Theism, Agnosticism, Atheism.

[richdude]

I couldnt decie, I only really read the top paragraph of each, and I think im closer to Panentheism because I do believe that even though this energy is all one, it is not identical. So My being is different from your being, which is different from spirt beings etc. Hard to explain and two Pan...isms seem very similar!

If we think of "god" as Power, then enclose god within a battery, screw on a carto, a drip tip, add some juice, we have a total being of seperate items only working because of the power, without power it would be useless but without the carto it would be useless aswell! So (hopefully this has a point!! lol) God = Power, Universe = battery, People = cartos/clearos whatever, thoughts, ideas & actions = juice!!
"God/UniEn" connects all beings together and gives the energy needed but all the other bits are not god, they just become part of it to fuction! So I still think im Panentheism ???

[Annie]

Just want to say how much I am enjoying this thread, it's turing out to be very enjoyable reading

[richdude]

Aug 23, 2012 12:16:41 GMT kurotoshiro said:

Aug 23, 2012 11:51:22 GMT esmecullen said:

Interestingly that sounds very similar to what was said to me when I "flirted" with scientology. I'm not saying it is exactly the same............ only some of the concepts are quite similar

I suspect that's because the parts you've emphasised in bold are very general principles about human conduct and would be consistent with a huge range of different moral / ethical theories. I mean, in essence, it's just saying: 'The stuff we do matters. Act positively.' That general idea is bound to be reflected in all kinds of different beliefs all over the planet.

I also think the same as VIP & Esme, but I think It goes deeper than just moral theories. By us having this conversation could cause someone to question their beliefs which in turn could lead them to a different pathway and totally alter their life. Ive always thought of it like seeds being planted in the mind. Something you consider to be irellivant could stick in my mind and grow over many years into a thought patteren or belief which could have a big infuliance on my life! Theres a good book about this called The Four Agreements!

[esmecullen]

Yeah I agree kurotoshiro, it does seem to be at the core of many religions

[kurotoshiro]

@ richdude: Ignore what I said about Pantheism and Panentheism. I was confusing your beliefs with CAM-VIPs! CAM-VIP talks about god not being external to the universe, and the wiki suggests this is Pantheism rather than Panentheism. For some reason I thought you'd said something similar. I must have been looking at the wrong bit of the thread.

[richdude]

No worries, its all a bit complicated since the two are almost identical

[kurotoshiro]

Aug 23, 2012 12:29:23 GMT richdude said:

Aug 23, 2012 12:16:41 GMT kurotoshiro said:

I suspect that's because the parts you've emphasised in bold are very general principles about human conduct and would be consistent with a huge range of different moral / ethical theories. I mean, in essence, it's just saying: 'The stuff we do matters. Act positively.' That general idea is bound to be reflected in all kinds of different beliefs all over the planet.

I also think the same as VIP & Esme, but I think It goes deeper than just moral theories. By us having this conversation could cause someone to question their beliefs which in turn could lead them to a different pathway and totally alter their life. Ive always thought of it like seeds being planted in the mind. Something you consider to be irellivant could stick in my mind and grow over many years into a thought patteren or belief which could have a big infuliance on my life! Theres a good book about this called The Four Agreements!

I probably should have used a more general term than "moral theories". What I meant to say is that these principles are consistent with a wide range of different action-guiding beliefs and theories. And when I say "action-guiding" I mean anything (anything at all) that is aimed at evaluating or recommending actions, behaviours, ways of living, ways of thinking, etc.

And this includes both religious views and extremely atheist views as well - since atheism doesn't rule out the possibility of making value judgements and assessing the worth of different behaviours, actions, ways of life, etc.

[richdude]

I would take it a step further and not say "anything (anything at all) that is aimed at evaluating or recommending actions, behaviours, ways of living, ways of thinking, etc." but would say it applies to everything that we do and every single word we say!

So as your an Atheist, is it just god that you dont believe in? Any thoughts on the human soul, aura & "Physic gifts"?

[kurotoshiro]

Aug 23, 2012 13:58:38 GMT richdude said:

So as your an Atheist, is it just god that you dont believe in? Any thoughts on the human soul, aura & "Physic gifts"?

No gods, no "souls" (at least not in the sense of a distinct thing that is in principle seperable from the physical nature of a body), certainly no auras, and nothing psychic either.

Essentially I'm a Physicalist on most things (although there's a ton of different varieties of Physicalism, depending on the subject matter):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

Specifically in the case of mental states and consciousness, I do lean heavily towards a kind of theory known as Eliminative Materialism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminativism

[richdude]

OK I have had a read of the first wiki, think I understood! So its the belief that only physical things exist and things that have been proved by physics? Sorry if thats a stupid question but it all kind of went over my head a bit and confused me, but I think that is because the first thing I read said
"Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."
Now I see physical things as objects that can be seen, so a magnet would be physical, whereas its magnetic field wouldnt be physical! So I think my confusion is coming from that!

Would you mind giving me a little explation in your own words please! :-[

[CAM-VIP]

Having just read the WIKI on Pantheism, I think that just about sums up my beliefs - it is good to find that there is a name for them

Panentheism has a built in hierarchy as richdude points out with GOD being more than the whole. GOD exists outside the Universe as well as in it. This is more closely allied with 'religions' than pantheism

I believe that all can be discovered from what is already here (in the Universe) without the need for an external GOD. The interactions we have talked about can change how people think and the inspiration for a new thought/theory/discovery/invention/song/painting etc etc comes from within directly as a result of those interactions.

Great topic Kuro

[richdude]

It is a great topic! And it's good to see that wherever we go there is people on the same wave length!! Lol!

I have to say that I also think it is great that science is finally catching up with ancient mystics! The SQUID gadget proving energy fields around living beings exist and change with thought/actions. String theory touching on multiple dimensions. The god particle etc!

[kurotoshiro]

Aug 23, 2012 15:01:48 GMT richdude said:

Would you mind giving me a little explation in your own words please! :-[

I've written out an explanation but it's looooong. I think I need to trim it down a bit, in a way that still makes sense! I'll get back to you later!

[richdude]

Long is fine! Lol

[kurotoshiro]

Aug 23, 2012 15:01:48 GMT richdude said:

OK I have had a read of the first wiki, think I understood! So its the belief that only physical things exist and things that have been proved by physics? Sorry if thats a stupid question but it all kind of went over my head a bit and confused me, but I think that is because the first thing I read said
"Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."
Now I see physical things as objects that can be seen, so a magnet would be physical, whereas its magnetic field wouldnt be physical! So I think my confusion is coming from that!

Would you mind giving me a little explation in your own words please! :-[

When Physicalism says that "there are no kinds of things other than physical things" it means that everything is, ultimately, physical (which I'll explain further below) - and this includes magents and magnetic fields and literally anything else you care to mention.

In saying that there are no other types of thing, the point is to distinguish Physicalism from any kind of Dualism. According to Dulaism, there are two types of thing: physical things and also non-physical minds (or, if you like, souls). (Obviously, most religions tend to be Dualist.)

But: what does it actually mean to say that everything is, ultimately, physical? One way of looking at it is to say that at a fundamental level, the universe is made of things like quarks, bosons, leptons and all the other interesting stuff that physics tells us about. Everything else is just increasingly complex stuff built out of that fundamental physical stuff.

A better way of putting is to go top-down, instead of bottom-up. The idea is that any complex phenomena (eg, the conscious experiences of a human being) can be entirely understood and explained in terms of stuff that's going on at an underlying level (ie, neurophysiological events and processes). And the phenomena observed at that level can in turn be entirely understood and explained in terms of another underlying level (ie, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc). And the same principle keeps applying. You can understand and explain every successive level in terms of an underlying level, until you reach rock bottom: fundamental physics.

One of the important principles underpinning Physicalism is Occam's Razor (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) - which basically says: Always aim for the simplest explanation and don't believe in any unnecessary stuff unless you absolutely have to.

Armed with this principle, the Physicalist asks: Do we really need to bring in theories about immaterial minds or souls in order to explain the human mind? Such things would need to be dealt with as entirely different from the rest of the physical world. We'd no longer be able to explain everything down, level by level, until we got to physics. We'd be forced to believe in two types of fundamental thing, instead of just one. So we should try to avoid this if possible. That is, we should aim for an explanation of the human mind that's provided by the neurosciences. This is ideal, because the neuroscientic explanation won't demand that we believe in any additional fundamental types of thing. It will allow us to explain everything down, level by level, to the bottom floor of fundamental physics.

Just one last bit, which is important: Physicalism does not claim that things like the human mind can currently be understood and explained in terms of neuroscience. The fact is, we're a long way away from this at the moment. But the Physicalist is quite happy to place a bet on it. The bet is that the best way of understanding and explaining the mind will eventually come from the neurosciences. As far as offering insight into the workings of the mind is concerned, the neurosciences are currently looking like a good prospect. Like all sciences, they self-consciously adhere to extremely strenuous standards of evidence, argument, and theory-assessment. They conform to Occam's Razor. And they cohere well with the rest of our theories about the world (which are also predominantly scientific for the same reasons: they offer, or at least promise, the best explanations).

OK, I'll stop at this point, to avoid 'wall-of-text' syndrome.

I hope I've explained that OK. If anything needs explanation just let me know.