What do you REALLY believe?

[Cainad (dec.)]

I'm an ass worshipper.

And the Religion of the Century Award goes to...

[Golden Applesauce]

Pantheism is an interesting position to consider.  If you define Reality as a whole to be "Deity," then it's pretty hard to argue against the existence of deity.  (GA: isn't a nihilist unless there is no alternative.)  But in that case, what does the existence of the divine imply?  Other religions base normative statements off of the existence of god, or since their god is wise and good, substitute its judgment for their own.  Others try to get on the good side of god through offerings or deeds.  You have religions that promote having a personal relationship with divine figures and religions that use divine figures as adversaries to test yourself against.  The divine has a function in the believers' worldview/philosophy/theology.

I just don't see how defining the world to be god is useful in any way.

[Personally, I tend towards a cross of weak atheism / functional atheism.  "Hypothetically, there could be a god.  But even if there was, it wouldn't make a difference."]

The gods in the religions that you refer to are descibed with a will similar to that of humans.  I don't.  It seems to me that intelligence, and self awareness in humans is a function of high levels of complexity with lots of feedback loops (like Hofstadter describes in his writings).  This can be extrapolated to the highest level, to show that it is likely there is some type of ultimate self awareness (albeit totally internalized as opposed to operating in an external environment) that accompanies the universe at large.  This is a comfort to one who has abandoned the beliefs that i grew up with.  From this definition it also follows that everything that happens is the 'behavior' of god, and can be interpreted to therefore be in accordance with the 'will' of god.  Again, a comfort to me.

that's about it.

So you're not just defining god to be the universe, but making claims about the universe (it is self-aware.)  That I can work with.  Could you elaborate on how it is comforting to you?  (Personally, I'd find the existence of a near-infinite consciousness would render me superfluous.)

I'm missing something with your weak atheism, i think.  how are you defining 'god' in that context? the bearded guy?

Yeah, him.  Plus all the other spirits that we should be revering, the Eternal Self, and the Creator.

[LMNO]

I'm an ass worshipper.

And the Religion of the Century Award goes to...

We fear that a Great Wind will soon blow.

[Elder Iptuous]

So you're not just defining god to be the universe, but making claims about the universe (it is self-aware.)  That I can work with.  Could you elaborate on how it is comforting to you?  (Personally, I'd find the existence of a near-infinite consciousness would render me superfluous.)

It is comforting in the sense that i can imagine the universe to have some intrinsic life or awareness that permeates it, rather than a cold empty cosmos.  also, meaning, in my book requires a consciousness to render it.  This allows for a universal meaning, even if it is less understandable to me as my desires are to the individual molecules that make up my body. it's an emotional thumbsucking based on semantic jiu-jitsu, i know, but it works for me.

[Elder Iptuous]

I'm an ancestor-worshipper.

I've recently considered this as i've been getting started in genealogy.
Do you seriously have some belief system or practice based on ancestor-worship, or were you just making funny? 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Pantheism is an interesting position to consider.  If you define Reality as a whole to be "Deity," then it's pretty hard to argue against the existence of deity.  (GA: isn't a nihilist unless there is no alternative.)  But in that case, what does the existence of the divine imply?  Other religions base normative statements off of the existence of god, or since their god is wise and good, substitute its judgment for their own.  Others try to get on the good side of god through offerings or deeds.  You have religions that promote having a personal relationship with divine figures and religions that use divine figures as adversaries to test yourself against.  The divine has a function in the believers' worldview/philosophy/theology.

I just don't see how defining the world to be god is useful in any way.

[Personally, I tend towards a cross of weak atheism / functional atheism.  "Hypothetically, there could be a god.  But even if there was, it wouldn't make a difference."]

The gods in the religions that you refer to are descibed with a will similar to that of humans.  I don't.  It seems to me that intelligence, and self awareness in humans is a function of high levels of complexity with lots of feedback loops (like Hofstadter describes in his writings).  This can be extrapolated to the highest level, to show that it is likely there is some type of ultimate self awareness (albeit totally internalized as opposed to operating in an external environment) that accompanies the universe at large.  This is a comfort to one who has abandoned the beliefs that i grew up with.  From this definition it also follows that everything that happens is the 'behavior' of god, and can be interpreted to therefore be in accordance with the 'will' of god.  Again, a comfort to me.

that's about it.

I'm missing something with your weak atheism, i think.  how are you defining 'god' in that context? the bearded guy?

I like this description. In fact, I think, at the very least it could be considered a useful model of God as RAW's "Interactive Processes Non-simultaneously Apprehended" I like this idea of the Universe being a network of causes and effects and effects that become causes and causes that were effects of some earlier causes. If we hold with some materialist models, 'intelligence' and self-awareness' are modeled as products of a sufficiently complex neural network in our head, rather than something external to or beyond the basic material stuff in our noggin. Given that, it would seem possible that a sufficiently complex network of causal feedback could also present products that might be comparable to intelligence or self awareness. Not that the Universe would necessarily say "I drink Therefore I am" but that there might be some emergent properties based on the complexity, just as there seem to be in our heads (according to the aforementioned model).

Who knows...

[Elder Iptuous]

I like this description. In fact, I think, at the very least it could be considered a useful model of God as RAW's "Interactive Processes Non-simultaneously Apprehended" I like this idea of the Universe being a network of causes and effects and effects that become causes and causes that were effects of some earlier causes. If we hold with some materialist models, 'intelligence' and self-awareness' are modeled as products of a sufficiently complex neural network in our head, rather than something external to or beyond the basic material stuff in our noggin. Given that, it would seem possible that a sufficiently complex network of causal feedback could also present products that might be comparable to intelligence or self awareness. Not that the Universe would necessarily say "I drink Therefore I am" but that there might be some emergent properties based on the complexity, just as there seem to be in our heads (according to the aforementioned model).

Who knows...

Indeed,  like in the Hofstadter writings that i mentioned earlier, where he describes a hypothetical coversation between an anteater and the colony of ants.  Or his description of the chaotic simballs crashing through the carenium.  (i highly recommend his stuff if you haven't read it)  these concepts could be applied at large...

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I like this description. In fact, I think, at the very least it could be considered a useful model of God as RAW's "Interactive Processes Non-simultaneously Apprehended" I like this idea of the Universe being a network of causes and effects and effects that become causes and causes that were effects of some earlier causes. If we hold with some materialist models, 'intelligence' and self-awareness' are modeled as products of a sufficiently complex neural network in our head, rather than something external to or beyond the basic material stuff in our noggin. Given that, it would seem possible that a sufficiently complex network of causal feedback could also present products that might be comparable to intelligence or self awareness. Not that the Universe would necessarily say "I drink Therefore I am" but that there might be some emergent properties based on the complexity, just as there seem to be in our heads (according to the aforementioned model).

Who knows...

Indeed,  like in the Hofstadter writings that i mentioned earlier, where he describes a hypothetical coversation between an anteater and the colony of ants.  Or his description of the chaotic simballs crashing through the carenium.  (i highly recommend his stuff if you haven't read it)  these concepts could be applied at large...

Yep, I'm a big fan of Hofstadter. I still like GEB the best, the The Mind's I was a close second.

[Elder Iptuous]

Yep, I'm a big fan of Hofstadter. I still like GEB the best, the The Mind's I was a close second.

Ya.  I think he went off the deep end in the second half of the Mind's I , but i can't quite pinpoint where....  He's good at that. 
OT, one of my prized possessions is after reading Metamagical Themas, i wrote him a fanboy letter, and he sent me back an invertable ambigram of my name.  He actually drew it out with a marker on a piece of parchment, signed it, shipped it out in a padded envelope with a cardboard backing. 

[East Coast Hustle]

regardless of what I do or don't believe, I don't wish to be lumped in with Pastafarians or Googlites in any way, shape, or form.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

regardless of what I do or don't believe, I don't wish to be lumped in with Pastafarians or Googlites in any way, shape, or form.

Duly noted... when the time comes we'll lump you separately

Better give me three or four...
                       \

[Iason Ouabache]

I've also got a bit of ignostism / theological noncognitivism: we can't even talk about "god" until someone gives a coherent definition for "god". 

This is what lead me from my standard protestant upbringing to the 'pantheism' that i claim now.  I just decided that the only definition of 'god' that i could work with, and was acceptable was 'that which there is no greater than'.  This seems to me to be pantheism....

And I was just telling Vene the other day that no one takes the ontological argument seriously anymore... 

Do you have a working definition of 'god' in your belief system that you use?

My personal definition of "god": a personification of the forces of nature.  Humans have never been good at the whole "cause and effect" game.  We are pattern-recognizing machines therefore we see order even when it isn't really there.  Ancient man saw many natural occurences that he couldn't explain so at some point he decided that a supreme intelilgent being (often in the form of an ancestor) must be making all of these strange things happen. This meme eventually mated with ritual healing and monarchism to give us organized religion. 

[Elder Iptuous]

And I was just telling Vene the other day that no one takes the ontological argument seriously anymore... 

Heh. yea... of the various classical arguments for the existence of God this one seems the most brazen.  I distinguish myself by pointing at the superset of all things and (with all awareness) ascribing some type of unknowable intelligence to it so that i can hang the moniker, 'god' to it.  trying to skirt anthropomorphization as much as possible.  Also, i would say that the ontological argument was conceived in the context of the christian setting, and so defines some external separate entity, since it starts with the notion of 'that being which there is no greater than' rather than the more generalized notion that i used.  Similar starting points, but very different conclusions.

My personal definition of "god": a personification of the forces of nature.  Humans have never been good at the whole "cause and effect" game.  We are pattern-recognizing machines therefore we see order even when it isn't really there.  Ancient man saw many natural occurences that he couldn't explain so at some point he decided that a supreme intelilgent being (often in the form of an ancestor) must be making all of these strange things happen. This meme eventually mated with ritual healing and monarchism to give us organized religion. 

That's perfectly reasonable.  Do you revere the forces of nature in some spiritual way? (consciously avoiding the pitfalls of misusing personification, of course)

[Payne]

My Beliefs: A short summary.

~People are stupid, they do stupid things for stupid reasons. Some even call this achievement. The most truly stupid people are those who see the stupidity around them but don't see it within themselves.

~Sometimes, a barstool is just a barstool and a kiss is just a kiss.

~You can never change someones mind, unless you focus ALL your energy and attention to breaking them down (effectively brainwashing them). You can however help to stimulate their thoughts, though you can never guarantee where that will lead them.

~Stephen Fry

~I'm not very good at fighting people, so I find other methods. Please bear with me when this results in passive aggressive attacks, it's not from malice, it's from my inability to communicate correctly.

No question of God until now. Belief does not necessarily require religion, spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof.

[Elder Iptuous]

No question of God until now. Belief does not necessarily require religion, spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof.

While that is true, i think the implied question here is 'what do you believe re: spiritualism, Gods, Goddesses etc etc or denial thereof?....

what box do you check in that column?