DiscussMormonism.com

I was telling a friend that my belief is that God is the universe\multiverse itself, not a being.

I also believe I exist at some level other than just the normal physical reality and always have. Furthermore, I believe that being the case that I will continue to exist at\in some level\form\reality even after the death of my physical body.

I was told by a friend that just because I don't believe that "God" is some dude who created the universe or myself does not make me an actual atheist.

Do I qualify to fit within the definition of being what an atheist is?

Nomomo wrote:I was telling a friend that my belief is that God is the universe\multiverse itself, not a being.

I also believe I exist at some level other than just the normal physical reality and always have. Furthermore, I believe that being the case that I will continue to exist at\in some level\form\reality even after the death of my physical body.

I was told by a friend that just because I don't believe that "God" is some dude who created the universe or myself does not make me an actual atheist.

Do I qualify to fit within the definition of being what an atheist is?

There is no official body that decides how one may or may not use any word, including 'atheist'. But your refusal to believe in some kind of personality (or 'dude') behind the universe would I think lead to most theologically literate people to say you were (at best) a deist rather than a theist.

I wouldn't call you an atheist. I'd agree w/Chap that your views seem closer to deism.

Nomomo wrote:I was telling a friend that my belief is that God is the universe\multiverse itself, not a being.

I also believe I exist at some level other than just the normal physical reality and always have. Furthermore, I believe that being the case that I will continue to exist at\in some level\form\reality even after the death of my physical body.

I was told by a friend that just because I don't believe that "God" is some dude who created the universe or myself does not make me an actual atheist.

Do I qualify to fit within the definition of being what an atheist is?

I'd say you're some kind of pantheist.

Chap wrote:There is no official body that decides how one may or may not use any word, including 'atheist'. But your refusal to believe in some kind of personality (or 'dude') behind the universe would I think lead to most theologically literate people to say you were (at best) a deist rather than a theist.

I would agree with them in that I wouldn't refer to myself as a theist either.
Your response prompted me to as a refresher google the definition of deist. I found the typical dictionary type of definition of deist to be totally inadequate, practically worthless but stumbled upon this site- http://moderndeism.com/html/deism_defined.html where it seems I would fit someone who believes the majority of what they there define as Modern Deism. So I guess perhaps I am pretty close to if not completely to being a Modern Deist.

As far as my own model of the of the multiverse goes it is nearly identical to the Eckankar model - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckankar
My model of personal progression within that structure is the same as theirs also. Yet I would never consider being a formal member of their organization as I reject the "Personality Cult" like aspects of their organization and have no need nor a use for "a living ECK Master" even though they do not worship him per se.

MsJack wrote:I'd say you're some kind of pantheist.

Ahh... Thanks for that response! I can see that you are correct that I am closer to being a pantheist than a deist even though I share much of what a "modern deist" believes.

I'm getting closer to a self definition here. LOL! A pantheist with an Eckist like model of the multiverse.

I wanted to say you're a naturist, as in one who worships nature, but that is not the definition of the word.

As an aside, I have at different periods since the '80's experimented\practiced what in Eckankar is referred to as "soul travel" to different planes. I highly recommend the experiment\practice. It is pretty frickin' awesomely interesting and can be a quite useful vehicle for personal growth. I would hold this to be true even if one cannot believe it to be "reality" based and is just a manufacture of the mind that they would likely still find it as a useful tool for growth or at the very least a quite interesting experiment and exploration.

bcspace wrote:I wanted to say you're a naturist, as in one who worships nature, but that is not the definition of the word.

I don't see that it could be correct to say that I "worship" anything at all whatsoever. In addition to that fact I have no need, desire nor use for worship I hold that worshiping is not in any way a possible requirement, and that the Universe\Multiverse \God is completely indifferent to any worship of it. I view the religious concept that one of the attributes of their God is that he requires you worship him or what is called his gospel to be a completely primitive nonsensical belief. I would hold to that view even if I were to believe God were a "him" or anything like a personality or deity wich I do not.

No, you are a theist; more of a theist than any Mormon is.

Mormons are the one riding the fine line believing god is some "dude".

Blake O believes very similar to you.