XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: talk.religion.pantheism   
   From: md_002@videotron.ca   
      
   On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:32:28 -0330, David Dalton wrote:   
      
   > I have a section on ... my deities;   
   > isn't that reasonably clear?   
      
   Here are your first 2 of 8: (The last 5 are cladistic subsets of #3):   
      
   1: ALL (all/everything, all as a unit, which many Wiccans refer to as The   
   All or The Source). Note that I think that ALL is all-powerful, but note   
   that ALL is not perfect and is not perfectly loving. I also refer to ALL as   
   God.   
      
   2: LOVE2 (the someone highest in goodness measure as defined by ALL). Note   
   that LOVE is the someone or something that is not a someone that is highest   
   in goodness measure as defined by ALL, so if LOVE is a someone then   
   LOVE2=LOVE.   
      
   So, #1 defines how to measure goodness. But #2 (which may or may not be a   
   someone) is the most loving entity, but it is not part of the cosmos (#3).   
      
   This is no more bizarre that the traditional Christian merging of 1 + 2 to   
   be their "God", so we should give it the same acceptance as we do to them.   
      
   Then #3 is what most of us think of as the known universe (spacetime). Yet   
   the cladistic sub groupings ( galaxy / solar system / earth / moon ) are   
   each atropomorphized into a deity. This is more in line with traditional   
   panteism.   
      
   Finally, #8 (The collectivity of humankind) is another deity.   
      
   So from my (atheistic) point of view, your whole system thus reduces to:   
      
   Objective reality (#3) plus Secular Humanism (#8).   
      
   The sum of #1 + #2 I consider to be zero.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)