I am a bit sceptical that you are a scientest but anyway. the fact is everything that exists that we can percieve is in the universe. For all we know our universe could be a tiny particle in a big dog shite sitting in a field somewhere.. whatever it is, we are all in it together everything shares this world. i would consider myself more like a pantheism than an athiest because athiests believe they are better than everyone and hate everything else... God is what we dont know.
God is just a word we Pantheists use for the idea of the majesty of everything. That source of energy that's worth our reverence. Our source of life. God is not something that any of us can claim to know. To understand a little better, read Elements of Pantheism by Paul Harrison. You can be an atheist and still be a Pantheist.
Picking a god to worship that actually exists is cheating. Pantheists should take a cue from the Christians. Not only does their God not exist but even the story doesn't make any sense. God sacrificed himself to himself to give himself permission to his creations their sin debts against him. And why does an all powerful God need blood to fix the universe anyway? -- Pantheists however have an actual God and makes strong atheism feel like a rather childish disagreement.
@lostinmymind420 Who is the person that pisses you off? Were you referring to me or to one of the people have commented on my video? Since I have not equated atheism and pantheism, I don't see how the comment could be applied to me.
I became pantheist by myself actually, came up with the idea 4-5 years ago, then went to the internet to share my ideas with others, then someone told me I was a Pantheist, I looked it up and yup there it was.. "Pantheism Monist Physicalist".. I were disappointed at first that my thought wasn't original, but then I smiled and realized I wasn't alone with these thoughts.
@TheCitygal87 Almost the same exact thing happened to me. For decades I never heard of the word "Pantheism." I was aware of the concept, but never knew there was a name attached to it. Then one day I was looking at the various concepts of god, and found that I actually fit into one...pantheism. If you look around, you'll find a lot of pantheist belief systems. All of which maintain a fairly low profile (Almost invisible even) and try to exist as one with everything around and inside of us :=)
@coyoteself The thing I was most concern about were the conscience and awareness of your existence, always thought about it, made no sense that I can experience life itself with some kind of awareness, then I just realized that it most likely has to be the universe itself that has the awareness in me, and everyone else, including animals, which isn't really a stupid concept. We're from the same big bang, universe, the little dot before big bang.
No, the universe isn't God, "God" is only a word used by pantheist for the sole purpose of describing something. Throw out the word God if you like, and use "Nature." Better yet use your own name. Seriously throw out the word God and replace it with your name, "Keith is the universe and the universe is Keith." Now replace "Universe" with the word "God." Profound, isn't it. In most religions that's a blasphemous thought, but at least an atheist will think about that one as well
@coyoteself I totally identify myself with the branch of pantheism that thinks of the word "god" as just a placeholder for the Cosmos. I don't agree with the branch of pantheism that calls the Cosmos an authentic god and themselves as authentic theists. I have met some such pantheists.
@coyoteself The pantheist I have in mind belongs to the World Pantheist Movement and definite claims that such a status qualifies him as a theist. He does not use the term "pandeist" to describe himself. AFAIK, pandeism is an admixture of deism and pantheism, but I don't know much about that group or even pandeism if is organized enough to qualify as a group.
No one is trying to impose religion, or pantheism specifically, to say pantheism is ruining everything is close-minded. There is not a correct answer for religon, or belief. What is for you, is for you. Case, and point.
@iReaperxx As I stated as clearly as I know how: this video is a joke, it is satire. I actually respect pantheism and would describe myself as a pantheist except for the use of the word "god".
What’s the use of attacking a philosophy of life that doesn’t create hate, that doesn’t try to violate human rights and that doesn’t forbid our human desire, our need. Pantheist don’t go to some kind of religious house, they don’t have a religious book that says how things must be done, which doesn't mean that there are books that explain pantheism. Don’t take it so seriously when pantheist say god! God is relative!!! nature, the people, the animals, life, death, love, hate…it’s all there!!!
=D Pantheism is non-theistic. Yet, it is antimonious & paradoxical. The Universe (Omniverse) is eternal. It is existence, by definition. It is purely conscious. 'She' is not in need or want of anything. /watch?v=1BSiZQqlg5E
Pantheists believe in god but inna unique way....god is simply a synonym for the universe and the universe is a synonym for god.... We don't believe that it is a god like some big guy with a beard and a trident type stuff.... And we also believe that the universe is divine but divinity is also used in a unique way....we mean as a synonym (us Pantheists and our synonyms! Geeez) for awesome....for example "the cosmos are divine" actually would mean "those cosmos are amazing/ beautiful"
what a sad life you atheist live we are all connected by the universe i suggest you watch Wonders of the solar system and Wonders of the universe and change you ways
@MrMushroom90 we more than anyone understand this...in fact thats what makes me atheistic in your eyes...is that i see immortality in the reality of the world around..i believe its real...not a spirit....but i understand ..what it is you call god...and am in direct contact with it...atheism is very misunderstood...be careful of the man who says theres no god...because he may no more about god than you
Pantheism is just a subset of Atheism (this is debatable, but it comes down to the believer). In Pantheism, god is the universe and the universe is god, so therefore believing in the universe doesn't necessarily mean believing in a deity. One need not even mention the word god when referring to Pantheism, the universe should suffice as an explanation of the All.
@diomonddragon Very true, but the word "God" has so many meanings it really is useless. I personally Panentheist (I believe that there is a god with a concious mind) which is essentially the same thing as pantheism but you there could be a spirit and an afterlife, and most of all an conicously thinking god.
@BrianPSTJ Exactly. Panentheism is essentially the theist version of Pantheism. Yeah, God has meany meanings, however different religions give it a different meaning and connotation, which can be good or bad. Some people sour the name, which I think is really sad, and has such led me to avoid the word for the most part.
@thechangeling613 What is the origin of this electricity that is manifesting through the light bulb?? Our Brains are filt with this same electricity as well as the stars, the planets, the glaxey, etc! I dont believe in no santa clause man in the sky but the supremem force is real and its much closer to you then these orthodox religions can explain. To look and see all of this conciousness around you and then say that there is no supreme conciousness...is silly.
@TreachMarkets What do you mean "little faith"? I am certified, 100% faith-free as evidenced by the fact that I was not raptured away yesterday (May 21 2011). My faith was cured over a decade ago and I've had no signs nor symptoms of infection with faith ever since.
BTW, I always thought of myself as more of a "thou" kind of guy. It kind of takes two or more blokes to make a "Ye".
@TreachMarkets Whatever it is, I am sure it is going to wind up making me more and more sure of how moral bankruptcy is strongly correlated and directly proportional to one's level of faith. The greater the faith, the less decency one has.
When my faith was first cured, it was hard. I was a born-again Christian, how could I ever even think about being an atheist? I tried to lie to myself and hide from it for a few years. But, eventually I realized that my faith was gone, it had been cured. I first I thought I had "lost" my faith, but I soon discovered that one "loses" one's faith in the same way one "loses" pneumonia. It is a painful process, sometimes, to be cured, but you're so much better off in the end.
I consider myself an atheist with a zeal for nature (ie: the woods, the rivers, the oceans, the cosmos..etc.) that probably could be on the verge of almost spiritual. However, I have a hard time believing in the supernatural. That's why pantheism strikes a resonant chord with me. It negates all the supernatural mumbo jumbo and keeps everything on a more rational level while finding that connection with Nature.
I feel much the same way. However, for me, to call the universe, the Cosmos, a god is to defame the universe. The Cosmos is far more sublime than any alleged god was ever conceived as being.
So, I am disinclined to call the Cosmos a god, for it is superior to all the alleged gods. So, I don't feel quite right in calling myself a pantheist.
@ScientistKeith I can see where you are coming. Perhaps it's more apt to swing away from the god label and simply call the cosmos what it is: Nature. I think one can call themselves a pantheist without having to walk lockstep with everything that is taught. That's just my opinion though.
Being as such is God because a proper definition of God is that which is most crucial, that to which we are most in debt for what we have and dependant on for what we want, that which is at the principle of all laws (e.g. the laws of physics) we have to deal with, that which we come from and which we will return to at our deaths... The notion of God is (and has more or less always been to a degree) an icon, a symbol, of Being, of Reality, of the World... Call it what you will.
And we're not just screwing with atheists. Soon, we'll start pushing our beliefs into the education system, so that the dogma of physics, mathematics, biology, etc. can be taught to our children.
@DavitosanX How wicked you pantheists are. Who knows, public schools might even be required to teach children factual information about reality just any decade now!
im a pantheist/atheist i think god could be nature time and the unvierse itself, deism is believing in a god that is not a moral concsious being that doesnt interfere with events, ie not the christian god, if u look up panthiesm and deism there two very similar things but on a different basis
@retrogamerist Yes, I would quite agree that deism and pantheism are fairly unrelated. Deism involves a detached (possibly dead) creator god. Pantheism posits the universe, the Cosmos, as god. The god of deism might not even exist. The god of pantheism definitely exists beyond any reasonable doubt or question.
@thepickletrain I don't actually have any real problem with pantheism... this video is just a joke.
Gods are selfish beings that demand those under their charge to worship them: the universe is above such things. Gods are contemptible things, the universe is not.
So, I think pantheists are wrong: the Cosmos is superior to any god. From my POV calling the universe a "god" (from my point of view) is an insult to the universe. Otherwise, I would have considered myself a pantheist
@ScientistKeith nice, i think you just changed my atheist pantheist ratio, and by the way its not calling the unvierse a god, its saying god is a metaphor for the universe
@retrogamerist For some pantheist, the god = universe thing is a metaphor. Others, whom I've met, state emphatic that they mean it literally and that they literally hold religious zeal for the universe as their god.
I don't like Atheism because of what the name implies - rejection of the belief in God. It implies cynicism and negativity. I've seen those types who argue over and over again with Theists, as if they are trying to justify their own beliefs. Why can't they (the masses of idiots) adopt a more positive view? What kind of message would you like Atheism to send?
@bstmanversusskeletor, Your view of atheism (should not be capitalized) is stereotypical. Even your "definition" of atheism is erroneous and negative. In what way is not having theism "cynicism and negativity"? I find the endless verbal assaults by theists, mostly Christians, about how if we don't adopt their beliefs we will be tortured by their loving god for all eternity to be cynical and negative.
Atheism is the absence of theism, it is not the "rejection" or "denial" of anything. Atheism is natural (anyone who has not been taught to believe in gods will be an atheist, by default). Atheism is a status, just like "nonsmoker" is a status. There would be no need for either word if there were not theists or smokers. These words state what we are not, not what we are. There is no "message" or need to justify anything, atheists are just people without theism.
Atheists are just like anybody else. There are nice people who're atheists, there are nasty jerks who're atheists. Just as there are nice theists and theists are nasty jerks. The vast majority of atheists don't bother debating or arguing with theists, just as the vast majority of theists don't bother evangelizing other groups.
If you will carefully look into atheist vs. theists debates online, you'll find that very often it is the theists who start it [continued...]
Theists, mostly Christians, come to forums atheists participate in. The theists denounce us, tell us their god of love is going to torture us in hell for all eternity if we don't agree with them, tell us we are sexually immoral, tell us we actually do believe in their god but are just denying it because we want to use illicit drugs, engage in orgies, cheat on our spouses, etc. But, you think we're the ones who're being cynical and negative? [concluded..]
Do you believe that you'd opt to be blasted with such libelous accusations and just not respond?
As far as "justifying beliefs", atheism is a status, not a belief system. Thus, there is nothing to justify. However, we do have certain theists, mostly Christians, who come to our forums to denounce major fields of scientific study and then claim their religious doctrines are scientific theories. These believers I no longer debate.
While it is true that a few atheists are evangelistic, trying to cure the world of theism, and that a few of these atheists are obnoxious, the truth is that they are very much in the minority (just as most theists don't evangelize).
I don't know what your -ism is? Are you a pantheist, a Muslim, a Daoist, a Christian, a Hindu?
Perhaps you are having discomfort with the knowledge that there are people who don't share your beliefs?
Atheism can be defined as a status but it is a belief. A belief is something we think to be true. You believe that no God/s exist and you have labelled yourself an Atheist.
I wasn't speaking of those who don't know of the concept of God, but those who know they are Atheists. Specifically, those who were once Theists, now Atheists. Those are the cynical people I spoke of... maybe I wasn't clear enough. Also, you're wrong, when Theists change to Atheists, they are rejecting the belief in God for a belief that no Gods exist. You didn't take that into account.
First, you are not entitled to limit who is or is not an atheist. Stereotypes and prejudice are typically justified by claiming that that all members of a group have traits that apply to only a small percentage of that group. You cannot legitimately just declare that atheists are all former theists, because the majority of them are not. You cannot legitimately just declare that atheists are cynical and negative when only a few of them are.
Second, you're not entitled to define atheism. Nor are dictionary publishers so entitled. Only the members of a group are entitled to define membership in that group.
Do atheists have any right to declare who is or isn't a member of your religion? If you read a dictionary definition of your religion which didn't include you, would that mean you're not really a member of your religion? Yet, theists often declare what atheism supposedly is to atheists.
Atheism is NOT the belief that there is no god. Atheism is NOT rejection of (belief in) god. The prefix "a-" means "without", it does NOT mean "rejection of" or "opposed to". It just means "without". Therefore, "atheism" means "without theism" -- atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of a single belief. Babies are atheists. Everyone who has not been taught to believe in god(s) is an atheist.
Only a small minority of atheists believe there is no god.
Do you believe in de Broglie waves? Either you must accept them or reject them, you can't just not believe at all, can you?
Chances are you are not on any side, nor are you wavering on the fence, indecisively. Chances are you don't even know what de Broglie waves are, and even if you've heard of them chances are they are of so little concern to you that you never think about them -- deciding to believe or not to believe isn't even on your mind.
Well, how you probably react to de Broglie waves is how most atheists feel about god(s). It isn't an issue of rejecting or accepting, believing gods don't exist or do exist or even might exist. Most atheists just have no interest in the topic, it is like you probably react to de Broglie waves... it is just something that doesn't cross you mind.
Even atheists who were once theist very often just gradually lost interest in gods and stopped believing.
Of course, there are atheists who are activists, myself included. But, for me, it is mainly just an online thing. In my real life the issue of gods just doesn't come up unless a believer brings it up.
So why do I bother? Two reasons:
1. Some theists won't leave us alone: they keep slandering and attempting to proselytize us.
2. Some theists try to make their doctrines be the law of the land, requiring others to follow their rules and beliefs.
You've claimed there is something cynical about ceasing to believe in gods, but your saying it doesn't make it true. In most cases, the former theists just lose interest in the god they previously believed in. There was no decision to "reject god". Usually, theism just didn't offer them much, so they just lost interest in it, until they gradually ceased to have theism.
Please present some sort of defense of your claim that atheists are cynical and negative.
If it is cynical and negative to reject believing in a god, then how very cynical and negative you must be! For, there isn't just the god(s) you believe in to accept or reject, people have believed in millions of gods.
Unless you believe in every last god anyone has ever believed in, including leaders of cults who claim to be gods, then haven't you rejected those gods? Doesn't that make you cynical and negative, by your own standards.
@ScientistKeith You don't read what I say do you? I wasn't speaking of all atheists but a subgroup within atheists who were once theists. How can you say that they just loose interest? Do you have any idea what the word belief means? Forget it, if you can make an eight part response demonstrating your lack of listening skills then I have no reason to be here.
Yes, many atheists who are former theists became atheists by losing interest in theism, until they gradually just left theism behind... they stopped believing gradually. I'm accurately describing the process by which many or most former theists became atheists. There wasn't a big moment where they just rejected their god and turn their back on him/her. That isn't how it usually happens. What I explained IS how it usually happens. (process summarized in next post)
6. After years of not being interested in the religion, something happens one day to bring the former religion and its god into mind, but the person discovers that he or she hasn't just lost interest in actively pursing the religion... the faith is no longer there, the belief is no longer there. They find that they just aren't able to believe those things any longer.
7. They are now atheists, they no longer believe in god.
So, "rejecting" god is not a very accurate way of describing the process for the majority of atheists who used to be theists. They just went through a gradual process: from finding little reason to actively pursue their religion, to losing interest in the religion, to no longer believing in the religion, to no longer believing in god. It is a GRADUAL thing, it isn't a single moment of "rejecting" becoming "cynical" or "negative". It's like outgrowing Santa Claus
@bstmanversusskeletor There are plenty of atheists who would agree with you on that point, some who would not. Likewise, a baby cannot believe in any religion, a baby is not a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever its parents religion is. The baby will probably acquire the religion in time, but a baby does not believe in god. Some atheists are happy to accept babies as atheists, some are with you and say that is just taking the definition too far.
My 8 part answer that you were bothered by was, in fact, a direct response to what you actually said, it is just that I needed to explain that to you the REAL way former theists become atheists.
So, the accurate answer is that most (not all, of course) former theists turned atheists became so, not in a moment where they decided to reject god, but through a gradual process where LACK OF INTEREST turned into LACK OF BELIEF. One day they discover they're atheists.
@ScientistKeith Okay, I can see that. Atheism just seems too broadly defined though. The statement that 'babies are born as atheists' while true, allows for a number of things. Babies are atheists because they lack the ability to understand.. a lot of things. If that's the case, couldn't a chimpanzee also be considered an atheist? Or maybe a rock? Since they, too, have a lack of belief? Please help me understand.
@bstmanversusskeletor We atheists ourselves like to argue the very point that you make. Some are fine saying babies and rocks are atheists, wanting to emphasize the concept that atheism is just absence of theism. Others don't like that approach and insist that you have to be able to believe before you can qualify as either theist or atheist. So, even amongst atheists it is a contentious point, for the very reasons you listed.
I think the best way to help you understand atheism is by comparing it to the word "nonsmoker". Why does that word exist? It means nothing really.. we only have the word because there is such a thing as a smoker, and if we aren't one of them, then we are nonsmokers. Nonsmoker says what one is not, but nothing about what one is. Atheist is the same, it is a nothing word, it says nothing about who you are or what you believe except that you don't have theism.
@ScientistKeith Fair enough, I see your point. I guess I would prefer it if an atheist would be aware that they are an atheist before being labeled one, but that's just me. I don't like the idea of children being labeled anything but children before being able to think for themselves. That's all I have to say really, thanks for your insight. I'm a person who has to believe there is a reason for my existence, pantheism is just about the closest thing to that.
I am a Pantheist. The only difference between what the 2 of us believe is that I exalt and love and acknowledge the universe. You just say, "Yeah... whatever... thats the universe. so what?". I would say, "The Universe. Its such a wonderful and beautiful place. Filled with such amazing complexity. I love the universe." All us Panthiests are doing is showing appreciation for the Universe. Its like respecting your mother! How can you not appreciate this amazing wonder? All that it does for us!
@JacobLovesNina Jacob, I feel the same about the universe, but I don't see why you'd want to insult the universe with such a nasty term as "god". I think the universe is far more sublime than any so-called "god", so I wouldn't besmirch it by calling it a god.
@ScientistKeith The term "God" has so many meanings it is completley and utterly usless. I dont see the term god as nasty, only certain definitions of it. I think that the atoms making up our universe may actually be concious, due too many recent quantum physics studies. Frankly, I love the universe and I am so happy I get to be a part of it in life and will be in death no matter what happens when you die.
While the term "god" is certainly overworked and could do with a vacation, I do think it still has some meaning, especially since most people in Western countries mean the Abrahamic god when saying "God".
I am quite unaware of the Quantum Physics studies you referenced, although I am very much aware of pseudoscientists and a variety of fringe groups invoking quantum mechanics as alleged support for their nonsensical claims.
Kindly give me a link to the QM studies you mentioned.
I don't exist, I am a fictional character, with special powers. I am the main character in a book a couple of thousand years old. The funny thing is though millions of people believe I do exist!!!!
That's why I seperated the two...some use creator some use god. You and your wife(are part of a cycle(you say creator, I respect everyone's belief). It's the Earth-Cycle Did the cloud create the rain and the rain create the river? It's part of a Earth-Cycle(seeds germinate and grow into plants some flower into fruits that create the same seeds. That's part the Natural-Cycle. Who, what or when that Cycle began will be a mystery the Lions and Lionesses who have Stopped the eating of Herbs.
@M-adam100(u made a good point. what do u think about this? There are living organism(micro) co-existing inside us, plants and animals...if for some reason they communicate in a way we can imagine...are we like an Earth or a Universe to them? Would they consider us Creator/God ...without knowing there is More than just Us, outside of what they have explored. Are we beings inside a Being that's inside a being through an infinity?
@Lionsherb As I don't in any way equate "creator" with "god", I don't really know how to respond in a substantive way to your speculations. My wife and I created our two children, WE are their actual creators. But does that make us gods to our children? No, and I am sure they would be only too happy to concur.
@MasterAdam100 Calling the universe "God" doesn't make it more beautiful. What it does is it makes you realize and appreciate the wonder of the universe's beauty, divinity, and it's oneness.
@davencarp1991 Interesting point on why to invoke the word "god" in reference to the universe. But, for me, "god" is a word about emotionally unstable beings that can't seem to be content or at peace if they don't have people bowing to them, worshiping them, and telling them how they are so very, very, wonderful. The universe is far above such petty things, it is far better than the deranged (often fictitious) beings known as "god".
@ScientistKeith Agreed. but this term "God" is still usable, although you and I both agree it would be better off without but this won't happen. It seems that the purpose of using the word "God" to identify with the universe started when Pantheist were trying to get the idea across by saying that any form on God that one had conceived of is just as divine as they are, sort of an equality thing to show supreme and equal divinity through all beings in the universe whether they be mortals, animals,
If atheists dont believe in God, why do they spend so much time trying to disprove its existence? If you truly knew there was no creator then why make videos and books and movies and websites and songs about how there is no God? In my opinion there is a God but when filtered through the human ego God becomes distorted. God is the totality of all existence. The universe is full of natural order Whatever you want to call it doesnt matte. I call it God you call it nature. Why fight over semantics?
@timothyxmcveigh Gods don't exist, but believers do. Many believers, Muslims and Christians in particular, are rather fond of trying (and sometimes succeeding) in making their beliefs the law of the land, or at least to proselytize us. Since they don't leave others alone, some of us atheists respond. However, most atheists don't bother. Internet atheists are atypical in that they are the minority that bother to tell others what they believe or don't believe.
If you despise the fact that theists force their will onto others then why are you using the same tactics? Are you not trying to force you view on us and make YOUR view the law of the land? How are you any different from them? why are you trashing others? It is just like Justin Bieber if you ignore the problem it has no power. it takes two to argue, two to fight you are simply adding fuel to the fire. It is a vicious circle and unless someone stops we wont move toward.
@TheRedWolf080 I am not using the same tactics at all. My identifying what my views are on a minor youtube channel wherein NO ONE is forced to listen to nor to read ANYTHING I say hardly counts as forcing my view on others. I don't go to Christian forums and trash them. Even on Youtube, I don't comment on religious channels unless welcomed to do so. In real life, I rarely discuss either my political or religious views.
my apologies my direction in my post was confusing. I was referring not to you on youtube but the hostility of atheism in general. I am no expert and am only drawing on my life experiences. i have a few atheist friends 3 out of 4 share extemist/militant views toward religion. When they rant to me they say that all religions are the source of all evil and suffering in this world. (Which is view just as illogical as Christianity's view that Satanism the bane of all evil)
@TheRedWolf080 Apology accepted. I no more speak for all atheists than you speak for all Christians. There are jerks in either camp, just as there are nice people in either camp.
I believe that a religion has value only in terms of what kind of person it causes you to be. If you believe the moon is god made entirely of goat cheese and that religious view inexplicably causes you to be kinder to your children and your fellow humans, then I have no problem with it. It is what we do (continued)
with what we believe that matters the most. If your Christianity causes to you be happier, and treat others better, more power to you. I can honestly say that I am a lot nice to others since I became an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. Back then, I often had the agenda of teaching my friends the "true" religion and "true" variety of Christian dogma. Now, I have no such agenda. Yes, I will go on debate forums and have a lively debate with those who (continued)
WANT to have the debate. But, mainly I believe that I don't have the right to pressure people into my beliefs. If a person hasn't volunteered to debate me (or at least atheists in general), I don't bother them.
I concur with you that a great percentage of Christians don't worry much about what others believe. But, there is a thriving business of Christians pressuring others, including fellow Christians, what to believe.
But, I am not fully persuaded that it is only a handful of radicals that would have Christian beliefs become the law of the land. Consider how churches and other Christian groups rallied voters to pass state constitutional amendments to forbid gays from marrying those whom they love. Gay marriage is against their beliefs, but they aren't content to say "our preachers won't conduct gay weddings". No, they forced their views on others by making it the law of the land.
I would like to say that i appreciate that you do not force your viewpoints on others in real life. I always find that irritating with my friends. Concering your comment of Christianity and Muslims forcing views on others I will dissect. your first point is that many C's and M's wish to force their view on others. many refers to a large amount of worshipers. I think it is fair to say that more extreme members of C and I would force their views on non-believers.
@TheRedWolf080 (part 2) Theists, especially certain groups of Christians and Muslims, OTOH, are quite willing to force their views on other people -- certainly not all of them, but many. Whether it is trying to get creationism taught as if it were science, or enactlng "blasphemy" laws, or enacting laws that restrict business activities on Sunday, they do indeed try to forcing, including legally enforcing, their beliefs on others.
I, OTOH, refuse to argue with believers about creationism.
You suggested that I was trying to make my views the law of the land. Please explain how you came to that conclusion. What have I done that amounts to forcing my view on others or to enacting laws making my views the law of the land?
As far as "trashing others", I am not sure what you mean by that. My "trashing" of pantheists, surely you realize this was meant as friendly jesting. Otherwise, I have challenged views without trashing believers themselves.
@timothyxmcveigh i first wonder why your name is timothy mcveigh. butanyway there is a fundamental difference in the way pantheists think of 'god' and the way the non-pagan religions do. non-pagans see god as being who always was and always will be with a concious and who is apparently all good but is somehow also "a vengeful god". pantheists say everything in the natural universe is connected and that is 'god'. it has no judgement, no favorites, no feelings and in fact it is not an it at all.
@timothyxmcveigh it is simply being. god is being. not a being, just being. that includes not being meaning death. death is the end of a physical life and the bringing of new life, demonstrated in the recycling of natural materials in the ground. a dead rabbit becomes part of a patch of grass that it was perhaps eating from just a few days ago. that is how the web of all things and all life works and pantheists see it as a type of holy or sacred thing to be appreciated by those lucky enough to
The argument macro world vs micro world doesn't hold. At the basis of everything, there is quantum mechanics. The real question is more like how the infinte possibilites realize into an "objective world" through conscious observation.
"the human race has not always existed and neither have stars nor this universe"
You assume that time exists and is linear, also a newtonian thing. But it seems more logical that the universe is timeless, past present and future all exist together all at once.
@Atlantean24 It appears to me that you are greatly misunderstanding a very complex topic. Your quote mining doesn't help establish the validity of your claims. QM, for all its strengths, does not scale up into the macro world very well. Among other problems, it does not include gravity. Also, the effect of measurement on the result becomes less important in macro world. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
@Atlantean24 I am aware of the existence of quantum gravity theories, but these are far from accepted and they have not yet been included in the Standard Model. You may not have been talking about uncertainty, but you should have. You can't just skip it.
@TheLovesoul1 Of course I know what a "god" is. A "god" is anything a believer imagines it to be. There is not a single characteristic of "god" that all believers agree upon, not a single thing. The closest any trait comes to being universally accepted is that a god is something that deserves to be worshiped.
But, if you would like to offer a better definition of "god" than I have, please do so. Also, explain why your definition is preferable to contradictory definitions others might use.
@ScientistKeith ok pal here it go's god to me is a collective of all the beings that are that were and that will be a collective intelligence not a being in itself but the source of all beings and not a creator but observer not to get you mad but your definition of god is pretty narrow and its not a he its both he and she and all other beings in existence we and all other beings form a collective singular consciousness that learns through experience the collective ocean of life.
@TheLovesoul1 Why do I have an interest in debating others? I think that should be obvious. One can best grow in one's knowledge by discussing beliefs with someone you disagree with. If you only converse with those with whom you agree, how can you learn anything new? While we are not likely to agree on our differing views about "god", we can grow by discussing our differences and commonalities.
@ScientistKeith and you'll have to wait till you dead to see the source it's not a being or an entity its the source of all manifestation and the essence of the universe.
@TheLovesoul1 Why do you call this collective consciousness a god? What convinces you it is actually real, rather than just something you like to believe in?
@Atlantean24 You seem to be saying there are no objective facts. Is that an objective fact? That's the trouble with what was called perspectivism. It's a problem with all observer driven reality claims. You all suggest there is no objective reality but you want to state it as an objective fact. That's the contradiction that kills the theory every time. Subjectivity may well influence objective reality. To what extent is yet to be determined. Don't sell speculation as fact. Learn the difference,
@Atlantean24 Are we too conclude then, when our telescopes detect a supernova in a galaxy 500 million light years away, that the supernova was in limbo for 500 million years until we observed it?
Things don't work that way. What did happen is that the photons that traveled for 500 million years, didn't reach their final observed state until we observed them, and this observation affected the image. But the supernova had been an object fact for 500 million yrs, regardless of any observation.
"Many physicists have subscribed to the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics, a position often equated with eschewing all interpretation. It is summarized by the sentence: Shut up and calculate!"
Objective reality IS the pseudoscience now actually. Whichever consciousness-related interpretation is more-or-less right, the newtonian worldview is certainly wrong.
@Slomofly Thanks, however you also use circular reasoning, all human reasoning is circular. You assume that there is an objective physical world and try to find evidence in that framework, most scientists are still clinging to this newtonian view because of what you said in your video, the fear that science would become pointless, if there are no completely objective facts (which isn't true of course). So you only accept facts that accord with the objective physical world "interpretation".
@Atlantean24 We don't "control" the world with our thoughts either, that's obviously BS, I never said that. The answer is somewhere in between, the Universe we can study and it's apparent laws absolutely has to do with conscious life. Our brain functions probably also use quantum superpositions, similarly to photosynthesis. Apart from all this, QM doesn't need any interpretation to do the math, that's right.
@Atlantean24 Observer-dependent reality is also circular reasoning, but I can't see other ways to explain modern physics. You summed up things well in your video, I missed quantum eraser and retrocausation tho (which in fact suggests that the supernova was in superposition for 500 million years until we observed it). What I really missed was the fine-tuned Universe and the Anthropic principle: every constant in our Universe seems to be exactly set for intelligent life, and yep, here we are.
@Atlantean24 Penrose calculated that the chances of existing in such a Universe is 10^10123 : 1. That's not coincidence, the human observation becomes the center again. Also the world is still real, even if all is consciousness. (Btw things are nor particles nor waves, particles and waves are also human concepts from the macro world, these are just words to describe things that are happening at the quantum level, don't take the duality too seriously.)
@Atlantean24 I didn't understand the messed-up God thing at the end of your videos, who said that existence has a true purpose or meaning? And even if there is only one consciousness (I can't tell that yet), we still have distinct brains/minds so we can't tell what other are thinking, no contradiction here. "You and I are the same thing" is not an absurdity, but a very basic truth, only absurd in the chsristian + newtonian wordlview. (Means that those two are absurd.)
@Atlantean24 Try this: 1. I am conscious 2. I am a part of the Universe 3. therefore the Universe is... Hm, and where did you get this "the universe doesn't exist" thing?
Sorry all this got long, also my English is bad. :)
@Atlantean24 Ok. 1. I am conscious 2. I am a part of the Universe 3. therefore the universe contains consciousness. When I said the universe does not exist I was referring to some people`s idea of a subjective reality. There are people out there who say this. There is nothing but consciousness. That means the universe does not exist except as an idea within an ultimate consciousness. It is like the Hindu idea that the universe is all part of god`s dream. BTW. Your English is fine.
@Atlantean24 I was giving you various interpretations of the subjective universe theory that are out there. The one I call the ultimate subjective view is that there is nothing but consciousness. It is subjectivity taken to the extreme. It postulates that you are not you, you are in the consciousness. I was simply showing how absur
Comment removed
TheUndertakerSaysRIP 5 days ago
I am a bit sceptical that you are a scientest but anyway. the fact is everything that exists that we can percieve is in the universe. For all we know our universe could be a tiny particle in a big dog shite sitting in a field somewhere.. whatever it is, we are all in it together everything shares this world. i would consider myself more like a pantheism than an athiest because athiests believe they are better than everyone and hate everything else... God is what we dont know.
jackthelad101 1 week ago
Well then, you are probably more intelligent than 84% of the population
emberhenderson1 1 week ago
God is just a word we Pantheists use for the idea of the majesty of everything. That source of energy that's worth our reverence. Our source of life. God is not something that any of us can claim to know. To understand a little better, read Elements of Pantheism by Paul Harrison. You can be an atheist and still be a Pantheist.
emberhenderson1 2 weeks ago
@emberhenderson1 That is who I am
TheDrewManXD 1 week ago
Picking a god to worship that actually exists is cheating. Pantheists should take a cue from the Christians. Not only does their God not exist but even the story doesn't make any sense. God sacrificed himself to himself to give himself permission to his creations their sin debts against him. And why does an all powerful God need blood to fix the universe anyway? -- Pantheists however have an actual God and makes strong atheism feel like a rather childish disagreement.
Tatarize 3 weeks ago
Why is it always people who know nothing about a subject that feel compelled to talk shit about it?
KreeseSensei 3 weeks ago
this guy pisses me off... atheism and pantheism are two different things.
lostinmymind420 1 month ago
@lostinmymind420 Who is the person that pisses you off? Were you referring to me or to one of the people have commented on my video? Since I have not equated atheism and pantheism, I don't see how the comment could be applied to me.
ScientistKeith 1 month ago
I became pantheist by myself actually, came up with the idea 4-5 years ago, then went to the internet to share my ideas with others, then someone told me I was a Pantheist, I looked it up and yup there it was.. "Pantheism Monist Physicalist".. I were disappointed at first that my thought wasn't original, but then I smiled and realized I wasn't alone with these thoughts.
Anyway, cheers!
TheCitygal87 1 month ago
@TheCitygal87 Almost the same exact thing happened to me. For decades I never heard of the word "Pantheism." I was aware of the concept, but never knew there was a name attached to it. Then one day I was looking at the various concepts of god, and found that I actually fit into one...pantheism. If you look around, you'll find a lot of pantheist belief systems. All of which maintain a fairly low profile (Almost invisible even) and try to exist as one with everything around and inside of us :=)
coyoteself 3 weeks ago
@coyoteself The thing I was most concern about were the conscience and awareness of your existence, always thought about it, made no sense that I can experience life itself with some kind of awareness, then I just realized that it most likely has to be the universe itself that has the awareness in me, and everyone else, including animals, which isn't really a stupid concept. We're from the same big bang, universe, the little dot before big bang.
I'm sure pantheism can be proven scientifically.
TheCitygal87 3 weeks ago
No, the universe isn't God, "God" is only a word used by pantheist for the sole purpose of describing something. Throw out the word God if you like, and use "Nature." Better yet use your own name. Seriously throw out the word God and replace it with your name, "Keith is the universe and the universe is Keith." Now replace "Universe" with the word "God." Profound, isn't it. In most religions that's a blasphemous thought, but at least an atheist will think about that one as well
coyoteself 1 month ago
@coyoteself I totally identify myself with the branch of pantheism that thinks of the word "god" as just a placeholder for the Cosmos. I don't agree with the branch of pantheism that calls the Cosmos an authentic god and themselves as authentic theists. I have met some such pantheists.
ScientistKeith 1 month ago
@ScientistKeith I'm not absolutely certain, but I think they call themselves pandeist because of their thinking of the universe as a Deity
coyoteself 1 month ago
@coyoteself The pantheist I have in mind belongs to the World Pantheist Movement and definite claims that such a status qualifies him as a theist. He does not use the term "pandeist" to describe himself. AFAIK, pandeism is an admixture of deism and pantheism, but I don't know much about that group or even pandeism if is organized enough to qualify as a group.
ScientistKeith 1 month ago
hahaha I like this, "*sigh* well looks like we're going to have to put some effort into this one"
speakninja 2 months ago
@ScientistKeith - I noticed the comment on the video post stating that it was meant as a parody. My apologizes, I meant no disrespect.
iReaperxx 2 months ago
No one is trying to impose religion, or pantheism specifically, to say pantheism is ruining everything is close-minded. There is not a correct answer for religon, or belief. What is for you, is for you. Case, and point.
iReaperxx 2 months ago
@iReaperxx As I stated as clearly as I know how: this video is a joke, it is satire. I actually respect pantheism and would describe myself as a pantheist except for the use of the word "god".
ScientistKeith 2 months ago
What’s the use of attacking a philosophy of life that doesn’t create hate, that doesn’t try to violate human rights and that doesn’t forbid our human desire, our need. Pantheist don’t go to some kind of religious house, they don’t have a religious book that says how things must be done, which doesn't mean that there are books that explain pantheism. Don’t take it so seriously when pantheist say god! God is relative!!! nature, the people, the animals, life, death, love, hate…it’s all there!!!
maachilosa 2 months ago
@maachilosa Please see my reply to @iReaperxx
ScientistKeith 2 months ago
=D Pantheism is non-theistic. Yet, it is antimonious & paradoxical. The Universe (Omniverse) is eternal. It is existence, by definition. It is purely conscious. 'She' is not in need or want of anything. /watch?v=1BSiZQqlg5E
NeoPsiTom 2 months ago
Pantheists believe in god but inna unique way....god is simply a synonym for the universe and the universe is a synonym for god.... We don't believe that it is a god like some big guy with a beard and a trident type stuff.... And we also believe that the universe is divine but divinity is also used in a unique way....we mean as a synonym (us Pantheists and our synonyms! Geeez) for awesome....for example "the cosmos are divine" actually would mean "those cosmos are amazing/ beautiful"
KDubVideos 4 months ago
Since when did Pantheists believe in a god? Might have to change religions.
SlayEmAll1986 4 months ago
@SlayEmAll1986
That would depend on the pantheist in question:
Some pantheists are very clear on the matter that the Cosmos is a god to them and that they are definitely NOT atheists.
Other pantheists say it is just a metaphor to call the universe a god and are quite content to say they are atheists.
So, it just depends on which pantheist you are speaking of.
I have no personal need to invoke the word "god", but otherwise feel as many pantheists do.
ScientistKeith 4 months ago
pantheism makes so much more sense than atheism
gogolplex74 6 months ago 11
lol cool
lovecraft4780 6 months ago
what a sad life you atheist live we are all connected by the universe i suggest you watch Wonders of the solar system and Wonders of the universe and change you ways
MrMushroom90 7 months ago
@MrMushroom90 we more than anyone understand this...in fact thats what makes me atheistic in your eyes...is that i see immortality in the reality of the world around..i believe its real...not a spirit....but i understand ..what it is you call god...and am in direct contact with it...atheism is very misunderstood...be careful of the man who says theres no god...because he may no more about god than you
arkee71 7 months ago
I'll be honest... i only clicked on it from the related videos because i saw my name :D
- Atheist K.
Eletemaga 7 months ago
Go back to Leaf world
FaidleyEthan 8 months ago
Pantheism is just a subset of Atheism (this is debatable, but it comes down to the believer). In Pantheism, god is the universe and the universe is god, so therefore believing in the universe doesn't necessarily mean believing in a deity. One need not even mention the word god when referring to Pantheism, the universe should suffice as an explanation of the All.
diomonddragon 8 months ago
@diomonddragon Very true, but the word "God" has so many meanings it really is useless. I personally Panentheist (I believe that there is a god with a concious mind) which is essentially the same thing as pantheism but you there could be a spirit and an afterlife, and most of all an conicously thinking god.
BrianPSTJ 8 months ago
@BrianPSTJ Exactly. Panentheism is essentially the theist version of Pantheism. Yeah, God has meany meanings, however different religions give it a different meaning and connotation, which can be good or bad. Some people sour the name, which I think is really sad, and has such led me to avoid the word for the most part.
diomonddragon 8 months ago
How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
Two. One to actually change the bulb, and the other to videotape the job so fundamentalists won’t claim that god did it.
thechangeling613 9 months ago 13
@thechangeling613 Ha ha ha ha ha! So true!
DestroyEET 9 months ago
@thechangeling613 Well, who made the light bulb that atheist changed?
skunksnag 8 months ago
@thechangeling613 LOL
gogolplex74 6 months ago
@thechangeling613 What is the origin of this electricity that is manifesting through the light bulb?? Our Brains are filt with this same electricity as well as the stars, the planets, the glaxey, etc! I dont believe in no santa clause man in the sky but the supremem force is real and its much closer to you then these orthodox religions can explain. To look and see all of this conciousness around you and then say that there is no supreme conciousness...is silly.
marshbey 4 months ago
Oh ye of little faith... ;-)
TreachMarkets 9 months ago
@TreachMarkets What do you mean "little faith"? I am certified, 100% faith-free as evidenced by the fact that I was not raptured away yesterday (May 21 2011). My faith was cured over a decade ago and I've had no signs nor symptoms of infection with faith ever since.
BTW, I always thought of myself as more of a "thou" kind of guy. It kind of takes two or more blokes to make a "Ye".
ScientistKeith 9 months ago
@ScientistKeith Speaking of which, has anyone heard from those Westboro Baptist kooks in the last couple of days? Oh crap...
TreachMarkets 9 months ago
@TreachMarkets Whatever it is, I am sure it is going to wind up making me more and more sure of how moral bankruptcy is strongly correlated and directly proportional to one's level of faith. The greater the faith, the less decency one has.
ScientistKeith 9 months ago
@ScientistKeith I don't know for sure if you are correct, but I trust you and believe that this is true. ;-)
TreachMarkets 9 months ago
My story is quite like the others here.
When I was 17 I went through severe philosophical debates with myself that went on for hours which eventually led to depression and almost suicide.
Then one day I connected the dots, and a pattern appeared. As soon as I put it all together my mind literally blew.
I could remove every doubt and fear I ever had, and because of it I felt tremendous.
Years later I got the Internet and came across this religious term called pan-theism.
Realised it was my own e
BarerRudeROC 9 months ago
@BarerRudeROC
When my faith was first cured, it was hard. I was a born-again Christian, how could I ever even think about being an atheist? I tried to lie to myself and hide from it for a few years. But, eventually I realized that my faith was gone, it had been cured. I first I thought I had "lost" my faith, but I soon discovered that one "loses" one's faith in the same way one "loses" pneumonia. It is a painful process, sometimes, to be cured, but you're so much better off in the end.
ScientistKeith 9 months ago
I consider myself an atheist with a zeal for nature (ie: the woods, the rivers, the oceans, the cosmos..etc.) that probably could be on the verge of almost spiritual. However, I have a hard time believing in the supernatural. That's why pantheism strikes a resonant chord with me. It negates all the supernatural mumbo jumbo and keeps everything on a more rational level while finding that connection with Nature.
Ardane79 9 months ago
@Ardane79
I feel much the same way. However, for me, to call the universe, the Cosmos, a god is to defame the universe. The Cosmos is far more sublime than any alleged god was ever conceived as being.
So, I am disinclined to call the Cosmos a god, for it is superior to all the alleged gods. So, I don't feel quite right in calling myself a pantheist.
ScientistKeith 9 months ago
@ScientistKeith I can see where you are coming. Perhaps it's more apt to swing away from the god label and simply call the cosmos what it is: Nature. I think one can call themselves a pantheist without having to walk lockstep with everything that is taught. That's just my opinion though.
Ardane79 9 months ago
Being as such is God because a proper definition of God is that which is most crucial, that to which we are most in debt for what we have and dependant on for what we want, that which is at the principle of all laws (e.g. the laws of physics) we have to deal with, that which we come from and which we will return to at our deaths... The notion of God is (and has more or less always been to a degree) an icon, a symbol, of Being, of Reality, of the World... Call it what you will.
ScipiondeFrance 10 months ago
Hehe. Pantheism rules.
ScipiondeFrance 10 months ago
And we're not just screwing with atheists. Soon, we'll start pushing our beliefs into the education system, so that the dogma of physics, mathematics, biology, etc. can be taught to our children.
DavitosanX 10 months ago
@DavitosanX How wicked you pantheists are. Who knows, public schools might even be required to teach children factual information about reality just any decade now!
ScientistKeith 10 months ago
im a pantheist/atheist i think god could be nature time and the unvierse itself, deism is believing in a god that is not a moral concsious being that doesnt interfere with events, ie not the christian god, if u look up panthiesm and deism there two very similar things but on a different basis
retrogamerist 10 months ago
@retrogamerist Yes, I would quite agree that deism and pantheism are fairly unrelated. Deism involves a detached (possibly dead) creator god. Pantheism posits the universe, the Cosmos, as god. The god of deism might not even exist. The god of pantheism definitely exists beyond any reasonable doubt or question.
ScientistKeith 10 months ago
@ScientistKeith i agree, but you can doubt the pantheistic god on a philosophical basis
retrogamerist 10 months ago
why is pantheism such a problem?
thepickletrain 10 months ago
@thepickletrain I don't actually have any real problem with pantheism... this video is just a joke.
Gods are selfish beings that demand those under their charge to worship them: the universe is above such things. Gods are contemptible things, the universe is not.
So, I think pantheists are wrong: the Cosmos is superior to any god. From my POV calling the universe a "god" (from my point of view) is an insult to the universe. Otherwise, I would have considered myself a pantheist
ScientistKeith 10 months ago
@ScientistKeith gotcha. i wasn't sure how much of it was satire and how much was really your opinion.
thepickletrain 10 months ago
@ScientistKeith nice, i think you just changed my atheist pantheist ratio, and by the way its not calling the unvierse a god, its saying god is a metaphor for the universe
retrogamerist 10 months ago
@retrogamerist For some pantheist, the god = universe thing is a metaphor. Others, whom I've met, state emphatic that they mean it literally and that they literally hold religious zeal for the universe as their god.
ScientistKeith 10 months ago
@ScientistKeith huh i guess there is a crazy side to panthiesm
retrogamerist 10 months ago
I don't like Atheism because of what the name implies - rejection of the belief in God. It implies cynicism and negativity. I've seen those types who argue over and over again with Theists, as if they are trying to justify their own beliefs. Why can't they (the masses of idiots) adopt a more positive view? What kind of message would you like Atheism to send?
bstmanversusskeletor 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor, Your view of atheism (should not be capitalized) is stereotypical. Even your "definition" of atheism is erroneous and negative. In what way is not having theism "cynicism and negativity"? I find the endless verbal assaults by theists, mostly Christians, about how if we don't adopt their beliefs we will be tortured by their loving god for all eternity to be cynical and negative.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor
Atheism is the absence of theism, it is not the "rejection" or "denial" of anything. Atheism is natural (anyone who has not been taught to believe in gods will be an atheist, by default). Atheism is a status, just like "nonsmoker" is a status. There would be no need for either word if there were not theists or smokers. These words state what we are not, not what we are. There is no "message" or need to justify anything, atheists are just people without theism.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor
Atheists are just like anybody else. There are nice people who're atheists, there are nasty jerks who're atheists. Just as there are nice theists and theists are nasty jerks. The vast majority of atheists don't bother debating or arguing with theists, just as the vast majority of theists don't bother evangelizing other groups.
If you will carefully look into atheist vs. theists debates online, you'll find that very often it is the theists who start it [continued...]
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [continuation]
Theists, mostly Christians, come to forums atheists participate in. The theists denounce us, tell us their god of love is going to torture us in hell for all eternity if we don't agree with them, tell us we are sexually immoral, tell us we actually do believe in their god but are just denying it because we want to use illicit drugs, engage in orgies, cheat on our spouses, etc. But, you think we're the ones who're being cynical and negative? [concluded..]
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [continuation, part 3 of 4]
Do you believe that you'd opt to be blasted with such libelous accusations and just not respond?
As far as "justifying beliefs", atheism is a status, not a belief system. Thus, there is nothing to justify. However, we do have certain theists, mostly Christians, who come to our forums to denounce major fields of scientific study and then claim their religious doctrines are scientific theories. These believers I no longer debate.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [conclusion, part 4 of 4]
While it is true that a few atheists are evangelistic, trying to cure the world of theism, and that a few of these atheists are obnoxious, the truth is that they are very much in the minority (just as most theists don't evangelize).
I don't know what your -ism is? Are you a pantheist, a Muslim, a Daoist, a Christian, a Hindu?
Perhaps you are having discomfort with the knowledge that there are people who don't share your beliefs?
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@ScientistKeith [1 of 2]
Atheism can be defined as a status but it is a belief. A belief is something we think to be true. You believe that no God/s exist and you have labelled yourself an Atheist.
bstmanversusskeletor 11 months ago
@ScientistKeith [2 of 2]
I wasn't speaking of those who don't know of the concept of God, but those who know they are Atheists. Specifically, those who were once Theists, now Atheists. Those are the cynical people I spoke of... maybe I wasn't clear enough. Also, you're wrong, when Theists change to Atheists, they are rejecting the belief in God for a belief that no Gods exist. You didn't take that into account.
bstmanversusskeletor 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 1]
First, you are not entitled to limit who is or is not an atheist. Stereotypes and prejudice are typically justified by claiming that that all members of a group have traits that apply to only a small percentage of that group. You cannot legitimately just declare that atheists are all former theists, because the majority of them are not. You cannot legitimately just declare that atheists are cynical and negative when only a few of them are.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 2]
Second, you're not entitled to define atheism. Nor are dictionary publishers so entitled. Only the members of a group are entitled to define membership in that group.
Do atheists have any right to declare who is or isn't a member of your religion? If you read a dictionary definition of your religion which didn't include you, would that mean you're not really a member of your religion? Yet, theists often declare what atheism supposedly is to atheists.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 3]
Atheism is NOT the belief that there is no god. Atheism is NOT rejection of (belief in) god. The prefix "a-" means "without", it does NOT mean "rejection of" or "opposed to". It just means "without". Therefore, "atheism" means "without theism" -- atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of a single belief. Babies are atheists. Everyone who has not been taught to believe in god(s) is an atheist.
Only a small minority of atheists believe there is no god.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 4]
Do you believe in de Broglie waves? Either you must accept them or reject them, you can't just not believe at all, can you?
Chances are you are not on any side, nor are you wavering on the fence, indecisively. Chances are you don't even know what de Broglie waves are, and even if you've heard of them chances are they are of so little concern to you that you never think about them -- deciding to believe or not to believe isn't even on your mind.
{continued)
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 5]
Well, how you probably react to de Broglie waves is how most atheists feel about god(s). It isn't an issue of rejecting or accepting, believing gods don't exist or do exist or even might exist. Most atheists just have no interest in the topic, it is like you probably react to de Broglie waves... it is just something that doesn't cross you mind.
Even atheists who were once theist very often just gradually lost interest in gods and stopped believing.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 6]
Of course, there are atheists who are activists, myself included. But, for me, it is mainly just an online thing. In my real life the issue of gods just doesn't come up unless a believer brings it up.
So why do I bother? Two reasons:
1. Some theists won't leave us alone: they keep slandering and attempting to proselytize us.
2. Some theists try to make their doctrines be the law of the land, requiring others to follow their rules and beliefs.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 7]
You've claimed there is something cynical about ceasing to believe in gods, but your saying it doesn't make it true. In most cases, the former theists just lose interest in the god they previously believed in. There was no decision to "reject god". Usually, theism just didn't offer them much, so they just lost interest in it, until they gradually ceased to have theism.
Please present some sort of defense of your claim that atheists are cynical and negative.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor [part 8]
Consider this:
If it is cynical and negative to reject believing in a god, then how very cynical and negative you must be! For, there isn't just the god(s) you believe in to accept or reject, people have believed in millions of gods.
Unless you believe in every last god anyone has ever believed in, including leaders of cults who claim to be gods, then haven't you rejected those gods? Doesn't that make you cynical and negative, by your own standards.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@ScientistKeith You don't read what I say do you? I wasn't speaking of all atheists but a subgroup within atheists who were once theists. How can you say that they just loose interest? Do you have any idea what the word belief means? Forget it, if you can make an eight part response demonstrating your lack of listening skills then I have no reason to be here.
bstmanversusskeletor 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor
Yes, many atheists who are former theists became atheists by losing interest in theism, until they gradually just left theism behind... they stopped believing gradually. I'm accurately describing the process by which many or most former theists became atheists. There wasn't a big moment where they just rejected their god and turn their back on him/her. That isn't how it usually happens. What I explained IS how it usually happens. (process summarized in next post)
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor (part 2)
Summary of how many or most former theists become atheists:
1. They were raised to believe in god(s).
2. As they grew older, they found that their religion didn't help much with the demands of real life
3. Often they stopped attending religious services... found them boring or just had other things to do.
4. In time, they just stopped thinking much at all about their religion and their god(s).
5. They stopped caring about the religion and the god(s)
(continued)
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor (part 3)
6. After years of not being interested in the religion, something happens one day to bring the former religion and its god into mind, but the person discovers that he or she hasn't just lost interest in actively pursing the religion... the faith is no longer there, the belief is no longer there. They find that they just aren't able to believe those things any longer.
7. They are now atheists, they no longer believe in god.
And that is how it often happens
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor (part 4)
So, "rejecting" god is not a very accurate way of describing the process for the majority of atheists who used to be theists. They just went through a gradual process: from finding little reason to actively pursue their religion, to losing interest in the religion, to no longer believing in the religion, to no longer believing in god. It is a GRADUAL thing, it isn't a single moment of "rejecting" becoming "cynical" or "negative". It's like outgrowing Santa Claus
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@ScientistKeith I think at the very least an atheist can only be defined once a child is capable of reasoning.
bstmanversusskeletor 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor There are plenty of atheists who would agree with you on that point, some who would not. Likewise, a baby cannot believe in any religion, a baby is not a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever its parents religion is. The baby will probably acquire the religion in time, but a baby does not believe in god. Some atheists are happy to accept babies as atheists, some are with you and say that is just taking the definition too far.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor (part 5)
My 8 part answer that you were bothered by was, in fact, a direct response to what you actually said, it is just that I needed to explain that to you the REAL way former theists become atheists.
So, the accurate answer is that most (not all, of course) former theists turned atheists became so, not in a moment where they decided to reject god, but through a gradual process where LACK OF INTEREST turned into LACK OF BELIEF. One day they discover they're atheists.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@ScientistKeith Okay, I can see that. Atheism just seems too broadly defined though. The statement that 'babies are born as atheists' while true, allows for a number of things. Babies are atheists because they lack the ability to understand.. a lot of things. If that's the case, couldn't a chimpanzee also be considered an atheist? Or maybe a rock? Since they, too, have a lack of belief? Please help me understand.
bstmanversusskeletor 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor We atheists ourselves like to argue the very point that you make. Some are fine saying babies and rocks are atheists, wanting to emphasize the concept that atheism is just absence of theism. Others don't like that approach and insist that you have to be able to believe before you can qualify as either theist or atheist. So, even amongst atheists it is a contentious point, for the very reasons you listed.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@bstmanversusskeletor
I think the best way to help you understand atheism is by comparing it to the word "nonsmoker". Why does that word exist? It means nothing really.. we only have the word because there is such a thing as a smoker, and if we aren't one of them, then we are nonsmokers. Nonsmoker says what one is not, but nothing about what one is. Atheist is the same, it is a nothing word, it says nothing about who you are or what you believe except that you don't have theism.
ScientistKeith 11 months ago
@ScientistKeith Fair enough, I see your point. I guess I would prefer it if an atheist would be aware that they are an atheist before being labeled one, but that's just me. I don't like the idea of children being labeled anything but children before being able to think for themselves. That's all I have to say really, thanks for your insight. I'm a person who has to believe there is a reason for my existence, pantheism is just about the closest thing to that.
bstmanversusskeletor 11 months ago
Atheists are so bloody lazy!!
D0NKY 1 year ago
I am a Pantheist. The only difference between what the 2 of us believe is that I exalt and love and acknowledge the universe. You just say, "Yeah... whatever... thats the universe. so what?". I would say, "The Universe. Its such a wonderful and beautiful place. Filled with such amazing complexity. I love the universe." All us Panthiests are doing is showing appreciation for the Universe. Its like respecting your mother! How can you not appreciate this amazing wonder? All that it does for us!
JacobLovesNina 1 year ago
@JacobLovesNina Jacob, I feel the same about the universe, but I don't see why you'd want to insult the universe with such a nasty term as "god". I think the universe is far more sublime than any so-called "god", so I wouldn't besmirch it by calling it a god.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith
The universe does not care what you think. Not being rude mate.
Im just saying, I found freedom in the fact that I know that I am infinite.
And everything works together. .. if you like it or not.
I like my god better than the atheist NONE or the catholic/ christian god (bad times)
Allah is probably the closest. But if you follow Allah he does not need you to die for him.
And christians can you stop blowing up schools please? cheers.
Treat yourself, buy a telescope.
Jedwardtwins 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith The term "God" has so many meanings it is completley and utterly usless. I dont see the term god as nasty, only certain definitions of it. I think that the atoms making up our universe may actually be concious, due too many recent quantum physics studies. Frankly, I love the universe and I am so happy I get to be a part of it in life and will be in death no matter what happens when you die.
BrianPSTJ 8 months ago
@BrianPSTJ
While the term "god" is certainly overworked and could do with a vacation, I do think it still has some meaning, especially since most people in Western countries mean the Abrahamic god when saying "God".
I am quite unaware of the Quantum Physics studies you referenced, although I am very much aware of pseudoscientists and a variety of fringe groups invoking quantum mechanics as alleged support for their nonsensical claims.
Kindly give me a link to the QM studies you mentioned.
ScientistKeith 8 months ago
I am not a Pantheist, but I AM a Panentheist. And before anybody asks, NO the religions are not the same.
GintokisGirl95 1 year ago
excellent video.
good luck getting "hard atheists" (the term itself is nonsensical) to THINK.
Christlovesanimals 1 year ago
Im a Christian, but this guy is funny loll, im gonna favorite this one :D
vanityvideo 1 year ago
I'm a pantheist because of the lack of evidence of the supernatural.
beorhav 1 year ago
@beorhav I'm voting you down because there is no evidence that you exist.
Christlovesanimals 1 year ago
I don't exist, I am a fictional character, with special powers. I am the main character in a book a couple of thousand years old. The funny thing is though millions of people believe I do exist!!!!
beorhav 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beorhav I'm voting you down because there is no evidence that you exist.
Christlovesanimals 1 year ago
@Christlovesanimals stupidest thing i have ever heard
trappedfox010 1 year ago
@trappedfox010 I'm voting your comment down because it is stupidest thing I've ever heard. silly atheist!
Christlovesanimals 1 year ago
@Christlovesanimals Im not athiest
trappedfox010 9 months ago
@trappedfox010 okay...you're just silly then...
Christlovesanimals 9 months ago
Oh, you made my day :-) usually I don't go LOLing, but you deserved it! LOL!! :-D
mm1979dk 1 year ago
sorry man, peace and love :)
acceptthevoid 1 year ago
That's why I seperated the two...some use creator some use god. You and your wife(are part of a cycle(you say creator, I respect everyone's belief). It's the Earth-Cycle Did the cloud create the rain and the rain create the river? It's part of a Earth-Cycle(seeds germinate and grow into plants some flower into fruits that create the same seeds. That's part the Natural-Cycle. Who, what or when that Cycle began will be a mystery the Lions and Lionesses who have Stopped the eating of Herbs.
Lionsherb 1 year ago
@M-adam100(u made a good point. what do u think about this? There are living organism(micro) co-existing inside us, plants and animals...if for some reason they communicate in a way we can imagine...are we like an Earth or a Universe to them? Would they consider us Creator/God ...without knowing there is More than just Us, outside of what they have explored. Are we beings inside a Being that's inside a being through an infinity?
Lionsherb 1 year ago
@Lionsherb As I don't in any way equate "creator" with "god", I don't really know how to respond in a substantive way to your speculations. My wife and I created our two children, WE are their actual creators. But does that make us gods to our children? No, and I am sure they would be only too happy to concur.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
Pantheism is probably the most useless ideology since Solipsism. I mean really. Does calling the universe "God" really make it more beautiful?
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
@MasterAdam100 Calling the universe "God" doesn't make it more beautiful. What it does is it makes you realize and appreciate the wonder of the universe's beauty, divinity, and it's oneness.
davencarp1991 1 year ago
@davencarp1991 Interesting point on why to invoke the word "god" in reference to the universe. But, for me, "god" is a word about emotionally unstable beings that can't seem to be content or at peace if they don't have people bowing to them, worshiping them, and telling them how they are so very, very, wonderful. The universe is far above such petty things, it is far better than the deranged (often fictitious) beings known as "god".
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith Agreed. but this term "God" is still usable, although you and I both agree it would be better off without but this won't happen. It seems that the purpose of using the word "God" to identify with the universe started when Pantheist were trying to get the idea across by saying that any form on God that one had conceived of is just as divine as they are, sort of an equality thing to show supreme and equal divinity through all beings in the universe whether they be mortals, animals,
davencarp1991 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith [part 2]
Plants, or Deities.
davencarp1991 1 year ago
@davencarp1991 Again, all possible without calling it "God".
MasterAdam100 1 year ago
lol nice video dude
VarKevin 1 year ago
If atheists dont believe in God, why do they spend so much time trying to disprove its existence? If you truly knew there was no creator then why make videos and books and movies and websites and songs about how there is no God? In my opinion there is a God but when filtered through the human ego God becomes distorted. God is the totality of all existence. The universe is full of natural order Whatever you want to call it doesnt matte. I call it God you call it nature. Why fight over semantics?
timothyxmcveigh 1 year ago
@timothyxmcveigh Gods don't exist, but believers do. Many believers, Muslims and Christians in particular, are rather fond of trying (and sometimes succeeding) in making their beliefs the law of the land, or at least to proselytize us. Since they don't leave others alone, some of us atheists respond. However, most atheists don't bother. Internet atheists are atypical in that they are the minority that bother to tell others what they believe or don't believe.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith
If you despise the fact that theists force their will onto others then why are you using the same tactics? Are you not trying to force you view on us and make YOUR view the law of the land? How are you any different from them? why are you trashing others? It is just like Justin Bieber if you ignore the problem it has no power. it takes two to argue, two to fight you are simply adding fuel to the fire. It is a vicious circle and unless someone stops we wont move toward.
TheRedWolf080 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 I am not using the same tactics at all. My identifying what my views are on a minor youtube channel wherein NO ONE is forced to listen to nor to read ANYTHING I say hardly counts as forcing my view on others. I don't go to Christian forums and trash them. Even on Youtube, I don't comment on religious channels unless welcomed to do so. In real life, I rarely discuss either my political or religious views.
So, no I don't use the same tactics at all.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith
my apologies my direction in my post was confusing. I was referring not to you on youtube but the hostility of atheism in general. I am no expert and am only drawing on my life experiences. i have a few atheist friends 3 out of 4 share extemist/militant views toward religion. When they rant to me they say that all religions are the source of all evil and suffering in this world. (Which is view just as illogical as Christianity's view that Satanism the bane of all evil)
TheRedWolf080 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 Apology accepted. I no more speak for all atheists than you speak for all Christians. There are jerks in either camp, just as there are nice people in either camp.
I believe that a religion has value only in terms of what kind of person it causes you to be. If you believe the moon is god made entirely of goat cheese and that religious view inexplicably causes you to be kinder to your children and your fellow humans, then I have no problem with it. It is what we do (continued)
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 (part 2)
with what we believe that matters the most. If your Christianity causes to you be happier, and treat others better, more power to you. I can honestly say that I am a lot nice to others since I became an atheist than I ever was as a Christian. Back then, I often had the agenda of teaching my friends the "true" religion and "true" variety of Christian dogma. Now, I have no such agenda. Yes, I will go on debate forums and have a lively debate with those who (continued)
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 [part 3]
WANT to have the debate. But, mainly I believe that I don't have the right to pressure people into my beliefs. If a person hasn't volunteered to debate me (or at least atheists in general), I don't bother them.
I concur with you that a great percentage of Christians don't worry much about what others believe. But, there is a thriving business of Christians pressuring others, including fellow Christians, what to believe.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 [part 4]
But, I am not fully persuaded that it is only a handful of radicals that would have Christian beliefs become the law of the land. Consider how churches and other Christian groups rallied voters to pass state constitutional amendments to forbid gays from marrying those whom they love. Gay marriage is against their beliefs, but they aren't content to say "our preachers won't conduct gay weddings". No, they forced their views on others by making it the law of the land.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith
I would like to say that i appreciate that you do not force your viewpoints on others in real life. I always find that irritating with my friends. Concering your comment of Christianity and Muslims forcing views on others I will dissect. your first point is that many C's and M's wish to force their view on others. many refers to a large amount of worshipers. I think it is fair to say that more extreme members of C and I would force their views on non-believers.
TheRedWolf080 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 (part 2) Theists, especially certain groups of Christians and Muslims, OTOH, are quite willing to force their views on other people -- certainly not all of them, but many. Whether it is trying to get creationism taught as if it were science, or enactlng "blasphemy" laws, or enacting laws that restrict business activities on Sunday, they do indeed try to forcing, including legally enforcing, their beliefs on others.
I, OTOH, refuse to argue with believers about creationism.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@TheRedWolf080 (part 3)
You suggested that I was trying to make my views the law of the land. Please explain how you came to that conclusion. What have I done that amounts to forcing my view on others or to enacting laws making my views the law of the land?
As far as "trashing others", I am not sure what you mean by that. My "trashing" of pantheists, surely you realize this was meant as friendly jesting. Otherwise, I have challenged views without trashing believers themselves.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@timothyxmcveigh i first wonder why your name is timothy mcveigh. butanyway there is a fundamental difference in the way pantheists think of 'god' and the way the non-pagan religions do. non-pagans see god as being who always was and always will be with a concious and who is apparently all good but is somehow also "a vengeful god". pantheists say everything in the natural universe is connected and that is 'god'. it has no judgement, no favorites, no feelings and in fact it is not an it at all.
doobdxxb 1 year ago
@timothyxmcveigh it is simply being. god is being. not a being, just being. that includes not being meaning death. death is the end of a physical life and the bringing of new life, demonstrated in the recycling of natural materials in the ground. a dead rabbit becomes part of a patch of grass that it was perhaps eating from just a few days ago. that is how the web of all things and all life works and pantheists see it as a type of holy or sacred thing to be appreciated by those lucky enough to
doobdxxb 1 year ago
@timothyxmcveigh have a concious ability to appreciate it.
doobdxxb 1 year ago
The argument macro world vs micro world doesn't hold. At the basis of everything, there is quantum mechanics. The real question is more like how the infinte possibilites realize into an "objective world" through conscious observation.
"the human race has not always existed and neither have stars nor this universe"
You assume that time exists and is linear, also a newtonian thing. But it seems more logical that the universe is timeless, past present and future all exist together all at once.
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 It appears to me that you are greatly misunderstanding a very complex topic. Your quote mining doesn't help establish the validity of your claims. QM, for all its strengths, does not scale up into the macro world very well. Among other problems, it does not include gravity. Also, the effect of measurement on the result becomes less important in macro world. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith "QM, for all its strengths, does not scale up into the macro world very well."
That's right, however they keep pushing the limit.
"Among other problems, it does not include gravity."
There are quantum gravity theories.
"Also, the effect of measurement on the result becomes less important in macro world."
You missed the whole point, I wasn't talking about the uncertainty principle.
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 I am aware of the existence of quantum gravity theories, but these are far from accepted and they have not yet been included in the Standard Model. You may not have been talking about uncertainty, but you should have. You can't just skip it.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith its just his opinion have some respect.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
@TheLovesoul1, you said, "its just his opinion have some respect."
Which person are you referring to? I'm not aware of having been disrespectful. What did I say that came off as being disrespectful.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith your definition of god is very narrow you probably don't even know what god is.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
@TheLovesoul1 Of course I know what a "god" is. A "god" is anything a believer imagines it to be. There is not a single characteristic of "god" that all believers agree upon, not a single thing. The closest any trait comes to being universally accepted is that a god is something that deserves to be worshiped.
But, if you would like to offer a better definition of "god" than I have, please do so. Also, explain why your definition is preferable to contradictory definitions others might use.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith ok pal here it go's god to me is a collective of all the beings that are that were and that will be a collective intelligence not a being in itself but the source of all beings and not a creator but observer not to get you mad but your definition of god is pretty narrow and its not a he its both he and she and all other beings in existence we and all other beings form a collective singular consciousness that learns through experience the collective ocean of life.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith why do you have an interest in debating with pantheist they understand the oneness and unity in nature all things are interconnected.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
@TheLovesoul1 Why do I have an interest in debating others? I think that should be obvious. One can best grow in one's knowledge by discussing beliefs with someone you disagree with. If you only converse with those with whom you agree, how can you learn anything new? While we are not likely to agree on our differing views about "god", we can grow by discussing our differences and commonalities.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@ScientistKeith and you'll have to wait till you dead to see the source it's not a being or an entity its the source of all manifestation and the essence of the universe.
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
@TheLovesoul1 Why do you call this collective consciousness a god? What convinces you it is actually real, rather than just something you like to believe in?
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 You seem to be saying there are no objective facts. Is that an objective fact? That's the trouble with what was called perspectivism. It's a problem with all observer driven reality claims. You all suggest there is no objective reality but you want to state it as an objective fact. That's the contradiction that kills the theory every time. Subjectivity may well influence objective reality. To what extent is yet to be determined. Don't sell speculation as fact. Learn the difference,
Slomofly 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 Are we too conclude then, when our telescopes detect a supernova in a galaxy 500 million light years away, that the supernova was in limbo for 500 million years until we observed it?
Things don't work that way. What did happen is that the photons that traveled for 500 million years, didn't reach their final observed state until we observed them, and this observation affected the image. But the supernova had been an object fact for 500 million yrs, regardless of any observation.
ScientistKeith 1 year ago
"Many physicists have subscribed to the instrumentalist interpretation of quantum mechanics, a position often equated with eschewing all interpretation. It is summarized by the sentence: Shut up and calculate!"
Objective reality IS the pseudoscience now actually. Whichever consciousness-related interpretation is more-or-less right, the newtonian worldview is certainly wrong.
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 I've posted a new video on this subject. "Observer driven reality check." Have a look.
Slomofly 1 year ago
@Slomofly Thanks, however you also use circular reasoning, all human reasoning is circular. You assume that there is an objective physical world and try to find evidence in that framework, most scientists are still clinging to this newtonian view because of what you said in your video, the fear that science would become pointless, if there are no completely objective facts (which isn't true of course). So you only accept facts that accord with the objective physical world "interpretation".
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 We don't "control" the world with our thoughts either, that's obviously BS, I never said that. The answer is somewhere in between, the Universe we can study and it's apparent laws absolutely has to do with conscious life. Our brain functions probably also use quantum superpositions, similarly to photosynthesis. Apart from all this, QM doesn't need any interpretation to do the math, that's right.
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 Observer-dependent reality is also circular reasoning, but I can't see other ways to explain modern physics. You summed up things well in your video, I missed quantum eraser and retrocausation tho (which in fact suggests that the supernova was in superposition for 500 million years until we observed it). What I really missed was the fine-tuned Universe and the Anthropic principle: every constant in our Universe seems to be exactly set for intelligent life, and yep, here we are.
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 Penrose calculated that the chances of existing in such a Universe is 10^10123 : 1. That's not coincidence, the human observation becomes the center again. Also the world is still real, even if all is consciousness. (Btw things are nor particles nor waves, particles and waves are also human concepts from the macro world, these are just words to describe things that are happening at the quantum level, don't take the duality too seriously.)
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 I didn't understand the messed-up God thing at the end of your videos, who said that existence has a true purpose or meaning? And even if there is only one consciousness (I can't tell that yet), we still have distinct brains/minds so we can't tell what other are thinking, no contradiction here. "You and I are the same thing" is not an absurdity, but a very basic truth, only absurd in the chsristian + newtonian wordlview. (Means that those two are absurd.)
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 Try this: 1. I am conscious 2. I am a part of the Universe 3. therefore the Universe is... Hm, and where did you get this "the universe doesn't exist" thing?
Sorry all this got long, also my English is bad. :)
Atlantean24 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 Ok. 1. I am conscious 2. I am a part of the Universe 3. therefore the universe contains consciousness. When I said the universe does not exist I was referring to some people`s idea of a subjective reality. There are people out there who say this. There is nothing but consciousness. That means the universe does not exist except as an idea within an ultimate consciousness. It is like the Hindu idea that the universe is all part of god`s dream. BTW. Your English is fine.
Slomofly 1 year ago
@Atlantean24 I was giving you various interpretations of the subjective universe theory that are out there. The one I call the ultimate subjective view is that there is nothing but consciousness. It is subjectivity taken to the extreme. It postulates that you are not you, you are in the consciousness. I was simply showing how absur