I am an atheist and consider The Law of One plausible

[Spaced]

I'm replying to your post in the wikipedia thread here Adonai because it's on the same topic as this thread.

There is only one part. What is seen as greater is what is seen as one with the self's desires: This is the illusion. The reality is that all is equally whole and all is desired, all is inherently one with the self.

I'm reductionist in that I've reduced it to one part that can produce the illusion of many, not many becoming one, but many being inherently one that pretends to be many. The whole is only greater than the sum of its parts if it is believed the parts are not inherently the whole. In examples involving manyness, this is the case. When manyness is seen as an illusion, there is only one, one part, one whole, The Law of One.

So if I understand you correctly, you are positing that there is light and this light is all that exists and from this light our illusion of creation is formed. OK, I can follow that, but where do these photons come from? Where does consciousness come from? What shapes these photons into our physical illusion? While I fully agree that all existence is one unified whole, I cannot discount the fact that we are here in third density in order to experience the illusion of separation. That separation is illusion, but it is also real because we can experience it quite directly, it's a paradox. We are a unified whole experiencing ourselves as separate, this can only be possible if there is an intelligence guiding all creation which transcends our own but includes and is an emergent function of all our individual intelligences.

And no, I'm not saying that this is something we work towards, I'm saying this is how it is. We experience this paradox and will continue to until we have learned the Law of One fully at the end of 6th density, and while you can say "ah but this has already happened because creation is simultaneous" that doesn't discount the fact that from our perspective this is the result of catalytic reactions that must play out over the fullness of time.

[Adonai One]

The photons are just a Darwinian innovation evolved from the previous octave and the octaves before it. There was a universe before us that experienced heat death, condensed into a black hole and then exploded into a massive wave of light (photons) into our current universe from the previous version of light, which came from another different but similar version.

Infinity is just this entire cycle made completely self-aware.

It's Darwinian cycles all the way down for me.

---

The photons are consciousness to me.

[AnthroHeart]

I never fully understood that the creation is simultaneous, because of the illusion of separation. I don't feel I am in all densities and vibrations at once.

I believe you're right that the catalytic reactions have to play out over the illusion of time.

---

Doesn't heat death take like 10^47 years, till the death of every proton?

[Adonai One]

I should state that we are creating the new versions of future planets and universes as we speak, as each acceptance and rejection in our choices creates adaptations on a photonic level. We are shaping the next version of light in future Suns and future universes.

It's all naturally selecting. We are the creator literally. When our light is reinvested into the universe, it's used as programming -- when our souls become all again that is. There is no figurehead. Macrocosmically there is only us, a silence (still us), then us using what we have been for future choices.

The Choice is the tool of the creator to create.

[AnthroHeart]

I should state that we are creating the new versions of future planets and universes as we speak, as each acceptance and rejection in our choices creates adaptations on a photonic level. We are shaping the next version of light in future Suns and future universes.

It's all naturally selecting. We are the creator literally. When our light is reinvested into the universe, it's used as programming -- when our souls become all again that is.

Sounds exciting. I've wanted to be a sun giving life to a species.

[xise]

I think you can be an atheist in general for a given definition of atheism and easily believe in the Law of One, or be an atheist and believe in Buddhism or many other spiritual or religious practices. I haven't studied atheism, but assuming wikipedia is reliable:

From Wikipedia's Atheism Page:

Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements[19] such as Wicca,[20] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[21] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[22]


...

Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[130] Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, the oldest philosophical school of thought, does not accept God, and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God.[131] The thoroughly materialistic and anti-theistic philosophical Cārvāka (also called Nastika or Lokaiata) school that originated in India around the 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India, similar to the Greek Cyrenaic school. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as heterodox due to its rejection of the authority of Vedas and hence is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[132] Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Cārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."[133]

Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as atheistic include Classical Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. The rejection of a personal creator God is also seen in Jainism and Buddhism in India.[134]

[Adonai One]

"Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity, refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

[xise]

For me, labels are only useful as far as they are efficacious in communication.

Regardless of whether my personal beliefs fit better technically under a modern definition of atheism, in everyday conversation it's easier to say I believe in God, but a non-personal Creator-type God which is all things. The explanation and conversation gets longer and convoluted for everyday people if I say I'm atheist and then try to explain this the Creator thing. If I'm talking to a religious or philosophical interested person, I may well say that a type of atheism better fits my beliefs and then explain the Creator and the Law of One.

No need or desire to consider myself part of the atheist or theist "camps". Attachment and identification to generalized labels can be the source of greater misunderstanding and division ala red versus blue/democrats versus republicans/atheists versus theists.

[Nicholas]

Hmm, Atheism. Is this the view that from 'nothing' comes 'everything'?

A play on words here to make my point but "nothing comes from nothing, everything comes from something" - Jools Holland
(granted he was talking about the evolution/innovation of the piano post blues.)

If so then I agree to it as 'nothing' is the best fit term to describe purity, or that which came prior to the first distortion.

Alas I have immediately contradicted myself by using the word 'prior' as this infers time, and to truly have 'nothing' includes time.

The computer sais 'no', the programmer sais 'nothing', so yeah we are both the created and the creator. And so the debate cycles on!

Is atheism merely a green ray bypass? True it may be but 'something' is missing.

[Adonai One]

I had no idea that metaphysical belief systems had an impact on accepting other people ("green-ray").

[Nicholas]

"Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity, refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Yes I agree as the continuance of suffering in our time could be noted by the wests persistence in perpetuating classical thought processes, ie Plato.

---

I had no idea that metaphysical belief systems had an impact on accepting other people ("green-ray").

I was asking non rhetorically!