"There is no God"

[RUSSO]

what is it for?

[ArMaP]

there is no way all this is by chance.

Why?

[Pimander]

Said beings also exist at levels of development which are more varied than our own.  Some of them are sufficiently advanced that if we put them next to our usual definition of "God," we'd genuinely be hard pressed to tell the difference.

The experience of many people suggest these beings may exist.  But even if we find proof they do (or accept personal experience as proof) that in itself is still only verification that they exist.  It is not AND PROBABLY CAN'T EVER BE proof that an omnipotent deity exists.  No matter how knowledgeable and powerful they might seem to be. 

Furthermore it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that someone writing in a book that God exists is no more proof that He does than Marvel Comics prove that Spiderman and Superman really exist!  Anyone who wants to debate that point can save themselves the effort because I really won't waste energy debating with someone who isn't smart enough to see how obvious that is...  And I won't apologise if that offends anybody.

I realise that to many here, the above model will seem only slightly less certifiably, batshit insane than what they perceive Christianity as being.

At the risk of sounding rude, there are few belief systems as batshit crazy as mainstream Christianity.

My model also does not preclude the validity of Christianity or any other religion,

Mine precludes the possibility that any of the mainstream religions is even remotely close to having validity - certain types of Buddhism notwithstanding.  But I deal with facts and sound logic (even if I say so myself).   

or assume that any one religion (or the lack of them) is inherently omnipotent or superior to all others.

They are equal in being vastly inferior - atheism included - to admitting that we do not know.

there is no way all this is by chance. There is a "god". The real question is: what is it nature?

No.  That is precisely the point of real agnosticism.  We have no way of knowing whether this is all by chance. That it seems that this can't be by chance proves absolutely nothing.  There may be another reason why it seems like it can't all be by chance. Likewise we have no way of knowing whether there is a God.  Not an absolute one.

Saying that God exists just because it seems like he must is not really saying a lot.  It is simply faith.

[petrus4]

It is not AND PROBABLY CAN'T EVER BE proof that an omnipotent deity exists.  No matter how knowledgeable and powerful they might seem to be.

I don't believe that a singular/monolithic being exists, but I am inclined to believe that, broadly speaking, a single positive will or intention does.

Nietzsche believed in a "Will to Power."  Nimbin at least, taught me to believe in a "Will to Regenerate."  I wish I could find the quote, but within Pam Grout's book, E Squared, she quotes a physicist as saying that the current most fundamental, observable level of reality, is a constantly regenerating energy field.

If you look, you'll notice that almost every form of Aquarian technology (that is, electricity and onwards) relies on some kind of transfer between two or more points, arranged in network topology.  Electricity moves through networks of wires, or synapses in the brain.  Information from computers travels through fiber optic and other forms of cable.  Even a conventional land-line telephone required a network of lines.  I'm currently re-watching Stargate SG-1, and I consider a stargate to be Aquarius' mascot.  A single gate by itself is incapable of doing anything; its' sole purpose is to link two places together.  When Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook's mission was "to connect people," he was channelling the Aquarian imperative; which is to create and maintain coherent connections or pathways, between any two or more given points.

The Piscean metaphor for God was primarily singular.  The Aquarian model will unavoidably either be plural or pantheistic.

At the risk of sounding rude, there are few belief systems as batshit crazy as mainstream Christianity.

David Koresh was not mainstream.

I've also repeatedly tried to explain to atheists, that if they are continuing to shower Christianity or its' adherents with mockery or contempt, that that is a reliable indicator that they still have psychological issues with the religion, that are in need of resolution.  Strong negative emotional responses towards a given stimulus, usually only exist if some sort of unresolved pain does.  I have overcome (most of) my residual psychological baggage related to Christianity, with the result that I am largely emotionally neutral towards it at this point.

Mine precludes the possibility that any of the mainstream religions is even remotely close to having validity - certain types of Buddhism notwithstanding.  But I deal with facts and sound logic (even if I say so myself).

There is a difference between saying that I think the entities associated with (at least several, if not all) religions exist, and saying that the theology associated with all of said religions also has equal validity.  I am not claiming the latter at all. 

They are equal in being vastly inferior - atheism included - to admitting that we do not know.

My only demand of atheists is that if you're going to be one, at least do it properly.  That means being fluent in (at least) Athenian and Jeffersonian/Enlightenment philosophy, formal logic, and evolutionary theory.  Atheism has a scriptural corpus to the same extent as any other religion; and as with any other religion, it also does not reward backsliding.

[ArMaP]

Atheism has a scriptural corpus to the same extent as any other religion; and as with any other religion, it also does not reward backsliding.

To me, atheism is just a personal point of view, so it doesn't have any "scriptural corpus". When I first thought about being an atheist (when I was 10 years old or so) I didn't even know that such a thing existed

[Pimander]

The Piscean metaphor for God was primarily singular.  The Aquarian model will unavoidably either be plural or pantheistic.

Singular you say?

Pisces English: Fishes (plural) Therefore NOT singular

Symbols for Pisces


Definitely two fishes indicated/


This one is more instructive.  Two fishes in dynamic harmonious balance within the circle of the Zodiac.

The above also hints at the older symbol for Pisces which was the Zodiac itself.  Why?  Because all of the signs flow into Pisces (the last sign of the Zodiac if we take Aries as the first sign (Aries is the will to be and also first spark).  Pisces actually symbolises completion/completeness.  It also symbolises receptivity for that reason.  Pisces receives the information/energy from Aquarius and potentially harmonises and completes it.

It is Aries that is singular (the head).

Strong negative emotional responses towards a given stimulus, usually only exist if some sort of unresolved pain does.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to have negative feelings towards a cesspit of a belief system that gave rise to the Dark Ages, persecution of women in the form of with witch hunts/trials, the inquisition (suppression of alternative religions)... Do I need to go on.  Anyone who does not feel pain about these things has issues in my opinion.

There is a difference between saying that I think the entities associated with (at least several, if not all) religions exist, and saying that the theology associated with all of said religions also has equal validity.  I am not claiming the latter at all. 

Exactly.  Scriptural religion is dangerous.  I see no evidence to the contrary.

My only demand of atheists is that if you're going to be one, at least do it properly.  That means being fluent in (at least) Athenian and Jeffersonian/Enlightenment philosophy, formal logic, and evolutionary theory.  Atheism has a scriptural corpus to the same extent as any other religion; and as with any other religion, it also does not reward backsliding.

While I agree that there are dogmas associated with modern atheistic though (preaching) from the likes of Dawkins, I agree with ArMaP that to be an Atheist only demands that you do not believe in the existence of the Deity.

The only real inclination I have towards Theism/Atheism - or doubting Agnosticism - is the idea that God is the Cosmos.  If the Cosmos/Universe itself is an omniscient, omnipotent being then perhaps....  (But what would the being who created the Cosmos be? LOL)  However lots of recent consciousness research, physics and consciousness theory suggest an extended mind and no separation from the external world (The Cosmos).  If multiple consciousnesses exist and interact and the Cosmos is a reflection of them then there is probably no single omnipotent Deity.

I'm not sure how clear that is but I don't want to write my Magnum Opus here in case someone steals it. 

ETA: Roger Bartra [in] his theory of the exocerebrum....explains that consciousness is both inside and outside the brain, and that the frontier that separates both realms is useless and a burden in the explanation of the self. See his Anthropology of the brain: Consciousness, culture, and free will (Cambridge University Press, 2014; originally published in Spanish in 2005)