XPost: alt.atheism, talk.atheism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: talk.religion.pantheism   
   From: dalton@nfld.com   
      
   In article <1331g064bqf14.1r2s4cbuew6ur$.dlg@40tude.net>,   
    Mike Duffy  wrote:   
      
   > 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).   
      
   #2 (LOVE2) is defined as a someone.  But if there is no match (as   
   a someone) to #1 (ALL) then there is no match to #2.   Also   
   LOVE2 could be part of the cosmos.   And if the cosmos is   
   all/everything then ALL is the same as Universe (or Cosma).   
      
   > 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.   
      
   One confusion is that some dictionaries define   
   universe as everything but cosmologists these days   
   do not, generally.   That is why I make a distinction   
   between ALL and Universe and believe that Universe   
   is a subset of ALL.   But it seems that you are   
   saying that all/everything is not a someone so   
   there is no match to #1 or #2?   
      
   Back in mid-September of 1991 I was praying to just one   
   deity, Gaia the earth.   
      
   Back in July of 1996 I was praying to just three   
   deities:  Gaia the earth moon system, Sola   
   the sun, and Cosma the cosmos.   
      
   A little later (1997?) I modified that to Luna the moon,   
   Gaia the earth, Sola the sun, Cosma the cosmos,   
   and LOVE (which I forget how I defined back then;   
   I will have to check my old writing some day).   
      
   Then later I added Galaxy, ALL, Human, and modified   
   LOVE to LOVE2.   But I relate my sun stare and   
   blue rose vision most to Sola and Gaia, though   
   I also relate my moon cycles to Luna.  Those   
   three can be considered a form of triple deity.   
      
   Apologies to alt.atheism for this off-topic post,   
   but I don't know which group Mike Duffy is reading   
   this thread in, and he did set Followup-To to   
   alt.atheism .   
      
   --   
   David Dalton  dalton@nfld.com   http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)   
   http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Music & Travel   
   "dance with me; I want my arms about you   
   The charms about you; Will carry me through"  (Irving Berlin)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)