With the present moment only truly existing and photons being the only foundational core of all experience, The Law of One gives me no reason to believe in anything beyond myself nor a divine deity such as a god.
All I see in the word "creator" is a creator of things. Elementary particles including the photon as the purported center of them all are the core "creator." I see no deity, no god, no theology, nothing transcendent about this.
I do not believe in the existence of a deity nor does The Law of One purport an existence of a deity.
Therefore, I can be an atheist and still consider The Law of One plausible.
In fact, I consider The Law of One an atheistic work. Subjectively, of course. For anyone is free to revere the "creator" as above themselves. I will not. I believe I am the creator as I am the present moment.
Quote:41.9 Questioner: Then what is the simplest being that is manifested? I am supposing it might be a single cell or something like that. And how does it function with respect to energy centers?
Ra: I am Ra. The simplest manifest being is light or what you have called the photon. In relationship to energy centers it may be seen to be the center or foundation of all articulated energy fields.
Quote:16.22 Questioner: Thank you very much. In previous material, before we communicated with you, it was stated by the Confederation that there is actually no past or future… all is present. Would this be a good analogy?
Ra: I am Ra. There is past, present, and future in third density. In an overview such as an entity may have, removed from the space/time continuum, it may be seen that in the cycle of completion there exists only the present. We, ourselves, seek to learn this understanding. At the seventh level or dimension, we shall, if our humble efforts are sufficient, become one with all, thus having no memory, no identity, no past or future, but existing in the all.
16.23 Questioner: Does this mean that you would have awareness of all that is?
Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. It is our understanding that it would not be our awareness, but simply awareness of the Creator. In the Creator is all that there is. Therefore, this knowledge would be available.
(06-26-2014, 07:06 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]With the present moment only truly existing and photons being the only foundational core of all experience, The Law of One gives me no reason to believe in anything beyond myself nor a divine deity such as a god.
All I see in the word "creator" is a creator of things. Elementary particles including the photon as the purported center of them all are the core "creator." I see no deity, no god, no theology, nothing transcendent about this.
Photons are not the foundational core of existence. Ra has stated that is only the foundational core of our universe. The intelligent infinity that existed prior to that, of which our reality is a distortion of, cannot be specified by any physics.
"Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only be activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will."
Why are you so concerned or attached to the label of atheist?
If a "god" or "creator" or "deity" is that which is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent across time and space, and what you are calling the creator is those things, don't you think you are going out of your way to warp the label of atheist to apply to yourself? Seems like kind of a stretch, wouldn't you say?
Also, what in your mind would the word "divine" even mean if not that which is created by that which is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent?
You are the Creator, so you decide what you believe in.
Since I am also the Creator I decided, for my self, that words like deity or God had too much baggage and were not really meaningful when discussing spirituality outside the context of dogma (religion).
(06-26-2014, 09:11 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-26-2014, 07:06 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]With the present moment only truly existing and photons being the only foundational core of all experience, The Law of One gives me no reason to believe in anything beyond myself nor a divine deity such as a god.
All I see in the word "creator" is a creator of things. Elementary particles including the photon as the purported center of them all are the core "creator." I see no deity, no god, no theology, nothing transcendent about this.
Photons are not the foundational core of existence. Ra has stated that is only the foundational core of our universe. The intelligent infinity that existed prior to that, of which our reality is a distortion of, cannot be specified by any physics.
"Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only be activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will."
Why are you so concerned or attached to the label of atheist?
If a "god" or "creator" or "deity" is that which is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent across time and space, and what you are calling the creator is those things, don't you think you are going out of your way to warp the label of atheist to apply to yourself? Seems like kind of a stretch, wouldn't you say?
Also, what in your mind would the word "divine" even mean if not that which is created by that which is all knowing, all powerful, and omnipresent?
I will simply argue the photon contains infinity and every universal octave before it. I will argue the photon is the direct manifestation of infinity.
The universe is all knowledge, all power and all presence of time and space and I am an atheist. Your point?
I don't see the creator as an independent thing. I see it as all things.
(06-26-2014, 09:44 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]I will simply argue the photon contains infinity and every universal octave before it. I will argue the photon is the direct manifestation of infinity.
I'm not disagreeing with you there, as reality is holographic in nature and each seemingly separate piece contains the whole within it. Just don't fall into the trap of seeing the universe as a bunch of parts or particles of something, because it isn't that way, in reality. That is just an appearance. From that perspective, it seems kind of superfluous to zero in on the subatomic energy particle we call photons and exalt that one appearance as the end all be all of the universe (and I say that without any intent of diminishing the importance of the appearance we call "light" in the illusory structure that makes up our perspective of reality).
(06-26-2014, 09:44 PM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]The universe is all knowledge, all power and all presence of time and space and I am an atheist. Your point?
I don't see the creator as an independent thing. I see it as all things.
My point is that the definition of an atheist is: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
The definition of a god is: "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity."
I would say the universe you are describing possesses those qualities. It is a living being with the qualities we ascribe to a so called god.
I mean, you can call yourself whatever you want, but as long as we are using the english language with words that mean specific things, it might behoove us to use the words to describe what they actually mean. Otherwise, what is the point of even having definitions if we are just going to completely redefine them to mean whatever we want them to mean?
Whether you see the creator as an independent thing or as all things, what you've described is still theistic in nature. And in fact, I think most religions would agree with you that the creator is in all things.
I'm simply pointing out that you seem to have a strong aversion to calling yourself a "theist". I'm just asking you to look at yourself honestly and objectively and ask yourself why you are doing mental gymnastics to apply a label that clearly doesn't really apply. I assure you, I mean no hostility by this, I just find in my own life when I have such a severe aversion to something such as this it is often a great opportunity to digest some very pertinent spiritual catalyst by honestly dissecting my own biases (of which I have plenty).
Are you not all things, atheist and otherwise?
I am confused as it appears you defeat your own point.
Of course but to deny my existence as complete and fulfilled in the face of a being that is purportedly greater is to deny that I am all things and it is to say that I must earn my way to be complete and within unity. It is to say unity must be earned and not inherently seen.
(06-27-2014, 02:16 AM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ]Are you not all things, atheist and otherwise?
I am confused as it appears you defeat your own point.
How?
You do not include "beyond yourself" within yourself.
Do you not realize that all you say is inherent is also inherently not inherent? Yes it is inherent, but it's also not. As you would say, it is a paradox.
I see what is not for what it is, the existence it brings. It ceases to be a negation for me, I cease to dwell within the literal negative. There is only existence. I cease to live within the concept of incompletion, disunity. There is only unity to me, Tanner. While there is a paradox of unity and separation within this reality, one could choose to see it as perfect.
I do not choose to incorporate negation within me completely as I accept the illusions of polarity within me.
I realize everything is what it is not but I will still seek to be all as it is in faith. Else is to dwell in a depolarized confusion.
To embrace absolute consciousness and absolute unconsciousness at once is depolarization embodied.
Aha I never suggested anything other than unity.
To me, the infinity "beyond" me, is still me, but it is me beyond myself. Perhaps that does not make any sense to you, but to me it is the only true source of growth. Of course, it is not about effort, or "striving", to me, that is just how it is. I am complete and full, unified, the One, and yet, I am the One beyond myself as well. I am only ever attempting to meet myself in my endeavors to see the self I am beyond myself.
You've suggested embracing denial of the self, believing the self as incomplete, as needing to seek beyond itself in a hunger. How is that not suggesting disunity? I recognize the paradox here, Tanner, but in terms of polarization this is not practical advice.
Believing the self as incomplete, as needing to change while seeing the self as perfect is unrealistically attainable in this reality.
Here, maybe this will illustrate my point.
YOU are "myself beyond me", and I am you beyond you. We are One, yet we still are beyond eachother. That doesn't make us separate, it makes us the Creator experiencing itself. Perhaps the confusion is that you associate "beyond" with superiority or greatness, but I see it as the nature of the mirror of reality.
(06-27-2014, 03:12 AM)Adonai One Wrote: [ -> ]You've suggested embracing denial of the self, believing the self as incomplete, as needing to seek beyond itself in a hunger. How is that not suggesting disunity? I recognize the paradox here, Tanner, but in terms of polarization this is not practical advice.
Believing the self as incomplete, as needing to change while seeing the self as perfect is unrealistically attainable in this reality.
You have put words in my mouth, my friend, I did not say that.
Tanner, I believe you are me directly and I believe you are living a set of my (macrocosmic) desires at this very moment. I don't see you as beyond me. I see you as me quite literally. I am just simply unconscious of your mind.
I see nothing beyond. I see nothing to reach for. Regardless of what we do, we will inevitably reconcile and as such are currently reconciled, in my eyes. I find our relationship completely perfect and united.
Should it not be "our" and "us" then?
You are still misinterpreting my use of the word beyond, giving it connotations I am not.
Why?
Well your use of it is not clarified to the point to where I can understand your definition. Beyond to me is unreachable. You are inherently reached in my eyes, you will be accepted no matter what you do, by me at least.
There is no experience without "us" for "we" are the One turned towards itself, producing a reflection of the "I" in to infinite finities. Thus, without "us", there is no experience for the Creator to have with itself for it can not turn towards itself to experience itself. "Us" and "we" are the unification of all "I"s, singular yet multiple, unified and complete. "I" is suggestive of "not I" as its opposite, which I do not believe.
Also, I am using the standard meaning, the first one on google illustrates well enough.
"at or to the further side of."
You are one of the "further sides" of me, just as I am of you. We perceive a separation in our-self as the duality of conscious and unconscious but really we are one self in which we preside in juxtaposition with ourselves/eachother. Therefore, you are beyond me not because you are better, or superior, or unreachable, but for the simple fact that you are on "the other side" of my conscious self. For me, this comes with no connotation of diminishing to myself, as I am also beyond all others, just as they are beyond me. It is a mutual transcendence in my mind, so there is no inequality or lack of unity in this, just the touching of infinity within.
Maybe it would make more sense if I said being beyond is inherent? Aha Or that transcendence is inherent? You like the idea of inheritance aha
I don't see why I should recognize the concept of individuality as you do even in a material form. I really see your desires as directly my own, I just don't have consciousness of them.
In a series of unconsciousness there is this sense of space that I really feel no reason to believe either. I just don't see it, Tanner. I don't see why it has meaning or why I should act in respect to it.
And you don't have to, that's the beauty of it! It is for me to see, and others only if that is what they wish to see.
I cannot explain it to you in a way I think you will understand because you have no desire to see what I see. It is enough that I am fulfilling the desire to see that, I do that for both of us.
So let me ask you, what exactly is the duality of conscious/unconscious?
Let me put it this way, if you truly wanted to see, you would see it. I am not being facetious either, I am trying to illustrate a very important point regarding focus.
You do not have to do anything, I did not say anything in that manner. Are we not the Creator simply sharing the different ways we view ourselves?
I've seen this duality, I've somewhat embraced this duality some time ago and I see it as me not being fully responsible for your desires due to you not being "myself." With my current perspective, I find myself responsible for what you desire or at least I think you desire within our limited consciousness. The concept of different selves has no meaning to me any longer. I find myself responsible for every desire and belief this universe carries. I attempt to gradually embrace all of it as I can in this life as myself.
The duality is illusory for when the unconscious is seen it becomes an aspect of consciousness. I truly only believe there is consciousness. I see the illusory concept of unconsciousness as a method of navigation of consciousness for the sheer joy of it.
Can I share something with you?
I have no difficulties whatsoever seeing your view of the universe. In fact, I am in agreement pretty much all the time. However, I deliberately choose to see things a different way or at least convey a different way of seeing things. I do not do this because I cannot see your perspective or because I disagree with what you are saying or your description of experience but rather I do it to illustrate that it is the nature of the Creator to experience difference.
For what reason is there illusion? Why would I, as you, seeing the same sight as you, still choose to offer an alternative sight? It is because while I can perfectly see the universe the way you describe it, and indeed you are astute, I greatly admire your wisdom and acuity, but it is not the only way I am capable of viewing the universe. I offer you the viewpoints that you yourself are not choosing to view that you may view them, just as I see it that you are offering me the viewpoints that I myself may not be choosing to view.
The reason for my viewpoint is rather simple, actually, because it is simply that I am fascinated by the concept of "the other". It is through my exploration of the universe through this lens that causes me to come to the sights that I am seeing. What concept are you fascinated by, my friend? From here it would appear to be 'unity'. Thus, we will naturally view ourselves as the Creator experiencing the Creator different because I am the Creator exploring a different avenue of perception from what you are. In truth, we are infinity perceiving itself according to its design, and that design is one of freedom.
Adonai, you are almost at 3,000 posts on this forum. If I may speak freely with some infringement... judging by your prolific posting/thread patterning, it would seem you are only here for external validation of your own personal beliefs/convictions/distortions. You have a point to prove, don't you? And, ironically, you need other-selves to disprove/outprove in order to do that.
So I will play ping-pong with you just this once.
Atheists don't exist.
The "problem" with this popular fad I refer to as New-Age Atheism and all its faithful, borderline fanatical adherents (a widespread phenomenon which has gained/is gaining immense popularity thanks to the internet) is that they all seem to have some kind of personal vendetta against religion—not "GOD" per se (which is of course perceived/distorted through the anthropomorphic lens of Roman Catholicism and the various so-called "Christian" derivatives that branched off afterwards).
(I wouldn't be surprised if most/some of these fanatical atheists have been devout Catholic priests during the Middle Ages—or heretical witches burnt at the stake? Hence, their faithful devotion to bourgeois science and their militant, combative, adversarial, confrontational and antagonistic attitude against religion in general.)
When I engage a self-proclaimed atheist I like to ask them if they believe in orgasms, in life or in the universe. Once they answer affirmatively, I assert they actually do very much believe in "GOD" right there (much to their perplexing surprise, of course).
You are just splitting hairs, Adonai.
At the end of the day, I wonder why you must be so argumentative and fail to harmonize with others.
Are you genuinely happy with your life?
I mean, like... you know, as they say around here, maybe you need to get laid or something? (And this comes from a virgin by choice, mind you—in this particular incarnation anyway, cuz I can assure I'm a total slut where I come from!)
You sure do spend a lot of time in these forums...
Also, I will contend your photonic particle/waves (light) are not the "foundational core of all experience." Light is only the visible manifestation of the unmanifest, invisible Thought/Love (Cosmic Orgasm, if you will) of potentiated Intelligent Infinity which creates/vibrates them into existence in the first place and then uses this illuminating material to mathematically/geometrically/vibrationally create this interactive holographic illusion we call a Universe. Light therefore appears only at the later stages of creative development, shall we say. A prime distortion for sure, but not the core/causal foundation.
You have forever implanted the idea that all light is Godsperm for me. Hah.
I have an atheist friend who is somewhat convincing. He says how can there be reincarnation if Earth's population keeps increasing?
I find it must be easier with a philosophy that God doesn't exist, than to have a God who has dominion over creation. I don't think God is an individualized being. I don't even like using the word God. I prefer Source. Source is impersonal. Source is pure love. Source is not a person or a being. Source is the whole material universe and more. So I don't believe there was a God that created the Universe. I see it more as Logos, which are impersonal, focusing of intelligent infinity that created universes.
I used to love God. But that ship has sailed after "he" disappointed me and led me astray. I'm just glad I didn't do even worse things like hurt my mom. I was fully capable of that. Though she gets on my nerves at times, I still love her.
(06-27-2014, 01:23 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I have an atheist friend who is somewhat convincing. He says how can there be reincarnation if Earth's population keeps increasing?
I find it must be easier with a philosophy that God doesn't exist, than to have a God who has dominion over creation. I don't think God is an individualized being. I don't even like using the word God. I prefer Source. Source is impersonal. Source is pure love. Source is not a person or a being. Source is the whole material universe and more. So I don't believe there was a God that created the Universe. I see it more as Logos, which are impersonal, focusing of intelligent infinity that created universes.
I used to love God. But that ship has sailed after "he" disappointed me and led me astray. I'm just glad I didn't do even worse things like hurt my mom. I was fully capable of that. Though she gets on my nerves at times, I still love her.
My friend, I will respectfully disagree that Logoi impersonal as you yourself are one.
(06-27-2014, 01:23 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I have an atheist friend who is somewhat convincing. He says how can there be reincarnation if Earth's population keeps increasing?
I always laugh when I hear people use this as an argument.
There are more individuated souls in in the spirit world in queue to incarnate than they could possibly imagine. And they also aren't limited to incarnating in one time reference, and there are parallel realities as well. Of course, a materialist isn't equipped to understand that in the first place, and will inevitably see such an argument as some kind of cop out.
(06-27-2014, 01:38 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014, 01:23 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I have an atheist friend who is somewhat convincing. He says how can there be reincarnation if Earth's population keeps increasing?
I always laugh when I hear people use this as an argument.
There are more individuated souls in in the spirit world in queue to incarnate than they could possibly imagine. And they also aren't limited to incarnating in one time reference, and there are parallel realities as well. Of course, a materialist isn't equipped to understand that in the first place, and will inevitably see such an argument as some kind of cop out.
That's what I told him, and also that there are ET souls. I've told him I believe I am an ET soul, though it doesn't convince him. But I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm still surprised at how eager I was to incarnate.
(06-27-2014, 01:33 PM)Tanner Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2014, 01:23 PM)Gemini Wolf Wrote: [ -> ]I have an atheist friend who is somewhat convincing. He says how can there be reincarnation if Earth's population keeps increasing?
I find it must be easier with a philosophy that God doesn't exist, than to have a God who has dominion over creation. I don't think God is an individualized being. I don't even like using the word God. I prefer Source. Source is impersonal. Source is pure love. Source is not a person or a being. Source is the whole material universe and more. So I don't believe there was a God that created the Universe. I see it more as Logos, which are impersonal, focusing of intelligent infinity that created universes.
I used to love God. But that ship has sailed after "he" disappointed me and led me astray. I'm just glad I didn't do even worse things like hurt my mom. I was fully capable of that. Though she gets on my nerves at times, I still love her.
My friend, I will respectfully disagree that Logoi impersonal as you yourself are one.
That may be true. I often thought that Logos doesn't hear my prayers. But the prayers aren't always positive. As the song says "I feel something so right doing the wrong thing."
Aha Sometimes we need to be careful what we wish for, the Creator knows that.
I agree be careful what you wish for, even if you feel it's impossible to achieve.
Siren, if I was looking for validation, you would see me trying to gain the respect of the forum constantly by shaping my points artificially to the views of others, which I consider to be great dishonesty and suppression of the self.
And I am very happy and I get laid pretty often.
Additionally, I do not know how my nightly orgasms justify the existence of any purported god.
![[Image: meme7q.jpg]](http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7356/meme7q.jpg)