Be a Supporter!

Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism)

  • 5,754 Views
  • 110 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
PhoenixGodwin
PhoenixGodwin
  • Member since: Jun. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM Reply

I adhere to what is apparently referred to as Physiomonistic Pantheism.

I do not believe in "God" as a sentient, omnipotent, or omniscient being- in fact I don't believe in 'God' as a 'being' at all. I believe that the Universe (Existence) is infinitely vast and intricate. Through studying the patterns in nature, I am fairly certain that Existence operates on what some call "organized chaos"; the universe is constantly changing and 'growing' in chaotic ways, but it follows patterns and systems that allow it to sustain itself. I personally am constantly aware of everything being a part of overall Existence, especially myself as I am the thing that I know best. I am amazed by it and find myself in constant wonder, inquisition, and awe. I think that what most people think of as "God" is just Existence as a whole. In that respect, we are all part of that "God". It makes sense, really: you exist, so you are part of existence. My personal speculation? Sentient thought in living organisms may be a very early part of the process by which the Universe is slowly becoming self-aware. Or rather, the development of organisms with sentient thought like ours may be the beginning of a process in which the Universe develops 'nodes' of perception within itself. I'd feel silly stating that our level of awareness is the highest that's been reached in the Universe. Maybe there are already other species who live in a state of constant Enlightenment, somewhere out there in the vastness of space. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. It's important to fully understand sentience, and what "Awareness" is and how there are varying degrees of it.

'Awareness' is something with multiple levels of obtainability. For example, my pet turtle has all of the perceptual senses that we do (and even a bit more), yet he doesn't recognize his own reflection, nor the limits of his own existence. He is constantly swimming against the glass in a vain attempt to get past it (The idea comes to mind that maybe in his perception he has achieved further movement and is not just swimming in place. It's hard to imagine how a turtle perceives such things). He knows when he is hungry, when his cold-blooded circulatory system needs a temperature change, and when a possible threat is presenting itself. Beyond that, his simple reptilian brain isn't capable of very much. Most likely, the idea that it has lucid thoughts (particularly of an existential nature) is probably merely a projection of our own ideas and concepts overlaid onto a function that we can't sympathize with nor do we fully understand. Dogs obviously have a heightened sense of awareness. They have all the same vital mental functions that the turtle has (although this one is warm blooded), and they still do not recognize themselves in a mirror (sometimes particularly smart ones seem to, but I'm generalizing here). But dogs do display emotions. They get attached to the presence of particular individuals (usually caretakers, but either way they recognize that it's easier to fare better with others as opposed to in solitude) and they can recognize other species as beings even without familiar pheremonal or predator/prey interaction. It's been said that most dogs have the intelligence of a five-year-old. I'd say that's a generally fare assessment and it contributes to the idea that their sense of awareness is inferior to ours. They might have more lucid thoughts than that of a turtle, but it's highly unlikely that they experience existentialism.

Finally, to really round off my explanation of Awareness is Humans. First off, all humans do not share a unanimous level of Awareness. Awareness is the consideration of everything around you and your relation to it. To many people, their lives only relate to the small little bubble that their lives take place in. They get hung up on trivial or petty things that on the big picture really just don't matter. A huge and crippling example of this is prejudice. In the big picture the things that cause prejudice are petty and small, but to those who hold it it's based on important dogmas that are inherent to their lives and the things they have been told- it's incredibly self-centered and detrimental to the quality and fulfillment of life. As sentient beings, we have the ability to increase our level of awareness- that's what sentience is- and it is the key thing that separates us from the turtles and the dogs and such. We are all sentient thoughts that have formed in this vast 'mess' that we call Reality. I think it's important to compel one's self to grow and increase their awareness beyond that of which their environment naturally endows. The peak of this is called "Enlightenment", which I believe is a moment where your sentience (or 'individuality'- more on that in the next paragraph) completely disassociates from your own life (ego), and instead associates with everything else. Not necessarily understanding everything in or about Existence, but having a clear and concise feeling of being a part of everything as opposed to just being the person you are who has lived the life that you have.

I think that what most people think of as the "Soul" is in actuality just our Individuality. If you think about it, everything about you is simply a single sentient thought that has been growing and learning and bouncing around off of all the things you have perceived throughout your lifetime. It originates and lives within the brain, and it is responsible for people's will, drive, dedication, and pretty much any other thing that people would attribute to the soul. Individuality is as unique as DNA, and it builds and grows as it experiences and perceives different things throughout life. I think it's a very real possibility that it dies with the body it originated in- but who knows? The Universe is incredibly complex, and so is Individuality. I'm not sure that anyone living is actually capable of saying for certain what happens to that Individuality after death. It might just be destroyed (as hard as that is for many to accept), or maybe something else happens that is scientifically feasible in a way that we do not yet understand. Most of the cultures that look inward in response to their existentialism tend to believe pretty strongly in reincarnation. These are the same cultures that hold a great deal of significance in "Enlightenment", so maybe there's something to it.

Again: Who knows? But there is a lot of fun to be had in trying to find out. We know that prayer is functionally ineffective anyway because for every person that gets what they pray for, there are a good few who don't. The only thing that will actually bring about your desired results are actions, and sometimes even then the situation may just be beyond your control (see "Butterfly Effect"- the concept, not the movie. Though you can watch the movie if you like- I strongly recommend the Director's Cut over the theatrical version). So take action in your own life. Maybe you don't care much for 'Enlightenment', but you can still try to spread your sense of Awareness as much as possible. Be good to others and be good to nature, taking only what you need from it. Remember that it's all part of the same Existence, and your life can be much more fulfilling.

Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism)

Sevkat
Sevkat
  • Member since: Dec. 31, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 29
Melancholy
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 06:45 PM Reply

Why does everybody got to rep Athiesm like it's something soooo fucking cool? Like really. Who cares? I'm not religious but I don't go on, and on, and on about how religion sucks. You're practically a fanatic which is the reason you became Athiest in the first place, ammirite?


[SevkittyBBS, join LOSER] - [I am not a crook] - [Add me on Steam: svkkt]

BBS Signature
PhoenixGodwin
PhoenixGodwin
  • Member since: Jun. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 06:47 PM Reply

At 5/18/11 06:45 PM, Sevkat wrote: Why does everybody got to rep Athiesm like it's something soooo fucking cool? Like really. Who cares? I'm not religious but I don't go on, and on, and on about how religion sucks. You're practically a fanatic which is the reason you became Athiest in the first place, ammirite?

No, you're wrong. In fact, this doesn't really equate to Atheism, and it's a means of philosophy as opposed to spirituality. Next time howabout reading something before you go off bashing it and the writer, eh?

dark-fox
dark-fox
  • Member since: Jul. 9, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 09:13 PM Reply

While this is all very interesting, I don't see your point, this site isn't really home to existential and philosphical debates or whatever...Besides, this is nothing new. In fact most of what you're saying sounds a lot like http://www.truthcontest.com/

And those guys are nut jobs that think they got life figured out, and like you said it is rather arrogant to say we are the highest form of sentient life, so why do they think they solved life's mysteries?

Hell, philosophy is nothing but intellectual masturbation, no matter what you believe what we percieve isn't going to change because of it.

But to each his own I suppose.


If anyone wants an invite to a site that gives you free stuff I got's it:
http://superpoints.com/refer/darkfo x777

BBS Signature
LucasJC
LucasJC
  • Member since: May. 8, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Musician
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 09:34 PM Reply

Hmmm... Interesting. *Leaves thread without reading anything.*


"You can't be careful on a skateboard man." - some kid

Lumber-Jax12
Lumber-Jax12
  • Member since: Jan. 15, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 09:53 PM Reply

Good read, I actually read the whole thing, you got a way with words, and its a very interesting thought, personally I just can't accept the "where here because we just are" debate, but thats just me.

PS- Ehh i would leave out the religion for this post, I was not offended by the "prayer does not work" bit, but some might, its not really necessary.

PSS- More paragraphs next time to avoid wall of text

Interesting thought though.

SneakyGameBoy
SneakyGameBoy
  • Member since: Aug. 7, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Gamer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 10:21 PM Reply

Here we go...


XBL Gamertag: Cpt D3FAULT | PSN ID: SNEAKYGAMEBOY | GAMING SINCE 2002 ;D

BBS Signature
Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 18th, 2011 @ 10:24 PM Reply

I know that Jedi-Master is a deist. So are most of the more famous Founding Fathers of America as well. It pretty much means that you think their is a higher power of some sort, but he doesn't interfere with worldly affairs and thus the Bible is mostly rubbish.

Thomas Jefferson actually cut out the phrases of the Bible he thought was untrue and nonsense... he was left with only 80 pages.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
HollowedPumkinz
HollowedPumkinz
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Gamer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 12:34 AM Reply

Do have any idea how much time you wasted on a thread barely anyone will read? A topic is suppose to be a summarized paragraph of content that is debatable and could lead to a disscussion of some sort, no your lunatic rantings and ravings about your philosophy on the Universe. Leave it for your Blog and learn how to make a Topic before you waste the thousands of characters given on nothing.

Remember: Summarize your topics. If it takes more than 30 seconds to read, IT'S TOO FUCKING LONG. This isn't a college class and no one here expects your dissertation right at this moment.


Even as I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I shall fear no Evil. Semper Fidelis

BBS Signature
Slingshot
Slingshot
  • Member since: Jul. 10, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 12:37 AM Reply

Jesus loves you.


Cockz and whatnot

Head-Full-Of-Acid
Head-Full-Of-Acid
  • Member since: Aug. 26, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 19
Musician
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 01:27 AM Reply

At 5/19/11 12:34 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Do have any idea how much time you wasted on a thread barely anyone will read?

I think more time would be wasted elaborating as to why someone else's time was wasted (even if to suggest limiting the words you use to go about detailing your thoughts).

oh shit, i'm wasting time.

Interesting read. I can safely say our perceptions are identical in a few ways.

It's a shame these kind of ideologies often seem to be disregarded (as people seem to base their actions out of self interest as opposed to the betterment of society), but I suppose that's human nature.


Request a review ]                                                                            sea otters hold hands in their sleep so they don't drift away from each other

BBS Signature
Bacchanalian
Bacchanalian
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 01:40 AM Reply

You seem to be personifying both existence and individuality, expressing them as though they are beings/entities/agents. This is despite explicitly stating otherwise in the case of the former, and distancing the latter from an equivalent that merely comes with the sour taste of the supernatural (when your definition isn't really offering something that doesn't).

What I see is a series of word games whereby you profess theists and the spiritual to be mistaken, and then go on to express equivalent thoughts/feelings but with less explicitly spiritual terminology.


BBS Signature
PhoenixGodwin
PhoenixGodwin
  • Member since: Jun. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 02:21 AM Reply

At 5/18/11 09:13 PM, dark-fox wrote:
While this is all very interesting, I don't see your point, this site isn't really home to existential and philosphical debates or whatever...Besides, this is nothing new.

I wrote it as a presentation and was proud of my work. I did it mostly for myself, but I wanted to share my work- as well as open it up for discussion with those who might be interested. I find that generally that's the easiest way to get furthest in most philosophies. Newgrounds is honestly one of the only communities I am familiar enough with where I felt comfortable sharing (despite any inferred irony) and thought I could guarantee some sort of feedback.

In fact most of what you're saying sounds a lot like http://www.truthcontest.com/
And those guys are nut jobs that think they got life figured out, and like you said it is rather arrogant to say we are the highest form of sentient life, so why do they think they solved life's mysteries?

Thanks for sharing that link, man. It looks pretty interesting, actually. Sure, some people might have some far-out and whacky ideas, but I think having places to share those ideas is important. Plus it gives me another place to share mine.

Hell, philosophy is nothing but intellectual masturbation, no matter what you believe what we percieve isn't going to change because of it.

Maybe not what you perceive, but how you perceive it. I know that personally the way that I regard life, people- and everything- has changed immensely over just the past year or so.

But to each his own I suppose.

Indeed. I appreciate your response.

At 5/18/11 09:34 PM, LucasJC wrote:
Hmmm... Interesting. *Leaves thread without reading anything.*

Then why bother posting anything at all?

At 5/18/11 09:53 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:
Good read, I actually read the whole thing, you got a way with words, and its a very interesting thought, personally I just can't accept the "where here because we just are" debate, but thats just me.

Thanks, man- I really appreciate it! To support my theory I'll state that I believe that the vastness and 'time' of the Universe is infinite. It's impossible for us to truly grasp the concept of infinity since we are finite beings (probably), but with the God Argument, one could say "Well before there was God, what was there that created him?". I think that any answer that can be made for that proves infinity as an existing concept. So then the question is, do you place infinity in the realms of Existence itself (which we know exists), or do you credit that infinity to an all knowing, all powerful being?

Here's an interesting philosophical question (or paradox, take your pick) for the Monotheistic: Could an all-powerful God create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?.

Either a yes or no answer to that question is contradictory. Yet the same conundrum doesn't effect my Physiomonistic Pantheism. As something that creates/changes naturally, The Universe wouldn't even conceive the idea to do such a thing- particularly as 'lifting' in itself would require a conscious decision or effort to do so.

PS- Ehh i would leave out the religion for this post, I was not offended by the "prayer does not work" bit, but some might, its not really necessary.

I can understand your concerns, but I believe that anyone close-minded enough to not understand where I'm coming from on that front will probably find this whole thing pretty offensive anyway. Thanks for the good response!

At 5/18/11 10:24 PM, Cootie wrote:
Thomas Jefferson actually cut out the phrases of the Bible he thought was untrue and nonsense... he was left with only 80 pages.

That's fascinating- I'll look into that. Thanks for your response!

At 5/19/11 12:34 AM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:
Do have any idea how much time you wasted on a thread barely anyone will read?

I really enjoyed writing it, actually. I wrote it strictly for my own benefit, but I wanted to share it with those who might be interested (take a look at the thread, Bub. Some people read and appreciated it.) I'm sorry that you were not able to.

A topic is suppose to be a summarized paragraph of content that is debatable and could lead to a discussion of some sort, no your lunatic rantings and ravings about your philosophy on the Universe. Leave it for your Blog and learn how to make a Topic before you waste the thousands of characters given on nothing.

I wrote this in the format of an article (with a fairly standard 5 paragraphs), and then left it open for discussion. It's not my fault that you personally equate my ideas with lunacy, but I certainly don't agree that it was a waste of time.

Remember: Summarize your topics. If it takes more than 30 seconds to read, IT'S TOO FUCKING LONG. This isn't a college class and no one here expects your dissertation right at this moment.

You don't speak for everyone, dude. If you don't like a topic, don't post on it and it will be that much more likely to go away. That's how forums work. Unfortunately it seems it's you who has wasted time by typing, after all.

At 5/19/11 12:37 AM, Slingshot wrote:
Jesus loves you.

I'm sure that if he can, he does. I definitely respect Jesus for his ideals and morals, even if not for his supposed divinity.

At 5/19/11 01:27 AM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote:
It's a shame these kind of ideologies often seem to be disregarded (as people seem to base their actions out of self interest as opposed to the betterment of society), but I suppose that's human nature.

Thanks for the response, man! It's an interesting assessment that you have, there. I think the reason that people often instinctively turn away from ideas like this is for reasons ranging between self-interest (as you said), ignorance, and lack of self-awareness. I do hope though, that there is still a large enough people out there who would find this idea worth reading and/or discussing. I'd hate to think that Philosophy was really that much near death.

At 5/19/11 01:40 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
You seem to be personifying both existence and individuality

I respectfully recommend you read the article a bit more carefully.

In Pantheism, God is the Universe, but it can be viewed as either sentient or non-sentient. In Physiomonistic Pantheism, the Universe is not considered sentient, and instead creates/changes as a natural function as opposed to an omnipotent consciousness. So no, the point is that I'm not personifying Existence.

What I see is a series of word games whereby you profess theists and the spiritual to be mistaken, and then go on to express equivalent thoughts/feelings but with less explicitly spiritual terminology.

It would be redundant to create a theory or belief without some sort of support. What you see as 'word games' is just me drawing parallels to commonly identifiable concepts, and then addressing them as they would apply to my presented way of thought.

Nonetheless, I respect the manner in which you responded. Let me know if you have any other thoughts or questions!

Sanch
Sanch
  • Member since: Oct. 5, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 37
Artist
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 02:38 AM Reply

At 5/18/11 06:43 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: I adhere to what is apparently referred to as Physiomonistic Pantheism.

OK. At this point I check your user page.

Age/Gender: 20, Male
Location: Savannah GA
Job: Writer

A bit pretentious, but ok.

I do not believe in "God" as a sentient, omnipotent, or omniscient being- in fact I don't believe in 'God' as a 'being' at all.

So you're an atheist.

I believe that the Universe (Existence) is infinitely vast and intricate. Through studying the patterns in nature, I am fairly certain that Existence operates on what some call "organized chaos"; the universe is constantly changing and 'growing' in chaotic ways, but it follows patterns and systems that allow it to sustain itself. I personally am constantly aware of everything being a part of overall Existence, especially myself as I am the thing that I know best...

What do you mean? Yes, obviously, the universe is large. It is not infinite. It is constantly expanding, but at any one point in time, theoretically, it has a measureable volume.

Existence? What? And what patterns are you talking about? Do you know anything about the actual mathematics or the processings of something as astronomically significant like a gamma ray burst or a universal collision?

Your best answer would be "uh... the fibonacci sequence!" and more stupid hippy rambling.

I am amazed by it and find myself in constant wonder, inquisition, and awe. I think that what most people think of as "God" is just Existence as a whole. In that respect, we are all part of that "God". It makes sense, really: you exist, so you are part of existence. My personal speculation? Sentient thought in living organisms may be a very early part of the process by which the Universe is slowly becoming self-aware...

You basically made your point and then surround it with random shit. You've lost me already.

One doesn't need to write a novella to get across the incredibly simple and commonly known fact that God doesn't exist.

Neither do any supernatural beings. Fairy tales. You live and you die.

You mean nothing before, likely during, and forever after your time spent in the mortal coil.


you talk a good one but u dont do what your supposed to do

BBS Signature
iamgrimreaper
iamgrimreaper
  • Member since: Aug. 22, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Programmer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 02:50 AM Reply

At 5/18/11 06:47 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: No, you're wrong. In fact, this doesn't really equate to Atheism, and it's a means of philosophy as opposed to spirituality. Next time howabout reading something before you go off bashing it and the writer, eh?

Means of philosophy? Shut the fuck up. Not every philosopher's an Athiest, Athiests just like to think that. Besides, Atheism just means you don't believe in a supreme deity/higher power. The reason why is past that.


BBS Signature
PuRpLe-KusH
PuRpLe-KusH
  • Member since: Dec. 9, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Melancholy
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 03:12 AM Reply

At 5/18/11 06:43 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote:

We know that prayer is functionally ineffective anyway because for every person that gets what they pray for, there are a good few who don't.

I can't agree with you on that because ALL my prayers have already been answered, or will be even if the answer I get is not the oneI want, but I know the Lord knows what is best for us and we do not.


BBS Signature
Lintire
Lintire
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Blank Slate
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 03:56 AM Reply

You're pretty pretentious, dude, even if you do make a good point. That was just in the opening post, doesn't seem to extend towards replying to people who regard your opinions and ideas with skepticism. Which is their right.

[citation needed]

Anyway, nice ideas (and the biggest aspect I respected about them is that they were ideas, not beliefs) and you made a good show of getting them across. I do regard the whole "The Universe is becoming self-aware" theory with almost as much skepticism as I regard those who seem to think that God is somehow sentient.

Which he can't be, because that would make him a dick to the upteempth degree, no matter how much of the Bible you rip out. Eh.

I don't know what to think of the "beginning", and frankly nowadays I don't care. Better to just concentrate on aspects that my finite frame can comprehend - namely, the future.

sandwich-eater
sandwich-eater
  • Member since: Aug. 14, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 40
Programmer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 03:58 AM Reply

Yay, I read the whole thing.


BBS Signature
Kwing
Kwing
  • Member since: Jul. 24, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Game Developer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 04:16 AM Reply

It looks as if you put a lot of thought into this, but I think you're really just reinventing the wheel here. Many of the world's great thinkers have come to the same conclusions you have. God being the definition of existence itself is nothing new, and regurgitating definitions and the extent of awareness in various organisms is nothing new, either.

Yet for all of our intelligence and awareness, we only seem to be able to achieve a more defined misery. Hatred, grudges, and even sustained love have caused us naught but trouble. Our memories and ability to dwell on what brings us pain makes us the most inferior species the Earth has ever known, and it is for this reason that I believe that learning isn't as important as we treasure it to be. Being a creation of evolution itself, we are goal-oriented and seek to survive and better ourselves, but the truth of it is that there is no reason to. Because our minds allow us to tap into all manner of realities or unrealities, exploration into ourselves will show you that our knowledge and morality is exclusive to this particular reality we choose to live in. For instance, we base our knowledge off of the assumption that all resources are finite, that we are able to withhold information from each other, that individuals are able to think and act independently from each other, and that time is linear.

As for the soul... I'll say this plain and simple. Our identity is the entire universe as we perceive it. Being the types of organisms that we are, we are unable to think or do anything without using past experiences as a reference point. Indeed, what we physically see is actually light reflecting into our own eyes. Everything we look at is literally inside of ourselves. Our own personalized view of how things are automatically shapes what we think should be done about any given problem, or what we think is beneficial. That's all identity really is.

As for what we should do with our lives, I think it's pointless to think that we really have to do anything. Do what you like, but neither knowledge nor enlightenment are important in any way. However, if you want some sort of influence over other people, you might want to read up to make sure that your statements and ideologies are well-founded, but other than that we have no purpose. Just because we're more intelligent than any species on Earth doesn't mean we have to make something of it.


If I offer to help you in a post, PM me to get it. I often forget to revisit threads.
Want 180+ free PSP games? Try these links! - Flash - Homebrew (OFW)

S3C
S3C
  • Member since: Mar. 25, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 03
Musician
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 07:07 AM Reply

At 5/18/11 06:43 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: I adhere to what is apparently referred to as Physiomonistic Pantheism.

I do not believe in "God" as a sentient, omnipotent, or omniscient being- in fact I don't believe in 'God' as a 'being' at all. I believe that the Universe (Existence) is infinitely vast and intricate.

So you're atheist. "Physiomonistic" (really? lol) Pantheism just seems to like something within, not beyond atheism, right? Semantics aside...

I think that what most people think of as "God" is just Existence as a whole. In that respect, we are all part of that "God". It makes sense, really: you exist, so you are part of existence.

I agree, from the cells in our body to individual organisms, we all come from one energy source, and collectively make up "God".

All organisms have a brain, a nucleus, or a"control center", however.

My personal speculation? Sentient thought in living organisms may be a very early part of the process by which the Universe is slowly becoming self-aware. Or rather, the development of organisms with sentient thought like ours may be the beginning of a process in which the Universe develops 'nodes' of perception within itself.

I would say the universe has always been aware, and the process in which the universe splits its awareness has already been done several times and isn't the beginning nor end of a process.

I'd feel silly stating that our level of awareness is the highest that's been reached in the Universe. Maybe there are already other species who live in a state of constant Enlightenment, somewhere out there in the vastness of space. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. It's important to fully understand sentience, and what "Awareness" is and how there are varying degrees of it.

Infants, plants, young organisms in many ways are closer to enlightenment (as how you define it in your closing paragraph) than adult humans are.

They might have more lucid thoughts than that of a turtle, but it's highly unlikely that they experience existentialism.

Dogs do not need to experience existentialism. The ones that felt they needed to moved on.


Finally, to really round off my explanation of Awareness is Humans. First off, all humans do not share a unanimous level of Awareness. Awareness is the consideration of everything around you and your relation to it.
To many people, their lives only relate to the small little bubble that their lives take place in. They get hung up on trivial or petty things that on the big picture really just don't matter.

It sometimes is better for certain entities to focus on the smaller picture.

When a cell acts beyond it's basic function it may multiply uncontrollably causing cancer to the larger organ and in turn the organ system and then the organism that houses the organs.

it's incredibly self-centered and detrimental to the quality and fulfillment of life.

Quality of life is entirely subjective. Being more aware is unequivocal to the quality of one's life. Being more aware gets you closer to the potential sentience. Which is more important?

As sentient beings, we have the ability to increase our level of awareness- that's what sentience is- and it is the key thing that separates us from the turtles and the dogs and such.

As I think I may have said above, all things in this world are sentient. It's how the electrons are able to move within a hydrogen atom. They have the desire to grow, become increasingly more aware, because without growth, it is no longer an organism.

The peak of this is called "Enlightenment", which I believe is a moment where your sentience (or 'individuality'- more on that in the next paragraph) completely disassociates from your own life (ego), and instead associates with everything else. Not necessarily understanding everything in or about Existence, but having a clear and concise feeling of being a part of everything as opposed to just being the person you are who has lived the life that you have.

Right- and with that, sentience/awareness/consciousness can be considered ambiguous.

Infants are born with pure sensation. (It's not until we are put through school and are taught to categorize and recognize things the ways that are most common in our culture and through overall human speculation.) We become more conscience of our senses, while at the same time becoming dumb with them, too. If something looks red, there's also a specific sound, taste, touch, and smell that goes with it. And why not gender, time, emotion that associaties with it as well? Being able to synthesize such tools is vital in being able to disassociate from the human body and truly understand the universe.

I'm not sure that anyone living is actually capable of saying for certain what happens to that Individuality after death.

Nothing in this universe really dies, it simply transforms and breaks apart. The atoms in an organism spread and contribute to new forms of life including plants, insects, and human beings.

Imagine a beach. For every wave that hits the sand it changes the shape and composition of the shoreline. Every single wave and shoreline is unique- just like a memory. Even though the shoreline fades within time, no grains of sand or molecules of H2O have "died". They're still there, just being distributed differently.

We know that prayer is functionally ineffective anyway because for every person that gets what they pray for, there are a good few who don't.

Because it doesn't "work" 100% of the time makes it functionally ineffective?

The only thing that will actually bring about your desired results are actions, and sometimes even then the situation may just be beyond your control

Prayers and thoughts are actions. Maybe not strong actions, but they create changes in energy nonetheless.

So take action in your own life. Maybe you don't care much for 'Enlightenment', but you can still try to spread your sense of Awareness as much as possible. Be good to others and be good to nature, taking only what you need from it. Remember that it's all part of the same Existence, and your life can be much more fulfilling.

Agreed. I thought it was an interesting read, just wanted you to know.

Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism)


If your work isn't worth fighting for, it's not worth uploading on NG, period. (JrHager84)

AapoJoki
AapoJoki
  • Member since: Feb. 27, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 28
Gamer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 09:38 AM Reply

At 5/19/11 07:07 AM, S3C wrote: I would say the universe has always been aware, and the process in which the universe splits its awareness has already been done several times and isn't the beginning nor end of a process.

Where's your evidence and reasoning to justify this belief?

PhoenixGodwin
PhoenixGodwin
  • Member since: Jun. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 12:40 PM Reply

At 5/19/11 02:38 AM, Sanch wrote:
So you're an atheist.

The ideas are similar, and as an example, certain Christian/Catholic speakers have argued that Pantheism in general is 'just as bad' as Atheism. There are fundamental differences, though. Consider that until two days ago, I represented myself as an Atheist. It was coming to certain realizations that made me further question the nature of the universe. Remember that most Atheist would scoff or ignore the possibility of Individuality's continuation after the body's death. I was the same way until recently in just this current week. Part of the need I felt to write this was specifically to conceptualize the differences between how I felt before and how I feel now. I wanted to make sure that my thoughts were rational and thought out- and for me the best way to do that is writing about it.

What do you mean? Obviously, the universe is large. It is not infinite. It is constantly expanding, but at any one point in time, theoretically, it has a measureable volume.

Well we don't really have any way of knowing whether it's infinite or not, do we? The way that we have 'discovered' the Universe's finiteness is by observing celestial activity within our perceptual range. But considering we've never seen anything resembling an 'end' to the Universe, I think it's very possible that the Universe is infinite, and what we have measured and witnessed is really just an infinitesimally small part of it- no more giving us answers about the nature of Existence as a whole than the first stargazing telescopes. I believe a Big Bang happened (the presumed source of the witnessed expansion), but I don't believe it was the beginning of Existence itself. In fact, there are probably "Big Bangs" that happen throughout the vastness of space.

Do you know anything about the actual mathematics or the processings of something as astronomically significant like a gamma ray burst or a universal collision?

I admit, not too much (though I have lightly read about Gamma Ray bursts). I'd love to learn it though. Would you care to teach me some of it? (I'm not too great with advanced math, so it helps me to have someone teach me about it that actually knows what they're talking about). If so send me a PM- I'm totally willing to learn.

Your best answer would be "uh... the fibonacci sequence!" and more stupid hippy rambling.

Fibonacci, Phi, and Fractal sequencing are all very real and related things observed in nature on a regular basis. You may not find them significant, but I don't see why you'd call them 'stupid' unless you didn't know very much about them. On terms of my personal relationship with mathematics correlating to nature- yes- these are the mathematics in nature that I have put the most effort into learning about (because I find it interesting and significant on a personal level). I'd be willing to discuss those things with you as well, but I'd like to keep it in PMs if that's alright, since it would be straying a bit from this subject.

You basically made your point and then surround it with random shit.

For you, maybe. Like I said though, I was providing a basis for my way of thought. What you see as 'random shit', others may see (and have seen) as reasoning behind my rationality.

You mean nothing before, likely during, and forever after your time spent alive.

Hey, homie. Maybe you're right. Who knows? Recently I would have agreed with you and called it indisputable- as you can see now, not so much.

At 5/19/11 02:50 AM, iamgrimreaper wrote:
Means of philosophy? Shut the fuck up. Not every philosopher's an Athiest, Athiests just like to think that.

There's really no need for anger or hostility, here. Besides, I never implied that philosophy is even generally Atheistic. I've expressed why I felt the need to differentiate my ideas from general Atheism (See above. Pantheism and Atheism are accepted as distinguishable views, anyway). If you really dislike my ideas that strongly, then don't bother posting a response.

At 5/19/11 03:12 AM, PuRpLe-KusH wrote:
A personal defense for prayer.

I say "functionally ineffective" because as a function, prayer statistically proves itself to be terribly inefficient. While you claim that your prayers have all been answered, their are countless others who are dead, dying, suffering, or injured- despite the prayers of themselves or others who wish well for them. I promise, you can pray to a milk jug and get the same results as you would offering prayer to anything else.

At 5/19/11 03:58 AM, sandwich-eater wrote:
Yay, I read the whole thing.

Yay!

At 5/19/11 04:16 AM, Kwing wrote:
An interesting and in-depth philosophical response.

I appreciate the manner in which you shared your views on the subject. I think that the way you use 'inferior' though is relative. I also think that 'identity' is what we recognize about our Individuality based on the choices and thoughts that we've made in the past (not too far off from what you said, though a fundamental difference in focus). I think you're right in that we don't have a predetermined purpose, and I totally agree that we don't really have to do anything along the lines of personal growth- but nonetheless, I felt I should point out that I believe we have the potential to far exceed the way we are now. I don't think there's really anything wrong with promoting knowledge and increased relative awareness, do you? It may be unachievable for us as a general species, but I don't think it harms anything in trying to inspire a more peaceful and aware state of existence.

At 5/19/11 07:07 AM, S3C wrote:
So you're an atheist? Physiomonistic Pantheism? (lol) Here is what I believe to be true, stated as fact...

I'll say one more time that Atheism and Pantheism are not considered the same thing (read above). And in fact, I did not create the term "Physiomonistic Pantheism"- rather, it was a previously existing (if obscure) term that I felt genuinely encompassed my beliefs and ideas.

As for your beliefs, I have a few problems with it. The most significant of which is your notion that all things are sentient. Specifically considering that I took considerable effort in pointing out the varying levels of observable awareness in living creatures, initially based on the complexity of the brain. There is a lot of research that would disprove the idea that "Sentience" as I've described it would be present in anything observable save a few species on Earth including humans. Particularly considering that you imply that sentience onto organisms with increasingly simple physiological function. Personally I view that outlook as a 'projected' sentience (something else I already addressed in the article). I think it really doesn't help your argument that you cited electrons as organism- to be blunt they are not, and the source of their proposed sentience is nonexistent.

"Death" put on simplest terms is the complete loss of vitality to an organism as a whole. So yes, things DO die. Your Beach analogy is applicable, because it expresses a pattern in nature. There are many of these and parallels can be observed among them useful for this type of discussion. However, it is not incontrovertible as a basis for your beliefs. Consider the waves themselves as Individuals. These individuals continuously change the landscape during their existence. Each one is unique (though it all comes from the same source). But once it ceases to exist as a wave, that individual wave never exists again (only the matter and energy used to construct it remain). There is no inherent sentience to independent matter or energy.

Agreed. I thought it was an interesting read, just wanted you to know.

Well thanks, man- I appreciate you taking the time to read and to share your own beliefs. I would just be weary of using terms like 'know' (as I am) here, or in any other community for topics like this. You've expressed ideas that have no factual basis here, and I think it's important to remain aware of that.

Lorkas
Lorkas
  • Member since: Apr. 3, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 29
Blank Slate
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 01:09 PM Reply

At 5/18/11 06:45 PM, Sevkat wrote: Why does everybody got to rep Athiesm like it's something soooo fucking cool? Like really. Who cares? I'm not religious but I don't go on, and on, and on about how religion sucks. You're practically a fanatic which is the reason you became Athiest in the first place, ammirite?

It's like every atheist thinks he's made an amazing discovery. I mean really, what the fuck you guys you aren't special this isn't something new you fucking retards you don't need to go and post how amazing you are for not believing in anything in every thread that has the word "God" in it.


My topics when I wasn't an asshole...12
NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO STEAL AND/OR EDIT MY SIG WITHOUT MY PERMISSION

BBS Signature
Asandir
Asandir
  • Member since: Dec. 23, 2010
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 35
Gamer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 01:10 PM Reply

At 5/19/11 01:04 PM, MikeyS9607 wrote: tl;dr version please?

The universe increases itself in logical patterns, what we think is god is actually everything existing and we are all part of it, the "soul" is just individuality; that are pretty much the most important things from the text you have to know.
With that being said, your theory makes sense, and I am glad that you didn´t brag about it and presented it in a good way, I won´t agree with it, since I am a christian, but the theory makes sense.


Without truth, there is no justice.
Asandir's interviews with Newgrounds forum users
Portal and Icon moderator

BBS Signature
PhoenixGodwin
PhoenixGodwin
  • Member since: Jun. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 01:10 PM Reply

At 5/19/11 01:04 PM, MikeyS9607 wrote: tl;dr version please?

The first paragraph. But it will make a lot more sense and you will better understand where I am coming from if you invest the seven minutes or so it will take for you to read the entire article.

IAmTheDarkWizard
IAmTheDarkWizard
  • Member since: Oct. 9, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 02:04 PM Reply

At 5/18/11 06:43 PM, PhoenixGodwin wrote: I adhere to what is apparently referred to as Physiomonistic Pantheism.

Unneccessarily complicated title. Okay.


I do not believe in "God" as a sentient, omnipotent, or omniscient being- in fact I don't believe in 'God' as a 'being' at all.

We're getting close to plain atheism here.

:I believe that the Universe (Existence) ... follows patterns and systems that allow it to sustain itself.

Sustain itself? If you were familiar with the "patterns in nature" you would be familiar with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy tends to increase in a closed system. This inevitably leads to Heat Death - the universe in maximum entropy, with no free energy, only endless empty space. Or perhaps have you heard of the Big Crunch theory? The universe isn't very likely to be able to sustain itself on the scale of eternity, and furthermore it has no reason to. It doesn't think, it has no interest in self preservation.

I personally am constantly aware of everything being a part of overall Existence,

So you're saying that you exist?

especially myself as I am the thing that I know best.

How well do you know yourself? Can you name for me all the metabolic pathways that allow you to type this right now, for instance?

...I think that what most people think of as "God" is just Existence as a whole. In that respect, we are all part of that "God"...

You just redefined God to something that has no similarity to the original definition. You can do that if you want to, but it's just a pointless word game.

Sentient thought in living organisms may be a very early part of the process by which the Universe is slowly becoming self-aware.

Even if every single star in the universe had a planet orbiting it that supported sentient life (extremely extremely unlikely) then the percentage of the universe that could support life would still be <0.000000001%. The universe, as a whole, can never become self aware and, again, has no reason to.

...Dogs... might have more lucid thoughts than that of a turtle, but it's highly unlikely that they experience existentialism.

Do you know what existentialism is? Have you read much Sartre? Because I think you're using that word incorrectly.

...The peak of this is called "Enlightenment", which I believe is a moment where your sentience (or 'individuality'- more on that in the next paragraph) completely disassociates from your own life (ego), and instead associates with everything else. Not necessarily understanding everything in or about Existence, but having a clear and concise feeling of being a part of everything as opposed to just being the person you are who has lived the life that you have.

Evidence please?

I think that what most people think of as the "Soul" is in actuality just our Individuality.

Word games again. If you don't mean "a supernatural, incorporeal ghost that inhabits one's body" then don't use the word soul.

... I think it's a very real possibility that it dies with the body it originated in- but who knows? The Universe is incredibly complex, and so is Individuality. I'm not sure that anyone living is actually capable of saying for certain what happens to that Individuality after death. It might just be destroyed (as hard as that is for many to accept), or maybe something else happens that is scientifically feasible in a way that we do not yet understand.

Your individuality and consciousness is entirely the product of the structures and chemicals in your brain. There is very strong evidence for this. If your brain dies, you die.

:Most of the cultures that look inward in response to their existentialism tend to believe pretty strongly in reincarnation. These are the same cultures that hold a great deal of significance in "Enlightenment", so maybe there's something to it.

Irrelevant. Many cultures believed that the earth was flat - so what?

...(see "Butterfly Effect"- the concept, not the movie. Though you can watch the movie if you like- I strongly recommend the Director's Cut over the theatrical version).

Whether one likes the movie or not, it was based on a misunderstanding of chaos theory.

:So take action in your own life. Maybe you don't care much for 'Enlightenment', but you can still try to spread your sense of Awareness as much as possible. Be good to others and be good to nature, taking only what you need from it. Remember that it's all part of the same Existence, and your life can be much more fulfilling.

And you too?

XenonMonkey
XenonMonkey
  • Member since: May. 24, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Programmer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 02:13 PM Reply

THERE'S SO MUCH TEXT ON THIS PAGE IT HURTS MY EYES.

In the time you wrote all of your anti-religion butthurt posts in this thread you could've gone outside, stood in traffic and killed yourself. That would've been much more friendly to generic NG users eyes.


BBS Signature
Asandir
Asandir
  • Member since: Dec. 23, 2010
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 35
Gamer
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 02:54 PM Reply

At 5/19/11 02:13 PM, XenonMonkey wrote: THERE'S SO MUCH TEXT ON THIS PAGE IT HURTS MY EYES.

In the time you wrote all of your anti-religion butthurt posts in this thread you could've gone outside, stood in traffic and killed yourself. That would've been much more friendly to generic NG users eyes.
If you actually read, then you would know that his posts are not anti-religion butthurt, so you did a good job at being " a generic NG user".

We have in general to be more open for such theories, only thinking about it can lead us to new knowledge, it certainly doesn´t help if we devide the whole discussuion evertime only in two groups, the religious one and the atheist one, because we won´t come to anything that way.


Without truth, there is no justice.
Asandir's interviews with Newgrounds forum users
Portal and Icon moderator

BBS Signature
PhoenixGodwin
PhoenixGodwin
  • Member since: Jun. 29, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Art Lover
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 05:00 PM Reply

At 5/19/11 03:56 AM, Lintire wrote: You're pretty pretentious, dude, even if you do make a good point. That was just in the opening post, doesn't seem to extend towards replying to people who regard your opinions and ideas with skepticism. Which is their right.

I'm not sure that I understand. I'm certainly trying to be open to other people's views and discussion. How am I coming off as pretentious to you? I definitely don't mean to...

Anyway, nice ideas (and the biggest aspect I respected about them is that they were ideas, not beliefs) and you made a good show of getting them across. I do regard the whole "The Universe is becoming self-aware" theory with almost as much skepticism as I regard those who seem to think that God is somehow sentient.

I think 'becoming' may actually have been the wrong word, but as you thankfully recognized- it's just an idea. I do think it's conceivable that in billions upon billions of years the universe could be populated by constantly enlightened beings (functionally making the Universe aware of itself in a sense)- but obviously that is purely hypothetical speculation. All that aside, I appreciate your mature and reasonable response.

At 5/19/11 01:09 PM, Lorkas wrote:
It's like every atheist thinks he's made an amazing discovery. I mean really, what the fuck you guys you aren't special this isn't something new you fucking retards you don't need to go and post how amazing you are for not believing in anything in every thread that has the word "God" in it.

I'm under the impression that you didn't actually read the article, and you certainly didn't read anything else I wrote in the thread after the initial post before writing this. My ideas coincide with a form of Pantheism, which is a concept distinguishable from Atheism (Damn. I swore I wouldn't repeat that again in this thread). I shared my ideas in the medium of public forum in order to inspire conversation that would invoke reasoning. I suggest reading something before attacking it or the author in the future. If you still don't like it, simply move along.

At 5/19/11 01:10 PM, Asandir wrote:
A quick summary of the article, and:
With that being said, your theory makes sense, and I am glad that you didn´t brag about it and presented it in a good way, I won´t agree with it, since I am a christian, but the theory makes sense.
We have in general to be more open for such theories, only thinking about it can lead us to new knowledge, it certainly doesn´t help if we devide the whole discussuion evertime only in two groups, the religious one and the atheist one, because we won´t come to anything that way.

Immediately upon posting my response to MikeyS9607, I regretted it. You did a much better job of summarizing the article, and it made me realize I was just being lazy by not trying to do the same myself. It means a lot to me that you're able to take these ideas in a logical stride- particularly considering your spiritual background. Thank you very much for your mature response and positive feedback.

At 5/19/11 02:04 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:
Unneccessarily complicated title. Okay.

I can title my article however I please, thank you. The title is relevant.

I personally am constantly aware of everything being a part of overall Existence,
So you're saying that you exist?

What? Are you just trolling? I don't understand how you could even get this from that unless you're trolling.

How well do you know yourself? Can you name for me all the metabolic pathways that allow you to type this right now, for instance?

You're obviously missing the point. And a smartass.

The universe isn't very likely to be able to sustain itself on the scale of eternity, and furthermore it has no reason to. It doesn't think, it has no interest in self preservation.
You just redefined God to something that has no similarity to the original definition. You can do that if you want to, but it's just a pointless word game.

It's not a 'pointless word game'. It's called writing. I used vocabulary and grammar to express my ideas and beliefs and then put them in a place where it could be open for discussion. I could understand your reaction better if my article had been poorly constructed, but it wasn't and I put a lot of work into it. Yet for some reason you're using poor logic, redundant statements, and theoretical science to tell me that I shouldn't have even shared my ideas in the first place.

...Evidence please?

What, are you high on meth? I've barely stated anything in my article as fact, merely an expression of ideas.

Word games again. If you don't mean "a supernatural, incorporeal ghost that inhabits one's body" then don't use the word soul.

I'm beginning to seriously doubt your abilities of literacy. I specifically stated that I don't think there is a soul, and that what most people attribute to a soul can actually be attributed simply to Individuality.

Your individuality and consciousness is entirely the product of the structures and chemicals in your brain. There is very strong evidence for this. If your brain dies, you die.

And as I've said, I think you're probably right about that. You're being incredibly redundant, you know.

...(see "Butterfly Effect"- the concept, not the movie. Though you can watch the movie if you like- I strongly recommend the Director's Cut over the theatrical version).
Whether one likes the movie or not, it was based on a misunderstanding of chaos theory.

No, it's based around the concept of the Butterfly effect, and you're proving yourself more ridiculous by the letter. The Butterfly Effect, while related to Chaos Theory- is not the same thing. I don't even see why you brought that up- the whole point of me mentioning the movie was to clarify that I wasn't referencing it.

And you too?

What is this? I don't even...

At 5/19/11 02:13 PM, XenonMonkey wrote:
I'm butthurt because I can't read words when there are too many of them- but I'm going to accuse Phoenix of being butthurt instead since he's the one that made me face my illiteracy.

I'm certainly not being anti-religious- that's just a poor assumption on your part. I also did not post this for what you refer to as the 'generic' NG user- particularly if you consider yourself one of them. I posted it for my own benefit, and for the benefit of those who would find my ideas interesting. If you're not going to read it, don't bother making an opinion of it. If you don't like it for immature reasons like "TL;DR", then don't bother posting. Simplicity at it's finest. Cheers!

charlie-sheening
charlie-sheening
  • Member since: Mar. 14, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Artist
Response to Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism) May. 19th, 2011 @ 05:53 PM Reply

I've actually spent some time wandering through my own thoughts as a variation of a physiomonistic pantheist, one of many obscure paths I've considered. For those afraid of long words, insulting people because they use words you don't recognize and are too lazy to research really just shows you in a poor light. Sesquipedalophobia is an unfortunate plague in the world, causing threads to veer offtopic continuously due to people being afraid of reading long words. But yeah, there's a world of difference between atheism and physiomonistic pantheism. And you can't just say pantheism because that's not correct, either. Pantheism could be theomonistic, transcendental, immanent-transcendent, along with a slew of other more obscure forms of recognizing or holding the entire universe and everything in it as "God."

I really liked the OP and a good deal of the rest of the thread, aside from the ignorant namecalling and childish remarks trying to make OP feel like all of NG is against them and not up for intelligent conversation. If you don't like the conversation, find a different topic, no need to bash.

A few of the various forms of pantheism tend to erratically run through my own belief system, I'm a bit chaotic and have mood swings of what I cling to. One moment I might be celebrating Norse mythos and communing with dwarves, another moment I might be freely traveling ethereal and astral paths; one day I'm very scientifically-oriented and abysmally spiritual, the next day I might be evoking glory glory hallelujauhs from the spirits in the leaves and the wind. I really enjoy very much just about every religious experience I come across, from learning about other cultures and religions to daydreaming and mixing pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-science with spirituality. Another part of me loathes all things spiritual and part of me even thinks that the human condition of spirituality is part of our destruction, that we fail to be truly evolved creatures of logic. Mostly, though, I just enjoy thinking about these things and floating around experiencing reality, wondering what it all means.

Good thread, thanks for posting a thread besides "LUL WOH FOUND BOOBIES ON YOUTUBE TRILILILIL"

pic related, it's a fractal I made about pantheism awhile back

Beyond Atheism (Physiom. Pantheism)