posted May 10, 2014 01:03 PM            

quote:

---

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

---

I believe in the existence of intelligent, powerful energy I like to call the Source and I think the core of our being consists of this energy. Each of us is an autonomous, individualized consciousness gifted with a free will. We're not inferior to the Source, we're technically IT. This ocean of energy doesn't personally interfere with lower (from its perspective) dimensions. There is no need to worship anything, no reward or punishment after death or in the future lives, no orders to follow. I take the possibility of the existence of so called gods into consideration but if we assume these mythological characters do exist, to me they're entities like us who just reside in higher dimensions, know more about the nature of things and for some reasons mess around with humans.

Does this qualify as the belief in a deity?

posted May 11, 2014 12:42 AM            

For that reason she didn't believe in ghosts or mediums though she did believe in psychic vibrations (so that a murder scene could "record" impressions that someone psychic might pick up and mistake for being haunted when it's actually just astrally scarred). She also believed in the collective unconscious so that one could "call on gods" but really those were just reservoirs of psychic energy (that is human belief created the gods rather than the other way around), and could conceivably be tapped, though she preferred not to mess with that as it could potentially be playing with a nuclear reactor so to speak (and didn't see it as necessary).

Some atheists are willing to accept the possibility of a god or gods but want proof. If such proof was forthcoming they'd then be inclined to try to classify it as much as possible, but would probably be inclined to see even an omnipotent being as more like an entity as Q (from Star Trek) than one deserving worship or admiration (especially if it DEMANDED worship). But many of these atheists are generally called agnostics.

However, your choice of words saying this energy is "intelligent" (as opposed to "becomes intelligent when that energy is filtered through a brain") and that it "gifts" us with free will (meaning a conscious act as opposed to a chance condition) suggests that you're more ignostic.

posted May 15, 2014 08:34 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by I'm so cappy:
I believe in the existence of intelligent, powerful energy I like to call the Source and I think the core of our being consists of this energy. Each of us is an autonomous, individualized consciousness gifted with a free will. We're not inferior to the Source, we're technically IT. This ocean of energy doesn't personally interfere with lower (from its perspective) dimensions. There is no need to worship anything, no reward or punishment after death or in the future lives, no orders to follow.

---

posted May 15, 2014 08:41 AM            

You might be more "theist" than many religious people, having such a view

posted May 16, 2014 03:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by I'm so cappy:
I believe in the existence of intelligent, powerful energy I like to call the Source and I think the core of our being consists of this energy. Each of us is an autonomous, individualized consciousness gifted with a free will. We're not inferior to the Source, we're technically IT. This ocean of energy doesn't personally interfere with lower (from its perspective) dimensions. There is no need to worship anything, no reward or punishment after death or in the future lives, no orders to follow. I take the possibility of the existence of so called gods into consideration but if we assume these mythological characters do exist, to me they're entities like us who just reside in higher dimensions, know more about the nature of things and for some reasons mess around with humans.

---

I like that! My son's been pestering me for some kind of statement of faith...I might plagiarize yours, leaving out the free will stuff. I have no idea about that. I'm still pondering to what extent our lives are "predestined" according to the motion of the planets, etc. I've thought that perhaps we are more susceptible to "takeover" by transits, the less aware/evolved we are. From what I gather, listening to Buddhist monks and others who are more or less enlightened, a person does "ascend" into those higher dimensions and become more "god-like" or "energy-like" through mastery of their spiritual practice. This manifests as telepathy, energy healing, auras, and so on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by I'm so cappy:
Does this qualify as the belief in a deity?

---

Won't the answer always be subjective? For me, I'd say no, because "diety" is an old concept attached to an outworn manner thinking; your belief system incorporates modern, scientifically-established ideas about energy. To use the same word for two rather different approaches to the puzzle is just more confusing than it needs to be, IMHO.

posted May 16, 2014 03:23 PM            

This excerpt doesn't do justice to the whole article's logic...but rather than ask anyone to read something long (yawn, I know) and miss this crucial point, I will just quote it:

quote:

---

...When a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.

---

Bold mine.

posted May 20, 2014 06:01 PM            

quote:

---

and were part of but that any existence we had ended at death and our essence evaporated into that all consuming force so that there was no afterlife in the strict sense (as there was no illusion of individuality or sense of self anymore

---

In short, she's a buddhist

quote:

---

(that is human belief created the gods rather than the other way around)

---

quote:

---

However, your choice of words saying this energy is "intelligent" (as opposed to "becomes intelligent when that energy is filtered through a brain") and that it "gifts" us with free will (meaning a conscious act as opposed to a chance condition) suggests that you're more ignostic.

---

Hmm. I believe the Source purposely divided itself and created lower plans for us to play and experience through us whether live or after we reconnect with it. That probably requires intelligence. Our brains support the expression of this intelligence and provide rich experience. I think this is why evolution takes place. The more complex life form, the more complex experiences and the more interesting book each of us become.

I used the word "gifted" because I see it as a gift. I'll read that thread when I'm less lazy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Never would have guessed.

---

I'll take it as a compliment

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
You might be more "theist" than many religious people, having such a view

---

Tell it to those sheeple

quote:

---

I like that! My son's been pestering me for some kind of statement of faith...I might plagiarize yours

---

quote:

---

leaving out the free will stuff. I have no idea about that. I'm still pondering to what extent our lives are "predestined" according to the motion of the planets, etc. I've thought that perhaps we are more susceptible to "takeover" by transits, the less aware/evolved we are.

---

Well, free will may have some limitations but I think it's necessary for the system (how I see it) to make sense. I too wonder about astrology. I wish I knew how and why it started and how it works.

quote:

---

From what I gather, listening to Buddhist monks and others who are more or less enlightened, a person does "ascend" into those higher dimensions and become more "god-like" or "energy-like" through mastery of their spiritual practice. This manifests as telepathy, energy healing, auras, and so on.

---

Enlightened...Ahhh, how I love this word I'm wary of people who claim to be enlightened. I don't think we ascend anywhere. My research and experiences point to the conclusion that we are multidimensional beings. We exist in many dimensions at the same time and we have a body for each of them. We have this body, an etheric body, astral body, bla bla but our awareness (awareness of the surroundings) is focused on this dimension since it's the lowest one we currently occupy. The rest of the bodies are passive and stay attached to each other (unless you're lucky to get an OBE) but still influence us. For example, energy healing is directed at the etheric body because it's is in a close relationship with our so called physical body. Why? The ether is the next dimension, an energy blueprint, copy of this world. Our etheric body/double/copy happens to be kind of a battery for us while we're here. Anyway, if you expand you awareness then you will start receiving information not only from this dimension but also from the higher dimension(s) through your higher body at the same time. You will see, hear and feel things other don't. Tadam! Congratulations, you're "psychic" The truth is, everyone is. We're all structured in the same way. It's a matter of tapping into the rest of our being. Unless you're lucky to be born this way. Of course, it could cause some dificulties so it's better to think twice before working on it, even if you're not afraid of this stuff. For example, since you're a human everything would be processed by your brain and the additional stimuli could be overwhelming. OK, it's time to shut up

Sooo I'd like to find the most accurate label for myself. I settled on deism for some time but of course my Virgo Ascendant will always find some flaw -_-