So most of you folks are atheist/agnostic/anti theist?

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly why your posts have been drawing so much ire. Until now, you've been speaking about pantheism in absolutes. e.g.:


I didn't post the WPM quotes saying, "This is what all of us believe." You read it that way because it gave you an excuse not to admit you were wrong in your previous posts. Only now are you admitting it comes in a variety of forms to try and lecture me, ignoring that I already gave you the same lecture 2 pages ago:


I think it's best you stop talking about our beliefs, and stick to talking about your own.



This explains a lot about the pseudo-science your arguments employ.

Nothing that ends in -ism and is descriptive of an ontology is scientific.

I agree. Philosophies can be compatible with the knowledge science has provided, but they still can't be scientific.

What gets difficult I think is telling where exactly the subjective ends and the objective begins (as a race we've always been excellent at invading the later with the former and times are still only so much different just that we're splitting finer and finer hairs). It's not that we can't tell what stuff is, just that it can seem at times a relatively close jump from a relatively simple and straight-forward observation to a relatively simple and straight-forward generality. That seems to be a result of getting wrapped up in one logic game or another, getting into it deeply enough to somewhat lose ourselves but simultaneously sacrificing a fair amount of objectivity for the gained motivation and intensity.

As far as what ahogday was mentioning with Thelema and the like - I tend to see mystics and ceremonial magicians as the original depth psychologists. Some people are intrepid explorers of the wide vistas of nature, others are intrepid explorers of the vast inner regions. Some people like to hack computers, some people like to hack their own minds. Particularly though in the area of pursuing roadmaps such as 'Do A you'll get B result, follow that by C and you'll get D - at this point you'll encounter E and have ordeal F' - that kind of specificity was one of the things a lot of people actually liked about Crowley; he wasn't the only person nor was his order the only one to be that rigorous or methodical in mapping mystical experiences but regardless it was something he and his A.'.A.'. are known for.

Whether or not that kind of work actually yields physical results that go above and beyond what a simply well-trained nervous system can do for itself is one of those things that gets stuck in the mode of mystery for now because the things that end up being proofs to individual people are going on inside a person's sphere of sensation at levels where we haven't come up with scientific instruments to probe (though if what ahogday says he was able to do for his own body is the case and even if it were nothing more than the result of a well-trained nervous system, heck, sounds like it's worth looking into right?). A person can say the law of attraction worked for them but they'd need to prove it in a laboratory, many times over, to make it official and if it could work for one person it would mean that the experimenters themselves would have to jump through all kinds of hoops to sterilize their own psychological effect on the results. If a person claimed that they could get an angel or diva to sign a gold or silver placard I'm not even sure if something like that could go very far because even if it happened and under surveillance something started etching a silver or gold plate - those kinds of phenomena are nothing new and the problem is we can't quantify them other than say that something got etched and displaced so many miligrams of metal, they can be qualified but going beyond 'x occurred' jumps way off the rails if any speculations are made as to what it was that did it (even if such an experiment was done a good scientist would not be able to take the claim that it was an angel or diva at face value even if it was clear that a yet unknown type of being or form of energy made those markings - that's not a bad thing, rather it's the objectivity of science done right and claiming that it can't know any more than what was witnessed and could quantify). Technically an absolute such as 'God' SHOULD be unprovable by scientific means because its in the game of mapping out the minute details and attempting that we find as much clarity on them as we can. Perhaps discovering that consciousness is fundamental to all things, if we were to discover that, would be about as close as one could get to having 'scientific' proof of the existence of something that might merit the title 'God' but getting to know that consciousness, what kind of personality is at the core of it, etc. would be a subjective rather than objective experience - much like Frank is 72 kilos, has red hair, and is wearing a beige suite with a blue tie but you can't measure his character or personality, you can see its effects but that's all you have.

What you said above does make me curious though, ie. if Dawkins and Hawking are reductive materialists (as far as I know they are? If someone suggests different I'd learn something new), what would they mean by pantheism? If they simply mean an aesthetic awe of the world of probabilities around them and what it's created - while I do applaud that - I'm not sure that their enjoyment of poetic anthropomorphism is necessarily something a reductive materialist can't do. To start flirting with the ideas of all of this coming from one point and from that point splitting and filtering into different kinds of parameters that became the rules of physics is really a heck of a lot like going toward Pythagorean and Kabbalistic mysticism as they all tended to go from the simplest form being primal to the most complex being the most derivative. True, they can do it without believing that consciousness is fundamental to the universe (that seems to be the real dividing line between a pantheistic mystic and and a materialist) but I'm not sure where this leaves them aside from being very romantic and 'sexy' materialists.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 01 Jun 2015, 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

...I voted #1 , which I guess means " some kind of believer "? - What is #4 ,I am very hurried now ?

Pantheism is a theist belief does NOT

mean that all Pantheists are theists.

That's common logic, friend.

You are reading something into my statement that is NOT intended at all.

I am fully aware that the term Pantheism is an umbrella term that houses folks who call the Universe or Omniverse God or not; Pantheism, depending on who one talks to, can house all varieties.

For some it is 100% belief in God; for some it is not.

I clearly stated it is a noted belief in GOD; Not that all Pantheism folks equate Nature with GOD.

MagicK is not woo; Magick is understanding the mysteries of Nature, according to the dude who makes up that term.

The only law he gives is Love under Will; per do as thou wilt; from there he goes into all types of human archetypes and personal methods of doing whatever works for him; and shares it with others; not the first and not the last to do that; by far.

And yeah, if we bring up the Observer effect here before science figures out it is real in Quantum Physics, folks here will be calling that woo too, until they get the evidence in front of their face.

The point is Nature is a big thingy; and human beings have little bitty eyes, and little bitty tools to discover a little bitty part of it so far; as compared to what the whole enchilada of reality may eventually be.

Today's 'magic' becomes tomorrow's science; history shows that again and again; and truly by this point; 'almost nothing' should surprise us per that full context of history, friend.

And there are lots of frigging sources on the Internet about Pantheism; and just 'cause I have moved beyond it doesn't mean I am NOT more versed on it than you, when I am more a part of it in younger years.

Anyway, Merriam Webster isn't pulling stuff out their butt, if one just goes by the basics of what the general term means.

You do not own the religion of Pantheism and neither do I, friend; but never the less, the definition is consistent as is;
by professional resources beyond the 'Thelema' and the 'pop culture site' you provide; and is most definitely clearly associated with equating God with the forces and laws of the Universe. And please don't try to tell me that Merriam Webster doesn't do definitions professionally consistently correct; cause they've been doing it longer than you've likely been living..

It's amazing how many folks on this site have disputed definitions in the Merriam Webster Dictionary;
'cause they can't get pass their own preconceived notions about reality. There is even one person
here that disputed the definition of frigging science..

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheism

I don't know what I am actually...I think there is possibility spiritual or non-physical energies/beings exist, I think I have even had experiences with some so I think there is some level of unexplained energy or what not in existance at least. Just don't know it has any specific form...like there are various mythologies that create humanized gods to explain certain things....well what if these 'deities' aren't so defined and specific but still exist on some level? I was into the idea of loose spiritual satanism for a while, I suppose that is still closest to what I believe basically it was the idea there are different energies and you can more or less interact with them to further some of your goals you could say...but it wasn't really a defined belief and was more about being contrary to conventional theism than having a specific theism of itself if that makes sense. Basically it was a do it/create it yourself kind of belief with some loose kind of guidelines the idea was pagan ideas of old have been so rephrased and rehashed and changed and mixed with Christianity...this is a true way to honor those dieties of old as it does not define them to any specific theology...the 'satanism' is because pagan beliefs where disgraced as 'satanic' not because such things are actually 'devil worship'.

This thread now needs a "UFO-like critters captured via infra-red spectrum-camera in the sky" video...

Well, if some guy said it, it must be true!

Just providing a definition has NOTHING TO DO with true;

Nor agreement on the what the definer says.

I personally believe that Aleister Crowley is a creative genius; and that is what the best of minds do analyze his intelligence for at the time of his amazing expansive talent. But he also tortures small animals as a child, that is reflective in his so-called prophecies that compassion is not a desired human trait. All humans are defined by their experiences. And Aleister Crowley like all humans are FALLIBLE. BUT; IN some ways Mr. Crowley is ahead of his time, in general ideas, like his idea of 'Sex Magic'; IN 'Hegelian terms' he goes way over the top with drugs and some pretty gross out of the box stuff, in terms of human sensuality. However, even science shows now that LUST is a prime motivator of both human creativity and productivity.

Pioneers of truth come in all sizes, shapes, and even psychopathic genius creative minds.

Crowley is more than fallible; but never the less, fascinating as a human mind WAY WAY OUT OF the systemizing prison of 'normal' science. Science is governed by ethics, and in the day of Crowley, sex is taboo in terms
of scientific exploration.

Sometimes it takes an out of the box person to move life FORWARD.

AND IN Crowley's day he is just the man to do it; and do not underestimate the strength of his influence

Mod edit: bottom 60% of post trimmed as it broke the formatting of the page. Line breaks also removed.

Rather than address the specific contradictions in what you've said I'm only going to address the most offensive thing from your post, and then I will cease replying to you.

I am not your friend. Your treatment of others is downright belittling, whether you intend it or not (though I'm quite certain you're incapable of understanding the offense you cause). If you continue to address me as 'friend' I will consider it an act of aggression.

I can't force you not to speak to me. Just know that I would prefer you never address me again. That would make this site far more hospitable.