means we look in a dictionary since dictionaries define words. No offense, but I wouldn't personally pay any attention to an American dictionary since I am English. That coupled with the fact that America is a very religious nation and I'm not at all surprised that they would have a different definition of atheist, considering so many American Christian apologists use, dishonestly, in arguments the notion that atheists (or as you would say, agnostics) are asserting a no god hypothesis and therefore have a burden of proof. I use the Oxford English dictionary and I always have. I don't use this dictionary because it fits with my definition of atheist, I use the word atheist because it is the word in that dictionary which describes me. If you really want to argue that an American dictionary is more accurate about the English language than the most respected English dictionary, written in England by English people in England's most respected university, then I'm not sure what to say to you. As I say I don't really think it matters which word is used. I will continue to identify as atheist and you will continue to think I am wrong.

On the subject of gnostic/Gnosticism. I agree that it is not really a useful word to use in the sense I used it (gnostic atheism etc). the only reason I explained those terms to you is because you were using the term agnostic, which has the same root, so it follows that I would explain things using the same terms. You threw in the word agnostic, I explained that there is a difference between agnostic theism/atheism and gnostic theism/atheism. That is the only situation where I would use these terms. I never use the word agnostic unless someone else brings it up. I am quite content with just calling myself atheist, and if someone asks if I think there are definitely no gods I will say "no, I think there could be", at which point they are free to attach the label agnostic to me if they wish.

Plain and simple

Sure and we are kind of splitting hairs, but:

1) Different dictionaries have different definitions of the same words. The better dictionaries (IMHO) will have most, if not all, of the various definitions and nuances. But in the end, dictionaries are not actually arbiters of fact in semantic debates. That is why citing a dictionary that agrees with your stance is an argument to authority and not a proof of the correctness of your point. It is generally a decent reference to establish the terms of a debate, but if there are discrepancies between various dictionaries, the concept is somewhat involved, or the issue is central to the argument... it is wise to find other more detailed sources to quote. Respected books on the subject, encyclopedia entries, even articles by experts are all superior to dictionary entries.

Also, it is always possible to win a debate on the strength of superb logic even if a number of authoritative sources seem to claim a different conclusion. If you can make a sound argument based on impeccable logic that your opponent can not rebut... a simple argument to authority will not suffice to back their position.

2) UK English vs. American English This comes up from time to time. Where we are actually talking about a significantly different usage of a word (not merely a spelling issue) one simply has to decide which language one is speaking... or which definition makes most sense to you. The audience you are trying to reach makes a big difference I suppose.

I would venture to say the US English is more universal than UK. As much as the Queen's English might be the historical standard... in practice it is actually only a minor dialect. Even within the UK, most people speak slangs and dialects that are not this so-called proper standard. There are probably as many speakers of Cockney in England as there are speakers of Queen's English. In the US, our standard collegiate English is extremely widespread, and is the language that most foreigners are learning at this time. Commonwealth nations aside, the bulk of the English as a Second Language crowd learn US English. Most scientific papers are in US English. In terms of sheer numbers it is clear which is the standard worldwide. Remember that when Chinese, Mexicans, Brazilians, Russians, Israelis etc. learn English, they learn US English. Even former bastions of British colonialism like India are more and more instituting a US oriented study of the language. If you go to English school in Bangalore for instance... you are likely to learn US English and pronunciations.

Whether this is good or bad is another debate. I will simply go where history is leading rather than where it has been. This is clearly US English as the de facto world language.

3) Gnosticism You can use this term how you like, and I will be able to follow your meaning... but there are pre-existing terminologies for this stuff. If you wanted to write on the subject or understand the writings of the experts in the field, you would do well to divest yourself of terminology that runs counter to academic usage.

Therefore, your idea of gnostic/agnostic atheism and gnostic/agnostic theism, while clear and understandable, is simply not the usage that is in common parlance. What you are calling gnostic/agnostic atheism is actually positive/negative atheism and plays a major role in the strong vs. weak dichotomy in the term.

4) Most people who identify themselves as atheists. Somewhat hard to prove either way without conducting a good and thorough poll, but then even if you were correct about this, it has no bearing on what the term actually means. People often use words incorrectly and identify with groups to which they don't actually belong.

Therefore, I would say (for purpose of debate) we stick with what the experts on the subject say about it. In this case... the vast majority of books on the subject use the strong or narrow definition. This is because the word is more accurate and thus meaningful that way. I am afraid that there is no reason to use the word atheism in a way that it includes all agnostics. The established spectrum of theism is:

ATHEISM <-> agnosticism <-> THEISM

There is no logical reason to abandon the historical understanding of this to adopt your variation... even if it made more sense (which is debatable).

Thus, with agnostics forming a middle group of unsure and unconvinced people... the use of the word atheism to denote them as well, is counterproductive. It makes far more sense to restrict the term to people who actually do not believe in gods.

In the end, I don't care what you call yourself. I don't really care what anyone calls themselves. In terms of debates about (a)theism, however... I will stick to the academic definition, the narrow "belief based" version of the word that is used in theology, philosophy, and historical works the overwhelming majority of the time.

I don't really understand why someone who really felt they had "a lack of belief" in deities would care overmuch that they are actually agnostics. The owning of the stance of atheism is a choice... choices are based in belief...

I still hold to my idea that most people who choose to call themselves atheists have not really studied this stuff, but rather identify as atheists because it seems to state their basic anti-religious feelings. As I have said already, though, it is very possible to be a theist or an agnostic and be anti-religion. I myself am an anti-religion theist.

So we can end this by simply saying you can call yourself an atheist... meanwhile I, and the professors of this subject, will call you what you actually are, an agnostic.

HF

You make some very good points HF I guess I'll maybe need to give this some more thought.

One thing that does trouble me about the term Agnostic is that under every source I have looked at the definition is something similar to "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." (that one is from the dictionary I use, the OED. I checked a few and they were the same, Merriam-Webster dictionary throws in "probably unknowable" instead of a definite assertion that it can't be known). I don't necessarily think it can't be known, I just think at this stage it isn't known. Saying it can't be known is just another assertion that needs to be justified.

Again I'd just like to point out that, in my experience, it is almost always a non-atheist trying to tell people who identify as atheist that they are incorrect. Perhaps when there is obvious confusion and many differing opinions about the meaning of a word, it is best to defer to the people who actually use the word to describe themselves? Perhaps not though.

Again, I am going to go with an encyclopedia over a dictionary for a term that describes a whole branch of thought. After all this is not a debate over the accepted meaning of a common and uncomplicated word like lamppost. When we are talking about things that people actually study and get degrees in, it is best to know what they teach in schools about said subject. (Be it sovereignty, turbo-charging, counterpoint or whatever)

Thus, Wikipedia (while acknowledging the definition that you found) goes into more detail and says this as well:



You will see, (as further explained in the article) that the popular sense of the word is that of neither believing or disbelieving (thus including you "lack of belief" types). And, furthermore, even the strict sense of the word doesn't discount that it might one day become knowable for oneself personally... or for humanity in general to know G*d or justify a belief in deity. The key word is currently.

I, myself, believe most people, (as well as humanity as a whole) do not currently possess the requisite knowledge for divine revelation, or a significant reason to believe any claims in either direction. But I am certainly not an agnostic. Therefore I have to go with a definition of agnosticism that doesn't include me... a die-hard, been to the mountaintop theist.

I don't think it is necessarily correct to go with the definition of a word that people use to describe themselves... unless it becomes so widespread as to supplant the old definition, we can safely ignore such self-identifications as well as when people create new definitions of established words and phrases simply to bolster an argument. An example of this is the Republican Party trying to pin the word Socialist on Obama... who is so very clearly not anything remotely close to the word. Or, perhaps even better, the Chinese and Vietnamese governments call themselves Communist... when they are absolutely not anything remotely close to what Marx described, or even Leninism, Stalinism or Maoism. These governments are central party capitalists at this point. So, their insistence to self-identify as Communists is basically meaningless.

Anyway, I gotta run, but I will say just one more thing. While it is true that non-atheists often debate atheists with the intent to change their minds or get them to recognize that atheism is a belief system just as unprovable as theism... it is not a random or unprovoked attack IMO. Stating that you are an atheist in public is an invitation for debate. This is because saying you are an atheist IS, in fact, making a claim... and one which other people will surely take you up on. If you don't like being challenged about your atheism (or agnosticism for that matter), no one forces you to bring it up or publicly tout your disbelief.

Take it easy bro... I'm out the door.

HF


Postscript...

On my way out the door I read more in that Wikipedia entry, and saw that there IS (in fact) a group of people who see the Theism v. Atheism and Gnosticism v. Agnosticism thing along the axis you brought up. It is not generally seen in the actual theism v. atheism debate, but apparently it is something that some agnostics have adopted.

Go figure. Sorry, I guess I was wrong... or at least premature in my denouncing.



Still think it probably not the best way to use the term, and will stick with the theological definitions for myself though.

No, but in most circumstances, you're forced to either lie or debate if anyone asks you about your beliefs. Because saying you don't believe in God certainly ruffles people's feathers (no matter how nicely it's put or how quick you are to point out that you aren't a militant atheist) in a way that other beliefs don't. Take this study done by psychologists at the University of Oregon:

http://www.usatoday.com/...igion-atheism/51777612/1

People (and yes the study group is small, I will admit) honestly think an atheist is more likely to be immoral than a rapist. Yes. You read that correctly. A rapist. Someone who sexually violates another human being in their deepest integrity in a violent way. We (or they, since I've decided apatheist fits my description better so I will adopt that term instead) are the black sheep of the flock, and the simple act of disbelief is seen as offensive. Obscene. Immoral. I have a great respect for you, my friend, but I have to disagree with you with every fiber of my being when you say it is an unprovoked attack. It IS unprovoked. It is not considered socially acceptable to admit to being an Atheist, no matter HOW polite you are. No matter how open and respectful you are to other ideas. People tout their gold cross chains and religious tattoos proudly, but the mere mention of the "A" word brings scoffs and attempted conversions.

The only acceptable answer, as of now, is to lie to people about your beliefs. Tell them you are a Buddhist, or a Jainist, or a Taoist. Anything but the feared and repulsive "A" word. Because the "A" word rarely ends well.


Edit: added clarity to my opening paragraph, and revised a few sentences to specify between Atheism and a general sense of non-belief.

Also, HF, if you haven't seen it already, you may want to check out a discussion between Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (R.I.P), Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris known as "The Four Horsemen". The discussion is 2 hours long, but this topic is covered in the first 10 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM

Thats quite interesting when the trip subsided was you thinking 'wow that was god' or did it take days / weeks of thinking about the experience to come to a more open minded conclusion. I can imagine such a experience with a firm belief as a atheist left quite a mark in you as a person.

Interesting thread!

-Technique

Seen the Four Horsemen and enjoyed it thoroughly.

I understand your feelings vis a vis the scorn and (sometimes) persecution of atheists. The idea that any sane or rational human being could think a rapist more moral than an atheist is repugnant. But it brings out the deeper level of what we are discussing.

Those people are crazy and irrational. When a sane person finds themselves surrounded by crazy people, it is pretty much a given that you don't provoke them unless you are asking for trouble. If you are in a biker bar, you don't start talking loudly about how stupid motorcycles are and how you have to be an idiot to ride one. Stand on a chair and start rationally spouting statistics of how most of the bikers in the bar will end up experiencing life-threatening head trauma at some point if they ride for X amount of years... and you might be asking for life-threatening head trauma yourself.

Of course most religious people are nuts. As if believing in being swallowed by a whale and being spit up safe and sound on a beach over 1000km away didn't make that a no brainer... or the thought that 2 of every animal on Earth could fit into an ark of the dimensions described in the Bible. Hehehehe. Actually, it is not the attachment to unlikely stories that makes them crazy... but rather their fundamentalist idea that they can actually force people to join them in their belief with force, judgment and scorn... especially when their lord & savior made it abundantly clear that people should "judge not."

So knowing that you live in a place overrun with fundamentalist psychos, deciding to speak up and invite scorn is not all that bright a decision either. There are times when standing up for your beliefs is valiant and noble... but not when there is nothing to be gained and it would be easy enough to not make an issue out of it.

If you lived in a place where reason, logic and progressive values were a bit stronger... California or NYC for example, you would have less problems being an "outed" atheist or some other kind of heretic. If you live in Texas or the US South, you might just want to move. The South will eventually change, and this wave of fundamentalism will crash and recede... but you don't have to ride it out if you don't want to. Being an atheist is not like being black, or even like being gay. No one will know you are an atheist if you don't tell them. There are no rituals or activities you must engage in that will give you away.

Simply telling people that you don't want to discuss religion and find it a divisive topic that is not conducive for social discussion, is not really that hard. It is a well known custom in the US to not discuss politics or religion at a dinner table or social gathering.

So, it pains me a bit to hear atheists talk about how persecuted they are. Yes, you are a despised and feared minority. But atheists don't have shit on at least a dozen more reviled and easily identified minorities.

Remember, there were many people who denied being gay, gypsy, Jewish or whatever when the Nazi SS came knocking. Some even got away with it. How much easier to simply not let on about your disbelief in deities?

No... I have to respectfully disagree in return. No one forces you to proclaim that you are an atheist... and no one could know you are one unless you told them so. This makes it 100% clear that "coming out" as an atheist is a voluntary decision. Should people be penalized or punished for wanting to be open about their feelings on the subject? Clearly not.

But if you don't want to debate the subject, no one forces you to bring it up. Even being a communist is harder to hide... as a real communist will probably belong to an organization, have some taboo literature somewhere, and usually actually wants to bring about the end of Capitalism if at all possible.

Now, you have militant atheists who ridicule theism, invite debate, and generally look down on theists with a very similar smug knowingness as the religious zealots themselves. Granted most atheists are not of that ilk... but, of those who proclaim their atheism loudly and proudly, these types are a relatively large percentage.

Of course, just like gay people can move to neighborhoods more tolerant of them... in the case of West Hollywood or the Castro District, you can even live somewhere where you are the majority... Atheists can always move to Berkeley.

Same here. If there truly exists a god that created all of us, then so be it. From DMT i've begun to realize the true essence of the universe is energy. If there's truly a higher being, then he would be the source of that energy. And that makes sense to me. If the universe is constantly expanding, how is it getting the energy from it? I have yet to learn more about physics and chemistry but if energy is not destroyed nor created, how does the universe continue to expand?

Still, I see myself as a manifestation of energy. DMT has shown me that everyone is equal. We are all of the same energy. And its all a complete cycle. Therefore the only religion that truly makes sense to me is Buddhism.

And again, i'm not trying to discriminate those who believe in a god.

Maxx said,



From what I observed, THe SAME EXACT esoteric truths are found within Hinduism/Veda, Kabbalah, Sufi Mysticism, The teachings of Christ Yeshua, North American Indian, Mexican Indian, South american Indian, Eskimo,Confusionism, greek mythology, Celtic beliefs, Druids, Sumerians, African mythology, Aborigane Mythology and on and on and on.....

The truth is universal in my most humble opinion..to say that only this or that makes sense is to confine your own potential to understand the bigger picture.

Btw Hyperspace Fool just wanted to thank you for pointing out Pantheism. I looked into that and it looks pretty close to what I believe, though I'm more from the Atheist roots of it. You mentioned Pandeism too and I can't quite seem to get a clear distinction between Pandeism and Pantheism. Would you mind clearing that up? I'm sure I could read through pages of this stuff, but since you already know a little about it if you wouldn't mind sharing some of the key points that'd be awesome! Finally a religion that makes sense!

No problem mate.

Pandeism differs from Pantheism in the way that Deism differs from basic Theism. (Note: Deism was the prominent belief of most Enlightenment age thinkers including the vast majority of the US founding fathers, Hume, Locke & Voltaire et. al. The majority of Freemasons in that era were also Deists... This is all despite the fact that modern conservatives paint the founding fathers as born-again Christians and most modern Freemasons are just in it for the business connections.)

Thus, I will briefly explain Deism.

Deism is a philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator. According to deists, the deity seldom, if ever, intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect" does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own.

Pandeism is thus the belief that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity. Whereas pantheists believe that the Universe (as it is) is one being which could be considered G*d, and often has little or no supernatural or transcendental elements... pandeists believe in this "Architect Of The Universe" concept. (A supreme and transcendental being that created the Universe and its laws and lets it play out without supernatural interference for the most part) But, in addition to deism's premise... they envision that said creator made the Universe out of itself. Thus the G*d figure is both the clockmaker and the clock.

Any monistic or holistic deity would have to make things out of itself, as, by definition, there exists nothing else. Naturally, most religions that call themselves monotheistic have figured out ways to get around this. They take the biblical astonishment that "G*d is ONE" to mean that there is only one god who is a lot like them, only more powerful in his jealousy and psychosis.

The pandeist philosophy is actually very similar to another variation of pantheism... namely panentheism. Panentheism also believes in a deity that is both immanent in, and transcendent to the physical universe. The idea that an entity created the universe out of itself, and yet remains transcendent to it... often with the ability to intervene or help people within the universe to transcend it themselves. This belief is akin to the old "Universe as a Dream of a divine being" model in that the entire thing is taking place within the mind of a deity who may or may not choose to enter the dream as a divine persona. Technically, the godhead would be playing all the roles in the universal dream... just as we do in our more typical subconscious driven dreams.

Of course, there are a number of varieties of these categories. Many panentheists don't ascribe to a dreaming god motif, for example, but have another vision of how G*d may have created the Universe in a way that it is both omnipresent in the creation, and also simultaneously still existing in perfection outside of the creation.

Some people even speak of panendeism... something only subtly different from panentheism. Both tend to have concept of "experiential metaphysics" – the idea that a mystical component exists within the framework of panendeism or panentheism, allowing the seeker to experience a relationship to Deity through meditation, prayer or some other type of communion. This is a major departure from classical deism.

These philosophies are all interesting, and how they deal with the theistic concepts of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence etc. are typically unique.

Science is generally a type of pandeism in that the Big Bang created our universe and established the laws by which the clockwork unfolds... they just tend to envision a blind and inhuman clockmaker.

This is getting rather long, but I think that many people who have considered themselves atheists actually fall within one of these belief systems. People often talk about pantheistic atheism actually... despite the oxymoron there.

I myself have an even more complicated belief in that I find the entire Omniverse of all possible multiverses to be a single being who is also transcendent to but still immanent in this infinite creative field. Furthermore, I believe in a myriad of lesser but still divine entities which are part of the whole, but can interact independently. Thus, Gaia is clearly a deity of sorts, the solar system, the galaxy etc. but also there are non-human entities (physical and non-physical) that are superior to humans and thus also fall into the category of gods. Hyperspace entities are godlike compared to humans... as would be any species of ET who could come here and bio-engineer us from proto-hominids. Omni-poly-en-theistic Discordianism perhaps...

I think the only way one could truly believe in a world devoid of gods would be if you truly imagined that the universe was a purely mechanistic cosmic accident in which humanity is the highest evolved life-form. Of course that idea leaves a lot to be desired in that it answers nothing in terms of where all this came from, how it came to be, why the forces of nature are what they are, and how in hell we could be the only intelligent life in a Universe that they admit it something like 15 billion years old (read: more than enough time for beings to have evolved well past our current state and disappeared a few times over.)

Be well
HF

I just spend like 20 minutes typing and firefox crashed... ugh.

Anyways thanks for typing that up! There's lots of good info in there. Personally I'd say I lean towards Pantheism more than the others. I don't really see the universe as a conscious being who set itself into motion, but rather a product of inevitability. What I mean is, I tend to take on the belief that things just happen the way they do because it would be impossible for them to happen any other way. I don't believe it would be impossible for nothing to exist (try thinking of that, it's a really hard concept to grasp ). So, as an alternative, things exist infinitely and are composed by some basic interaction of fundamental particles. I think all the scientific theories and equations we have don't really exist, but are just ways to bridge the gaps in our understandings. I feel that if you had a person who is infinitely intelligent he could sit down and rationalize the universe without ever making observations or deriving equations and constants, etc. What I mean is that I don't think there's any sort of mystical aspect as to why things happen the way they do. I feel if you had a full understanding of the most basic particle in existence you could rationalize the interactions it would have in forming larger particles, and further rationalize your way up the chain all the way through galaxies and so on.

But I do see this interaction on a large scale as a sort of all encompassing organism which is sustained by a perfect balance of the smaller systems that make it up. But I don't think it did any of that consciously. I think it's just a product of cosmic evolution. I also don't believe in the big bang as the origin of existence (as some mistake it to be). It kind of goes against the way things work everywhere else. Everything else is a balance composed of cycles of death and rebirth. The big bang explains existence as much as my birth explains my life. It doesn't explain where I came from. I think the only logical thing to assume was perhaps that I came from someone else, and that she came from someone else, and so on infinitely.

But that's all just the kind of loopy stuff that goes on in my head

garyp88 wrote:



Ha ha....well actually............I believe "angels" as they are called do fly around in spaceships and abduct people.. although in the nicest way possible....

The way we distinguish between reality and fantasy is to pay attention to things such as sycronicity that cannot be counterfitted.

No problem.

It is a deep subject, and this little primer basically scratched the surface of it.

Anyway, I don't find anything loopy about what you said. It is a very rational stance. In lieu of any direct mystical experience, I think it would be the default position. Many have said that pantheism is the major philosophical stance on theism in our time.

I, however, have had mystical experiences and it would be disingenous of me to discount them... or what they have shown me. I have no interest in convincing anyone of the truth of my perspective, though. I feel that people should develop their own conceptions of and relations to... whatever this is.

Of course, despite the fact that I feel no conception of the infinite can ever do it justice, I find that the more mystical, universal consciousness aspects of this thing only present themselves to people who go out of their way to open themselves to such experiences. Therefore, mystics have a mystical worldview due to their having bent over backwards exposing themselves to such things. It is extremely unlikely that random people content with their materialistic worldview would accidentally stumble upon mystical states... and even if they did, they would likely either summarily forget such revelations, or just discount them as aberrations, hallucinations or other such completely chemical perturbations of a somewhat disturbed mind.

Now, I would venture to say that if you go far enough into this stuff... your perspective would likely be altered. My own feelings on the matter are not static, and I often question whether I have imagined things that have shaped my worldview. Of course, that leads me into even shakier ground because in order for me to imagine the über cosmic, fractionally infinite scenes I have been party to... I would have to be something of a divine being myself. Therefore, saying it is all in my mind makes me all the more arrogant.

(see the concurrently running thread Humans are G*d? for more on this train of thought)

I suppose I have always come down on the side that consciousness is the field of existence and that the Universe is more like a giant mind than it is some billiard ball physics demo that just happened to birth consciousness as an evolutionary defense mechanism.

It just makes more sense to me to see the material as a product of consciousness than the other way around. 1) It answers more questions 2) We have nightly evidence of consciousness being able to create very convincing material worlds 3) We have absolutely no evidence of matter of its own accord being able to create minds.

Anyway, nice philosophizing with you.
HF

Hmmm just curious. By mystical experiences are you talking about drug induced or non drug induced? Honestly psychedelics are what have brought me to my current conclusion. I won't say I'm completely materialistic. All my psychedelic experiences are rather "spiritual." But what I find is that they provide me with personifications and metaphors of reality. So I can't say I exactly believe in hyperspace beings (though I will not pretend that I hold any actual knowledge on the truth of their existence), but the ideas that those beings present me with make a hell of a lot of sense sometimes and lead to more thinking on my part.

I do really like what you said though. And honestly I've found myself contemplating the same thing. There have been times where I've felt myself as being god waking up in a dream. Somehow aware that there is just me and everything I'm looking at is just a projection of my own subconscious. Of course introducing that idea to the public is a sure way to end up in the looney bin, so I take a step back and describe it from a more materialistic view. We're all caught up in a web of intertwined fundamental particles, therefor we're all one. If we're all one we must be god.

But I absolutely agree with what you said in the last part. I've never been one to think there is any sort of absolute reality that is known to man. Though an absolute reality probably exist, everything we experience is complete subjective and to claim the knowledge between reality and fiction seems almost absurd. Our realities are most certainly constructed by us at least to some degree.

Well, specifically psychedelic induced.. I beleive that psychedelics have been put here for a reason and that reson is to awaken us from the material world..

Not everyone will agree with me on this point but I personally think that taking psychedelics is the ONLY way one can effectively and consitently have a mystical expereince.

While meditating on a mountaintop for 10 years without psychedelics may be the path that some people choose to take in order to have a mystical experience and sounds like the moral high road to take for many....it is not likely that meditation will even work for most people.
On the other hand what is likely to fascilitate a mystical experience consitenlty is the ingestion of psychedelics, especially DMT.