I freed my mind and spirit the day I let go of all men.

JB - Your theory evolves as fast as any human OR any higher self can think.

You have just made numerous contradictions to many of your past statements. I will not even attempt to make those disconnections clear for you. Like all religious fundamentalist thinkers you would deny the connections anyway and school starts tomorrow, so I'll not be able to respond much.

I was attempting to keep your ideas in mind as I leaned of new things. That was how I found the philosophy that I presented about the transcendal self. At this point, I wouldn't even know what to keep in mind, as you don't seem to be able to be consistent enough for whatever logic my mind is capable of. Happy trails to whatever or whomever are the incarnations you find yourself in.

I don't see any inconsistencies or contradictions in my philosophy and if you don't ask specific questions about any inconsistencies I of course cannot explain them. We exist on more than one level of awareness and we communicate on different levels also.

There are many ways to look at things on many levels. Perhaps some seem to contradict but without knowing what you are referring to or what level it is on I cannot respond.

Are you aware of different levels of thought? Do you ever feel them when you are talking to some people? Don't you ever try to speak to them more from where they are coming from (if you can tell) than from where you are?

I try to speak to be understood if I can feel what level of thought the conversation is operating on.

The best thing I can come up with for an “explanation of the purpose for our own physical being” is simply “because that’s how the game is played”. It would be similar to “the explanation of the purpose for” checkerboards – they are a necessary component in playing the game of checkers.

As for an “explanation for the purpose or the existence of ‘the higher self’”, that gets a little complicated because of the semantics involved – particularly the time relevant things like “existence”. But if we are talking about the same thing (i.e. “higher self” meaning “the non-physical being that is ‘self’ independent of a body”) then I would have to say that the best answer I can give is “whatever purpose the self wants to have”.

I’m still not sure how you got to the conclusion of “a totally mechanist non-material being”, but I think it may be in assuming an identity between “self” and “mind”. I don’t equate the two. I see mind as a tool that is used by self, not a synonym for self. The tool is entirely mechanistic, yes. But the self is not.

Self can program the mind so that it will automatically do things for us. In that sense yes, we are hugely dependent upon the mind for almost everything we do. But that dependency is self-created. Staying upright and balanced while we are walking is almost 100% programmed for anyone past the age of about two. But the programming was done by the self through personal choice.

So you could say that the process of walking is mechanistic. But I wouldn’t say that the purpose in walking is mechanistic.

What type of slaves...sex?

we all have free will...the problem is that along with free will you need common sense...and common sense is one thing that most people DONT have...be seeing you

Workers, soldiers, sex slaves, what ever you master wants, you do.

I've been reading the intercourse between Sky and Red and find it quite interesting.

I confess that I have my own intellectual wars going on concerning the concepts of complete atheism and the pantheistic picture.

The exchange here between Sky and Red has prompted my following comments.

Sky (with a patheistic view) is proposing that we are ultimately spirit and that spirit does not require a physical form (at least not as we percieve it).

Red (with a pure atheistic view) argues that even spirit must have some oranized form in order to fuction or be considered to exist at all. Therefore spirit must also be 'physical' in its own right. Simpy because form imples physics (i.e. laws of organizational structure).

Red then seems to be suggesting that if spirit already has form and structure then why bother with a second level of form and structure?

Why bother re-creating what you already have?

That certainly makes a lot of sense. However, I can also see a lot of explanations for that.

The simplest being to ask why someone living on a nice farm in the middle of Oaklahoma would want to take a vacation to the Hawaiian islands? Aren't the happy with Oaklahoma?

I think the same thing could be said of spirit. Just because spirit already has form, doesn't mean that it wouldn't like to vacation in other forms, places, and worlds.

Another possibility is that, spirit may truly be all-knowing when in the spirit form. Being all-knowing is boring. There's no excitemnt in that. There's never anything knew, no hopes and dreams, no challenges, no nother. Just pure existence with nothing to discover, fear, enjoy or anticipate.

So it's quite possible that spirit delves into these 'incarnations' as a form of voluntary amnesia of it's true essence, for the purpose of entertainment. Not much different from the reason why humans read fantasy stories or go to movies.

In fact, this makes very good sense to me. The idea that we are spirits who have forfieted knowledge of our true nature to play in an amusement park seems like a very plausible idea to me.

~~~

Now there is another concept here that I am quite interested in, and it has been playing a major role in my ponderings of late.

Pure atheists don't want to consider the possiblity of pure spirit. (i.e. a non-physical being), because they can't imagine how that can work. Or, they argue, like Red, that if spirit is already physical then why bother with this second form of physical reality (which I addressed above).

However, the problem that I have with pure atheism stems from a very similar concept. If the atheists are arguing against the idea of a formless spirit, then what about the unvierse itself? How could the universe have come into existence from nothing?

It's truly the very same question!

If the argument is that a formless spirit cannot exist because it has no form, then how could a universe pop out of nothing and begin to have form out of nothingness?

It's the same concept.

So far, the best we can tell using our investigations of science is that the unvierse popped into existence due to a random quantum fluctuation.

But that idea presumes the pre-existence of a quantum field and all the behavior of the quantum laws that goes with it. So that's not truly popping into existence for 'nothing'. That's popping into existence from a preexisting form. A form that our human minds can't even comprehend!

The quantum field appears to behave in ways that are totally illogical and paradoxical. At least with respect to what we normally consider to be 'logical'.

On the quantum level energy can be created and destoryed. Two (or more) objects can indeed occupy the same space at the same time! From our point of view that's 'ghostly' behavior right there!

Walking though walls!

In any case, the atheist's argument that spirit requires form, but the big bang would not have required a prexisting form seem contradictory to me.

The atheist's enthusiastic acceptance that the unvierse could have just been some kind of random 'accident' that popped out of nothing and we were just accidently the results is an idea that I cannot buy into.

In fact, it is this very stumbling block that keeps me from becoming an atheists.

In truth the pantheistic picture actualy appears to me to be more reasonable than pure atheism. I think it has more credibilty to be quite honest about it.

It's not that I don't want to believe in atheism. It truly comes down to the fact that pure atheism is not on solid ground at all. On the contrary I personally feel that the pantheistic view has more credibility.

It's true that the pantheistic view appears to require concepts that are beyond logic. But so does atheism!

Let's not kid ourselves. Atheism is not a solid philosophy that does not have its own set of unanswerable questions.

From my point of view atheism and pantheism are on equal ground, in fact, I would go as far as to say that pantheism is on higher ground (or more solid ground) simply because it explains the unexplainable.

How so? Well, it accepts that there are forms of 'phsyics' that our beyond logic. That's the explanation of pantheism. And as far as we can tell from science, this may well be the case even for the physics we can SEE!

Atheism, on the other hand, offers no explanation at all for how the universe popped into existence from 'nothing' or how a preexisting quantum field could have existed.

Perhaps the quantum field is spirit!

In fact, many philosophers and scientists have suggested as much.

If the quantum field is spirit then it most certain is omniscient in everything everywhere. We know that the quantum field certainly is!

So pantheism is really just saying that the quantum field is the essence of spirit.

~~~

So to summarize Red, I would say that the 'physical form' you are asking about for this Holy Spirit is indeed the quantum field.

That's where I'm at with my thoughts.

So I'm more of a pantheist than an atheist. For sure.

I think what my problem is, and continues to be, is that I have been so contaminated by the Mediterranean picture of an egotistical God, that it's truly difficult for me to accept that I am the Holy Spirit. I've been taught that to believe this is blaspheme of the worst sort.

Now I need to reprogram my brain to recognize that the Holy Spirit has no ego and doesn't have people nailed to poles to pacify itself.

Sweet

I dont think any atheist I know is trying to posit that the universe came from nothing. This is the straw man that is given anytime someone wants to slam atheism.

Look you understand that what happened before the BB isnt knowable with current methods, so we are not arguing what is knowable, we both accept that its not currently knowable.

What I, as an atheist does (at least me I dont pretend to talk for a group of diversea individuals), is to say I dont know there for I reserve my acceptance in ANY answer until I have a good reason.
That is it. Nothing special about it, we don't feel the need to qualify this question with an answer if its just a guess. I am sure that you will find an atheist that will say he accepts only that no god could exist, but that is not atheism, that is that individuals beliefs.

As far as actually claiming that anything came from nothing this is pure absurdity whether god does it or a quantum field.

The rules (physics) may be many, the time may be infinite, the dice may roll in non logical ways. But to say that anything comes from nothing is again silly.

I'm sure this comes down to just a difference in our semantics of the word 'Atheist'.

By what you've stated here I would say that you are not an atheist at all, but rather an 'agnostic'. You simply don't know. That's agnostic.

I confess to being agnostic myself. Even though I lean toward a belief in the spiritual albeit a pantheisic or animistic view.

I think a lot of people use the term 'atheist' when they really mean 'agnostic'.

However, some people are very vehement about there not being any spiritual component to existence. That's what I would consider to be a 'true' atheist. Someone who actually claims that the spiritual does not exist (even if their only logic is the lack of evidence). It's still a stance that there is no spiritual element to life.

But again, I confess that this is a very precise choice of semantics on my part. It's certainly not my intent to tell other people how they need to define the words they use.

But it just seems to me that if Atheism means "I don't know", then why would we bother even having the term "Agnostic"?

This is why I separate them into the following:

1. Atheism - A firm belief that there is no spiritual component to existence.

2. Agnosticism - A confession that we either don't know, or can't know.

3. Theism - a firm belief that there is a spiritual realm.

Based solely on this semantic picture (which I confess is my own semantic view) most people who claim to be atheists are actually agnostics and have simply mislabled themsleves.

I hold this view because I know that there are atheists who would stand fast to atheism even in view of my definitions above. In other words, they are completely convinced that there is no spiritual realm. With just as much conviction as many theists are that there is a spiritual realm.

I confess to being agnostic with a leaning toward pantheism.

I actually find pantheism to be more 'practical' than atheism to be quite honest about.

I have a problem with the idea of ruling out 'spirit' altogether.

But then again, if you want to talk about the semantics of what we mean by spirit we better start a whole new thread.

I think this thread was on Free Will or something like that.

nope.

Theist. Believes in god. (positive assertion)
atheist. Does not believe in a god. (lack of an assertion)

Agnostic theist realizes there is no way to know, but believes anyways. (positive assertion)

Agnostic atheist realizes there is no way to know, but does not accept it as true. (lack of assertion)

And from my perspective an agnostic atheist has the high ground on all of them, becuase it is the most intellectually honest of them all.

_____________

As an English language reference for my use I will use two other examples.

Asexual, without sex (not a positive thing, a lack of a thing)

Atemporal, without time (not a positive thing, a lack of a thing)


add an "a" as a prefix represent a lack of a thing.


_________________

I agree the word agnostic is useless, no one knows, but the reason the word exists is two fold.

One the stigma that has been associated with atheism due to theistic oppressors, and becuase some folks, atheist and theist alike both want to have beliefs that are to them true, and becuase people apparently most people need personal truths that they can then pretend apply universally. However the rare person who is completely intellectually honest understands that unknowns exist and its ok to not assert a belief.

Well, like I said. We have different views on semantics.

At least we understand where each other is coming from.

That's really all that's required for communication. Words are just a method to communicate. When individual words fail we explain with a bit of elaboration as we just did.

So to me its simple atheist is a lack of belief. In fact what you refer to as atheist is really an anti-theist which is a new word folks like Sam Harris Christopher Hicthens ect use to represent themselves because atheist doesn't do it for them

It's been a long day and at this late hour I needed a quick break with some gingerbread tea.

I am in agreement with Bushi regarding BOTH his last posts.

When I speak of universal laws, I don't envision those laws as being subject to the ideas and thoughts of a spiritual 'entity'.

So when there is discussion of spirits, singular or multiple, I am interested in views that are expressed. Most especially I question those views in which spirit(s) seem to have created life forms, specifically animal forms, for the singular purpose of attaining knowledge.

The big question being, if the spirit(s) is the God one attributes all of creation to, than I just can't imagine that entity to know anything? Is that not the nature of a god, thy know everything?

Secondly, if there is a purpose such as you Abra and JB consider, then it seems paradocical and redundent for the universal spirit to go to so much trouble to create "the perfect being" just for a joy ride. Somehow, I can't equate the kind of intelligence you are surmizing with a need for a three ring circus or a theme park, not when that spirit is so consumed with all the knowldge of the universe.

The assumptions made of the boring nature of such an entity, must then assign limits to that entity. It's boring because it is faced with limitations, how can that be God? Why would anyone choose to leave this life for an eternity consisting of so much bordom?

Does this make sense - I'm tired and rambling.

Thanks Abra and bushi for the thoughts.

It does indeed Di, it does indeed.

Whoa there Billy. Not so fast. Your flat “nope” comes off as being a little bit elitist to me.

You seem to be fond of calling arguments “silly” and “pointless”. Well to me the silliest and most pointless of all arguments is over the meanings of words. Saying “this symbol cannot be used to represent that referent” – especially if it already does when used in a different context – is about as silly and pointless as it can get.

What Abra gave are perfectly valid definitions. They are the definitions that are in common usage in American English, as documented in any dictionary you wish to pick up. The definitions you gave are highly specialized and somewhat esoteric. That’s not to say they are “wrong”, just that they are not any more “right” than are the common usage definitions.

And actually, I would go so far as to say that the definition you gave for “atheist” is a bit distorted from the original meaning of the word. (But that’s ok because it is, after all, a specialized definition.)

Atheist: The Greek root (atheos) means “godless”. And the Latin roots (a + theos) mean “absence of god”). Both of which are perfectly valid and precise expressions of the negative assertion “God does not exist”, which is the common usage meaning of Atheist.

Also, with the definition system you gave, there is no word left to express the “negative assertion”. It can’t use “atheism” because your definition means “without belief” (instead of the common “without god”). Thus it must create a new word such as “antitheism”.

Love you guys!

I didn't call abra silly. But you are definitely being silly in getting offended for someone else. Cheers mate

Godless and absence of god, tell me the difference?

Ok, take any other thing. ANYTHING.

Do you have to have a positive belief that there is no such thing as a flying spaghetti monster? Does that require a belief?

Does it require a belief that dogs can not really secretly fly but only when humans are not watching?

Does it take a belief that your moms back will not be broken if you step on the cracks in the pavement?

It is silly. Sometimes so am I. Get this its not an insult unless you take this too seriously.

Its my not so humble opinion that the only time fights start is when someone is taking a belief to seriously.

__

This is even explainable with math as the language, makes far more sense then any other reckoning . . . that is why science uses the "a" prefix with regard to a standard . . . smart . . .


A is a thing.
There is either A, or no A.
An absence of A, is not B, its just an absence of A.

atheism
no a theism.
pun intended.

lol

I don't see a "spirit creator" creating the perfect being. "Beings" are not "created" they are "born" or "manifested" through spirit. Spirit manifests itself.

Eventually, progressing forward and onward to scientific discovery, (in the material worlds) when intelligent creatures get into scientific manipulation of DNA, cloning, cross breeding for the superior races, then you might imagine that the genetic scientists are the "creators" of human life (or some "being") but they really are just manipulating the already manifested or evolved creatures and other lifeforms.

There is no creator of beings, spiritual or otherwise. But Spirit and consciousness exist in thought forms in though universes and manifests itself and combines with other spirit beings and new individuals are "born." But not like you would imagine we are born on the earth in the flesh. It is more like the combining of elements to form a new element.

The universe is alive and is a thinking stuff which manifests thought forms and gives birth to thinking centers like itself and these thinking centers manifest into individual spiritual beings who in turn manifest (give birth to) others and environments and worlds are manifested layer upon layer in succession.

I’m not sure I can even conceive of a truly “universal” law in the physical sense. All the physical laws that I can think of have qualifications or only apply under certain circumstances or to a certain class of things. To me, the term “universal law” could only apply in a spiritual (or possibly mental) sense. It could not be applied to anything physical.

I don’t think that question applies to me, since I don’t believe “the attainment of knowledge” to be the purpose of the creation of life forms. JB and Abra can give their own answers to that one.

Again the sandbox analogy seems to afford a good comparison… Does it seem paradoxical and redundant to play in a sandbox, making sand castles (or hills and roads for toy cars in my case) when I have the knowledge and ability to do something much more “grown up and important”?

I’m not sure where “creating the perfect being” came from though.

And I’ll let JB/Abra give heir own answers to this too.

To me, emotions (including boredom) are simply responses to stimuli. They do not necessarily apply to a spiritual entity. By “necessarily” I mean that the entity may choose to set up a programmed response as a part of the game, but the “emotional responses” are a created thing, not an intrinsic property of the entity. Again, my viewpoint may be different from JB/Abra.