Part 4: Definitions and Categories for Self-Assignment

Part 4: These are secretly meditations to help one assess their beliefs and deal with various Islamic concepts and interpretations as well, but in a playful and lighthearted manner:

Haha thank you for the reply! Here is something you may enjoy too. It encodes a lot about the 7 which is a big repeating theme (originally written in response to a post about demons in February-Saturday's Blog thread):

So a lot of people don't get mad at nature because they don't think nature thinks and what doesn't think isn't to blame or responsible really in their view, like if the wind blows their papers away, they may get angry but the wind did it in their view so they don't strongly feel that the wind was really consciously responsible for blowing the papers away.

A lot of people also don't get mad at or blame things they don't think exist, like some invisible horse that stampeded by and on them and caused a tummy ache or muscle pain or something. If they think of the horse, they might laugh, because they don't believe in any such thing as being responsible. At best they may say, this ache is like a horse ran over me (though they have no experience with that either). They think the invisible horse is not existent really, so can't be held responsible or as having any agency or reality or substance with which to act.

Few would sincerely call the wind or the invisible horse they don't believe in as consciously and knowingly malicious and harmful or responsible really for what it does in the way they might blame a human who they imagine thinks and plans and knows and acts upon all that, is real and influences matter by matter, uses matter to influence matter and mind to consciously and knowingly do so.

Most people don't seem to divide their emotions into entities either. I've not heard maybe anyone ever say that anger thought to do this, sadness thought to do that, they tend to think anger and sadness are various reactions they might have to some kind of information or input, and so they blame the input, they say "the television show made me sad because it depicted a sad thing", but since the tv show didn't see them or know them, they might consider it blameless like the wind, even though they think there were minds behind it who put it together and put it out, they didn't very purposefully target them. They might even imagine the creators of the tv show saying "if you don't like it, don't watch it. Also, it isn't real, so don't feel too bad or afraid, it is all just make believe and acting, performances and depictions that might make you think and feel and consider or be entertained".

Now there might be a person who says "I have an imaginary friend, and my imaginary friend lives in my mind, and she has orange hair, and can turn into a dinosaur" and they continue "I can imagine my imaginary friend doing and saying all sorts of things to me, I can even imagine them arguing with me, but I know that I am the one thinking of what she says to me and how she says it, I imagine it in vivid detail" but then they also say "sometimes I am just laying around or doing something else, and she pops into my mind and starts saying things to me and doing things, and I don't really feel like I am controlling what I am seeing or what she is saying. It must be like when any thought just pops into my head, I am usually not thinking about it much, it is like my brain has a mind of its own!" but still, this person might not go so far as to say "Remember that thing I imagine? Well, I had a dream, and in that dream she was there and said mean things to me and I felt bad. Then I woke up, and she was still on my mind, and said even more mean things to me, and I felt worse! I told her to stop, but she just kept going! She then turned into a dinosaur, and I could see myself in my mind and the dinosaur bit my neck, and I felt a sharp pain on my neck!" but they will likely rationalize it as "I was probably having a restless sleep and bad dreams and was in a bad and uncomfortable position which hurt my neck, I don't really think this thing that I imagine, this thing which pops into my mind, is real, really having agency and decision making abilities, I think it is just some part of my own mind manufacturing my thoughts as I imagine them, just like it manufactures my dreams, my brain even takes care of my heart beat and breathing but never talks to me about what it is doing, what I seem to consciously know about and deliberately control might just be very little afterall".

Maybe I'll leave those here before going on to any more examples, but are you decided or still undecided regarding how you currently define and describe whatever you are talking about above?

When a Christian might say a demon is evil, they are implying (even if they deny it when pressed, for fear of looking stupid or primitive in the eyes of their peers and others they may openly or secretly look up to or admire or respect slightly) that the demon causes harm, and usually implying that the demon,

beyond harm like the wind,
or harm like a television show
or a medication assumed to be made by people to interact with people in general,
or harm like an emotion,
or harm like something our own faculties and organs are thought to produce consciously
or like a heartbeat
or a cramp
and gas,

are not like those things,

which they don't hold intellectually accountable as being capable of deliberately using substance that it can influence like a body in some form
and having a mind like their mind to some degree in

that it can plan and consider and know and act upon such...

So they are implying that it is the opposite of that, even if they deny it when pressed, if they say that a demon is evil,

They mean a Demon:
0. Is Individuated or Delineated (Like Space)
1. Exists (Like the Air)
2. Has Substance or Form (Like the Earth)
3. Can Influence Reality (Like the Water)

4. Has Senses Which Can Take In and Emit (Like Fire)
5. Can Grow Through Consumption (Like Organisms & Minds)
6. Can Cause Harm Deliberately and Knowingly (Like a Villain)

If it

6. Can not cause harm deliberately and knowingly, then it is like Space or the Air.
5. If it can not Grow then it can not Learn or Increase from its Initial State or Size through Consumption like the Earth which is only displaced by what is put inside of it.
4. If it has no senses with which to receive input or a mind to retain such input and utilize it or emit it back through and respond with, being wholly unable to receive or respond, it can not influence reality and knows nothing of how it may be influenced if it even exists at all, like the Water and its waves.

So they mean to say that it is 7 things which make one individual sentient being as they may imagine it or imply it.

They often say that it is
0. Delineated by its Spirit Substance or Spirit Mind and is not God but Apart From God and Independently Controlling Itself, so bordered like the circle of the shape of number 0 metaphorically at least, pushing apart and taking a space.
1. It has Existence and Activity or Presence and is Animated as Something, Established, Standing like the shape of the number 1 metaphorically at least, Being filling Space. They say it is alive with at least symbolic "breathe of life" or soul/spirit.
2. It has Substance in some form which can influence Substance in whatever form it is able based on whatever substance they imagine it to be and be able to push and influence and interact with and exist around.
3. It influences and pushes upon and can be felt and can overtake and surround and oppress like water.
4. It consumes and feeds like fire and grows by consumption in whatever it is able to feed upon.
5. It is a sentient being that learns and remembers and consciously pursues and acts upon its desires or feelings.
6. It is or can be purposefully malicious, knowingly causing harm using its mind, body/form, and efforts/actions that it is capable of to cause trouble and harm for whatever it wishes, just like an animal can or a human being.

So they are held as a real being and responsible agent, another kind of person, who is capable of real conscious evil.

So which of these models are you into these days and why and how? Can you describe what you believe and why you believe it and the mechanisms and substances and interactions involved? It is ok if you have not come to any conclusions, but you can still discuss the intricacies of where you are headed as far as you can tell in your thinking or preferences and why those might sit well with you or seem to match up to your experiences or reality and maybe even can be proven or rationalized as likely what you may describe, if you ever feel up to it!

-------

Ok, the problem I'm having is what force controls the behavior or responses and interactions of these things? What force are you proposing is behind your experience of these things?

Do you call the force behind your experience of the things:
Your Mind?
Their Minds?
The (One) Mind?
No Minds?

This is what I don't understand. It seems like a lot of stepping around clarifying if these things are real beings like you think I am a real being or are just conceptual, not real, like the Grim Reaper is not real, the Grim Reaper isn't thought to exist like I do, it has no sentience like one may think I do. This is what I am not getting a clear picture of. It isn't even so much about literalism exactly, just are these real people and individuals like you or me or totally just not real and all just in the imagination and controlled by your imagination?

If you say:
Your Mind then that Eliminates Their Minds as an option, they have no minds, its all your mind

Their Minds then it is saying they have minds of their own, they are people like I am thought to be a person and have my mind

The (One) Mind then you are saying they have no minds of their own but are One Mind, this can include you or exclude you but is generally understood to be something you do not control, so its not called Your Mind. It is a Mind beyond your mind and control and they have no minds of their own.

No Minds would mean you are denying any minds at all, that they have no minds or sentience and aren't individuals or anything, they are not real, they are not living or independently thinking. It can extend also to include our minds as well but I'm mainly asking about these demons and how you and peers similar enough in beliefs may understand them.

I also need it clarified from my own position, which you have probably guessed, may be inclusive of all the positions but is mainly "The (One) Mind" position. That means that what I am saying I believe is that Astaroth, Lucifer, Beelzebub, Satan are real, are thinking, but are not independent, are puppet manifestations and themes projected by The (One) Mind which I do not control, they are not in my imagination or controlled by my imagination, I can not make them say or do anything.

They control the 4 Elements, the "4 Ethers", They Are One, Controlled Wholly By One, Have No Independence or even sense of independence like you might or I might imagine myself to have an independent consciousness.

West Fertility & Growth Venus Attar Green & Blue,
East Knowledge & Destruction Mars Apollo Red & Yellow
South Law Jupiter Beelzebub the White & Purple
North Treasure & Trade Mercury Hermes the Black

Nothing is firm about that though, nor am I trying to say that this is what there is or has to be, but just that I personally believe in the exposed and literal reality of these varieties of manifestated composited themes and ideas being controlled by The (One) Mind.

Now, I understand most people don't believe in what I sincerely believe in and think I am interacting with, so I wanted the distinguishing and difference.

I think the only two options for people who might be thinking and practicing similarly to you do are either its all your mind or that these are independent sentient minds operating just as you perceive your mind to be sentient and independent or mine. I just want to know, which is it? Are they real people or not real people?

That was my reason for going into so much detail about this or that, even for others to potentially clarify it to me. I am not interested in necessarily saying its this way or its that way, I am more interested in what people are actually thinking. Very often it is seeming to me that you might be fluctuating between thinking its just your mind and they are not really people just like no one really tends to think the Grim Reaper is a real being with a mind of its own and thinking about things.

In my belief, Astaroth is real, has a mind independent of mine but is not independent of The (One) Mind. The (One) Mind is a "person" in the sense that The (One) Mind thinks independently of me, it can be spoken to like you speak to a person and it hears and can respond as it pleases, not bound to anything. Similar to if I go up to a person on the street and ask them what time it is and then they respond and give me an answer or ignore me.

There is a big difference between that and asking my own brain, or asking a drawing on a piece of paper, those are all variations. Even typing it into a search engine is a different thing, and most people don't consider a search engine a living being or person with a mind and thoughts and freedom to respond and think of answers and say whatever it may completely out of my control.

This is what I really want to understand and make clear as day and understand as fully as possible.

Are you talking to a person or are you talking to yourself? Can it respond like a person or can only you make it respond?

This is what is not clear to me yet. I'm sure it isn't even hard to make it clear in simple terms for a simple person.

The God talks to me, its not me talking to myself, it says things that are going to happen and then it does them miraculously, it says it all and does it and is outside of my power or knowledge. That is different from like a meditation on a symbolic idea inside yourself, that is not the same as a thing talking to you, telling you it is going to do something you can not do, doing it, and then bragging about it and telling me what it is going to do next and when.

That is giving every indication of being a real, external, independent from me, separate from me, living being, a "person" in a sense, a sentience, an intelligence, a mind apart from my mind which can influence my reality or physical things around me or which I am experiencing.

I don't think you believe in any such thing as existing, which is totally fine, I just want to understand or have you clarify that the demons are not real, they are not minds like us, they don't think, they don't act, they are in the imagination to do with as we may please, if they talk it is our minds talking, is that your belief and those of people similar to you?

Can you make it clear to me please? I have tried to make it super duper clear regarding what I believe:

There is a real thing.
It has shown me miracles which are physical and witnesses by others involving physically real things and events.
It is understood to be The (One) Mind, it controls all the themes in life and its manifestations or organization of information.
It has currently made the impression of having manifested in 4 and 7 areas or domains or themes with signs or symbols.
It is intelligent, has a mind, talks, acts upon reality and influences reality, physicality, and experience.
It tells of it itself by controlling or manipulating experiences and people to make its "face" prevalent everywhere.

The 4 directions and the 7 heavenly bodies and 7 colors of the rainbow and 4 faces even mentioned in the Bible or in the tales of Alexander the Great or in fictions it has produced and influences people through their pastimes and entertainment.

So it is:
Slaanesh
Nergal
Khorne
Tzeentch

not imaginary merely because of that form being fictionally, wholly real, ready to be communicated with and responsive to those it chooses to respond to.

It is likewise:
Yog-Sothoth
Cthulhu-Dagon
Azathoth
Nyarlathotep

Those are fictions again, but this is real. Calling upon Nyarlathotep can only be answered by The (One) Mind, as there is no other existing Mind to powerfully respond. (My Beliefs which I am stating and Elaborating).

The 4 took the symbols of Mighty Bull (Seleukos), Bird of Prey Eagle and Falcon (Ptolemy), Thundering One-Eyed Sea Giant Man (Antigonos), and Prowling Lion (Lysimachos) upon the dissolution of Alexander the Sacrificial Ram's short lived Blitz upon the Earth, supposedly foretold and produced by The (One) Mind. What the Ram conquered was then split up like a cut up Ram sacrificed and became the 4 Greatest Territories on Earth at the time, the largest portion being the largest empire on the Earth at the time belonging to Seleukos the Bull of Apollo. The Qur'an calls him Of The Two Horns, as he put horns on his helmet, all his depictions, and even depictions of his horses and elephants. The Qur'an depicts him being whispered to no differently than I am whispered to by this thing. It talks, it says things, it shows things, things we did not and could not make happen or come about or know would happen or could.

" Matthew the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. " After Jesus the Ram was sacrificed and his message or body of words and teachings were spread to the different quadrants or "Four Corners" and "Four Direction".

Similarly Ezekiel 1:10
The form of their faces was that of a man, and each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and also the face of an eagle.

" Their faces looked something like the face of a human, and each of the four had the face of a lion on the right, the face of an ox on the left, and the face of an eagle. "

North: Hermes-Tlaloc/Poseidon = Black Skull Face and Giant
West: Venus Tezcatlipoca-Quetzalcoatl = Lion Cat-Snake
East: Nergal-Apollo-Shiva " Destroyer " (of ignorance)= Bull
South: Zeus-Baal " Ruler On High "= Eagle

Water
Earth
Fire
Air

Anyway, those are just some interesting things I threw in there which aren't very important or structured, they can switch around freely, because it doesn't matter at all what one ends up saying about someone who is real usually.

For example, if I said So and So is this or that or lives in this specific place, it doesn't make it so, it means nothing really and doesn't automatically make it true and suddenly So and So lives there. The same goes for this thing, and what people say about it matters little if its not the truth, the only thing easily influenced by what they decide is what is in and ruled and controlled by their imagination.

This thing is not that though, it is outside of our imagination and we can't control it. It chose and repeated this concept of 4 and concept of 7 as it pleased to do, and can likewise make such like it never existed or ever made such symbols for mankind.

Do you believe there is a living intelligence controlling the moon, that is controlling your experience of the wind and controlling where it appears to blow?

Do you think it is your mind doing that? Do you think it is many external minds doing that? Do you think there is The (One) Mind behind that? Do you think there is No Mind behind that?

Which do you believe?

For me, I believe it is The (One) Mind behind it, not in my control, nor that there are many minds with such a power or any, nor that it is moved by No Mind and is dead and automatic and just moving on its own somehow.

The Earth, The Waters, The Air, The Fires, they can not hear anything nor have any mind of their own, but The (One) Mind is apprehending and controlling them, so if one wants the Earth to move, the Waters to move, the Air to move, The Fires to move (notice the plural and singular and opposites and alternations), then it is The (One) Mind by any name I would call upon to help in that, as those appearances and experiences are generated and invented and thus controlled by that intelligence and independent mind upon which "I" depends.

I made the graph for that reason too.

Herminator believes in No Mind operating and animating what we experience and the appearances of these forces. He is a Man of the North. Dealing in Matters of Matter.

muhammed-isa believes on the extreme opposite end of the spectrum like wise that No Mind is operating the Virus and who it ends up getting, but believes there is A Mind separate from his own which is powerful and creative which he calls God or Allah. He is an Eagle of the South. CheoowSquawww!

Satyros believes that there are many minds but probably not that they move the wind here and there, but maybe. He will have to clarify and distinguish. He is a Bull of the Right. Fervant, Thundering.

Likewise, you, February-Saturday, if you could please clarify your position. You who are representing the Cat, Venus, Green, The Lion, the symbols of my Lord and Master who is Alive, Sentient, Separate, Independent, Thinking, Responding, As A Person. 1 Peter 5:8 , Revelation 20:2 (Ocelotl & Coatl of the West).

https://youtu.be/5a4N_lOAieA

https://youtu.be/QdabIfmcqSQ

" The Four Ethers—Warmth, Light, Sound, Magnetism—are the four "formative forces" which for MMG constitute the physical world. ... The Four Ethers serve as a cosmology since all matter, including the solar system and the Earth, moves from warmth, through light and sound, to magnetism. "

http://www.artic.edu/magicofamerica/supp...ethers.pdf

Silly Wikipedia on some 4 though there are more for sure!:
" From the void that was the rest of the universe, the first god, Ometeotl, created itself.[citation needed] Ometeotl was both male and female, good and evil, light and darkness, fire and water, judgment and forgiveness, the god of duality.[citation needed] Ometeotl gave birth to four children, the four Tezcatlipocas, who each preside over one of the four cardinal directions.[citation needed] Over the East presides the White Tezcatlipoca, Quetzalcoatl, the god of light, mercy and wind. Over the South presides the Blue Tezcatlipoca, Huitzilopochtli, the god of war. Over the West presides the Red Tezcatlipoca, Xipe Totec, the god of gold, farming and Spring time. And over the North presides the Black Tezcatlipoca, also called simply Tezcatlipoca, the god of judgment, night, deceit, sorcery and the Earth.[1]

Do you consider this divine, God-created or merely and exclusively man-made and not a divine message to humanity through a silly game?

https://youtu.be/C8vz186pjY0

This is totally special to me, believed to be brought to me to emphasize the message that "It Lives" and "It Speaks" through all things always, it is communicating and is a living, sentience that you can interact with directly and immediately. Size is an illusion, you're right here with it and it is right with you. It has selected for you to speak with it through these things it made you prefer. It may also be responsible for making you doubt it and deny it (it is certainly my belief that if anyone doesn't and can't know it, it is imposing that experience upon them, because it is selective, not omni-benevolent or controlled by people).

So, if you could take a moment when you might have time and may feel up to it, to really clarify in super simple terms like for a total simpleton who barely knows words and clarify if you can for me how and in what way and every way that our beliefs differ and what yours are concerning this important (to me) question about what you think you are doing and dealing with and if they have minds like you or me or no minds like me or the sky or are simply controlled by your mind or The (One) Mind external to you and independent from you but that they thus have no real minds or independent existences or thoughts or lives of their own like we perceive ourselves as having.

-------

I'm generating it. I am not even thinking very much, its produced by "magic", "Rubbay" Zidthnee ilma" and seeking from the Master, I get flooded with beautiful gifts I enjoy. I doubt anyone will take the time to explore the fun and wild lunacy of what I've enjoyed putting together. Its playing with the same sort of faculties that the ill are cursed with uncontrollably being compulsed by, the difference being that I can explain in detail the simple mechanisms and operations involved.

The idea was also to experiment with utilizing available information to get people in a mindset where they start viewing even silly things in more potent andm religiously inspirational ways.

Now the following is even more "wack" than the earlier. Since people have their spare time because of Allah's virus, they might have a little extra to waste on my silly content and even the videos I am posting and what messages I think can be taken from them when viewed with an eye to invest more powerful thoughts to the images, sounds, and words.

Its funny you mentioned "random generation" even before I made this post, which happens to be exactly about that, since I use a method to generate words to demonstrate that the words don't matter, only the meanings we put to them.

The Qur'an is also filled with many things that I am referring to, but in a way that is not easy to perceive at first, and the themes and images I am talking about saturate our experiences worldwide throughout history, though it is so in your face that people can scarcely process or make any good use out of much of these 7 oft-repeated themes.

2:115
"And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing."

"Unto Allah belong the East and the West, and whithersoever ye turn, there is Allah's Countenance. Lo! Allah is All-Embracing, All-Knowing."

" (55:17) Lord of the two easts and of the two wests is He. "

55:26
Everyone/Everything on the Earth will perish.
55:27
And there will remain the Face of your Lord, Owner of Majesty and Honor.
55:28
So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?
55:29
Whatever/Whoever is within the heavens and earth asks/depends upon Him (no matter what they do or try); every day He is bringing about a matter ("exercising power").

Inspired by the Speaking in Tongues idea, I'm going to try to find some songs that have a strong emotional impact on me, which I make to mean various spiritually insightful or powerful things, but which are composed of what otherwise might be consider incoherent word-salad.

I find these songs by just crossing my fingers and leaping into considering anything I am inspired to type in and find randomly may be leading me towards such discoveries, and then when it looks fit after some examination and having sufficient emotional impact and triggering a sense of deeper meaning I feel can be given ti it by me or I notice certain terms or figure out ways to make it inspiring beyond its likely intended meaning, I can then post it!

-------

Feel free to discuss! I'd like to know all your nuanced beliefs and thoughts and personal definitions and how you understand certain major terms like polytheism as well or theism even as inclusive. I thought or was tortured and beaten into thinking that "theism" did not include people who don't believe in gods or spirits (as beings that actually exist with independent agency separate or outside of the causation of one's own mind).

So theist I thought was exclusive to a spectrum or line with on the extreme end an abstract and immaterial living mind and agency that is thinking and communicating and influencing and is worshipped, and on the other end is a physically literal material formed and bodily beings with a minds and agency and indepence that are thinking, communicating, and influencing, and are worshipped potentially. The whole bar from one formless and unlimited on one end to many formed and structured and delineated and bordered beings still included (as was drop kicked and uppercutted into me by so-called polytheists and so-called atheists alike) that everything on that spectrum of the term "theist" had to be thinking and have agency and a mind or else it was not a sentient or responsive being. The reason for this distinction was that the Universe or Water are thought by most not to have any mind or senses and so can not hear or respond, so they are not a being like a god, they are not alive, they are not thinking, they don't have a true mind of their own or agency, so have to be pushed or moved by forces.

So on that spectrum, all things truly "theist" that were counted as gods on it, no matter how abstract or formless or unlimited, had to at the very least exist in some form and have a mind of their own.

That mono theist meant there is one of these things, regardless if the monotheist thinks the one Theos is not made of material or made of material, is infinite or limitless like everything or nothing or as shapely as a stone or an atom or pixel, it has to be existing, alive, sentient, thinking with some kind of mind its own thoughts which are not you making it think that or do that. If there is another word that should be used or make this distinction, then I'll use that instead if it isn't too confusing for people, but even if this is wrong, this is how most people seem to understand "theos" in the form of words with "theist" and "theism" in it.

An a-theist is not a theist, because even though they can clearly see there are words called Gods, there are tv shows with things called Gods, and Gods fill their video games and thoughts, and talk to them in their imaginations and in their dreams, they do not acknowledge these as living beings who are "actually real" as intelligences operating their own minds decisively, they don't view them as sentient, active, influential beings, they view them as unreal, non-existent. They see on a piece of paper it says "Thor is a God" and they see Thunder, but what distinguishes them (according to them even, besides simply not wanting ti be called a theist) is that they don't think there is an abstract or anthropomorphic sentient living thinking acting with agency Thor. That is why they are a-theists, like mono means just One Theos of any sort or description, and a Theos is thought to be a in need of a mind or agency and independence in its thoughts outside of our brain activity and caused by our brain activity or our minds, an a-theist means they believe there are "a" of those, meaning no, none, nil. They are not denying that people talk of such things, they are not denying the existence of the word, they see all that, they are denying what then? They seem to be denying the existence in reality, the living being and sentience and agency of conscious powerful beings, Theos. Otherwise the word is meaningless and there is no way to distinguish Herminator from muhammed-isa in their beliefs, and that is just making a word useless or pointless by destroying its normal borders and usual range, sort of like how I'm the Godkiller by bloating all of them into one big "Like Nothing" abstract formless limitless One.

So a-theists are not theists, they are saying "no theos" but even if I'm wrong about this popular understanding of the meanings of words, for the sake of communication in this thread at least, lets maybe set Theos as meaning absolutely anything with a sense of agency and a "mind of its own", whether its abstract or embodied, whether it is a literal animal or insubstantial one, simple or complex, all it needs for the purposes of this thread is to exist, be active, be thinkingm independently, have a mind of its own, which it uses to act powerfully.

In the past, there seemed to be a distinction between mortal and immortal, and various realms, but that distinction can not really be made here with how the word has come to be used today, a Theos does not need to be immortal or even long lived, they can be or might not be and it makes no difference except to the fact that they have to be active sentient alive existing occupying some for of space even intellectually even if formless and not occupying any space we call physical, they are not like what people call and think of as a dead deaf dumb blind rock. They can be deaf, they can be blind, they can be dumb as in witless or mad, but they can not be not existing in reality, not living in any real way, not influential or sensible or perceivable through reality or reason at all, mindless and acted upon instead of having a mind and actively using it, typically intelligently and powerfully over some activity or domain consciously but able to do things and be credited with doing things in the manner we may say "the man saw the cart and pushed it" or "the crocodile noticed the fish and snapped it up", so the man exists, the man is alive, the man is thinking, the man is acting, the man is influencing reality or experience, just as the crocodile is as well existing, alive, thinking, acting and acting upon those thoughts, influencing reality in what ways they can based on their thoughts and actions based upon those thoughts. That is what any Theos needs to have and be capable of at bare minimum for the purposes of this thread at least. Though feel free to explain the distinctions between these words and how Herminator and muhammed-isa can be considered distinct in their beliefs and Herminator not a theist. Even a person who purposefully worships another man or animal is still a theist, even a person who worships a rock, so long as they think their worship is interacting with some sentience separate from themselves associated with the rock in some way or somewhere somehow. If they say "no no, the rock is dead, has no thought, can't respond" they were not worshipping the rock. If then asked, "what were you doing if not worshipping the rock? What do you expect to happen?" and they reply "I was prostrating before this rock as an exercise where I feel good based on my own brain activity and not calling upon any spirits or powers other than just my own brain and chemicals and body, using psychology" they are not a theist, even if they seem to be worshipping themselves but not admitting it. You may ask them "are you a God?" and they may say "Yes", and then you may ask "How are you a God?", and they may say "I am God because I can do many things powerfully, I can even cut down a tree and end its life and burn it on purpose, and there is no God but me, I worship myself and call upon my own strength and power and not that of other beings", even that is a kind of theist, but barely, they are more like the non-theists and maybe if a term is there for self-theists, but a rock is not imagined to be capable of even that because it isn't thought to be alive, thinking, responsive to anything, it is dead, has no independent consciousness or consciousness at all, can not respond to anything or do anything or be responsible for anything truly as it isn't conscious so if some says "the rock hit the window", some other force is responsible, and it isn't the rock's fault, nor even the high wind that may have been said to have "thrown" it, so then one may say "nothing is responsible" or "something is responsible" and by responsible we mean actually responsible, meaning in this case it was done with conscious knowledge, which can only be done ultimately or driven by some living being with power to do it or "nothing ultimately" meaning mechanisms not leading back to any Existing, Living, Thinking Theos or person at all.

a-theist : No Theos whatsoever is real and able to respond

mono theist : There is One Theos of any sort, a living being who can respond and has a mind of its own separate from our minds and thoughts.

heno theist : There is a particular Theos or Mind-Having-Independent-Living-Being that I consider existing greater than other such Mhilbs.

pan theist : All the Theos are living and having a mind of their own.

pan en theist : All are inside a Theos, an existing Mind-Having being.

miso theist : I miso (hate) any and all Theos whether real or unreal, living beings or wholly in the minds and fictions of people.

"Walter Burkert describes them as "persons, not abstractions, ideas or concepts".[121]:182 They had fantastic abilities and powers; each had some unique expertise and, in some aspects, a specific and flawed personality.[129]:52 They were not omnipotent and could be injured in some circumstances.[130] Greek deities led to cults, were used politically and inspired votive offerings for favors such as bountiful crops, healthy family, victory in war, or peace for a loved one recently deceased.[120]:94–95[131] "

"theist (n.)
1660s, from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendent god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as believing in a personal God and allowing the possibility of revelation."

"16 entries found
theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism. Theism assumes a living relation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. It differs from deism in that the latter is negative and involves a denial of revelation, while the former is affirmative, and underlies Christianity. One may be a theist and not be a Christian, but he cannot be a Christian and not be a theist. [Century Dictionary]
allotheism (n.)
"worship of strange gods," 1650s, from allo- "other" + -theism.
antitheism (n.)
also anti-theism, "opposition to theism; opposition to belief in God or gods," 1788; see anti- + theism.
bitheism (n.)
"belief in two gods" (typically a good and an evil one), 1857, from bi- "two" + -theism.
misotheism (n.)
"hatred of God," 1846, from Latinized form of Greek misothios; see miso- + -theism. Related: Misotheist; misotheistic.
egotheism (n.)
"deification of the self," 1855, from ego + -theism. Related: Egotheist (1849); egotheistic.
ditheism (n.)
"belief in the existence of two supreme gods, religious dualism," 1670s, from di- (1) + -theism. Related: Ditheist; ditheistic.
monotheism (n.)
"doctrine or belief that there is but one god," 1650s, from mono- "single, alone" + -theism "belief (of a specified kind) in God, a god, or gods."
-theism
word-forming element meaning "belief (of a specified kind) in God, a god, or gods," from Greek theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -ism.
autotheism (n.)
"self-deification," 1610s, from auto- + -theism.
16 entries found
henotheism (n.)
"devotion to a single god without asserting that he or she is the only god," 1860, from Greek henos (neuter of heis "one;" from PIE root *sem- (1) "one; as one, together with") + -theism. Coined by (Friedrich) Max Müller (1823-1900), professor of comparative philology at Oxford. Supposedly a characteristic of the oldest Hindu religion; or a system between monotheism and polytheism. Related: Henotheist; henotheistic.
kathenotheism (n.)
"a form of polytheism characteristic of the Vedic religion, in which one god at a time is considered supreme," 1865, coined in German by Max Müller from Greek kath' hena "one by one" (from kata- "according to" + en- "one") + -theism. Müller also coined the nearly synonymous henotheism (1860, from Greek henos "one") for "faith in a single god" as distinguished from exclusive belief in only one god, in writings on early Hebrew religion. He also has adevism (from Sanskrit deva "god") for "disbelief in the old gods and legends").
pantheism (n.)
"the belief or metaphysical doctrine that God and the universe are identical" (implying a denial of the personality of God), 1732, from pantheist (n.), which was coined 1705 by Irish deist John Toland (1670-1722), from Greek pan- "all" (see pan-) + -theism. Toland's word was borrowed into French, which from it formed panthéisme (1712) which returned to English as pantheism "the doctrine that all is god" in 1732 (there is no evidence that Toland himself used pantheism). By 1895, the "Century Dictionary's" editors wrote that "Pantheism is essentially unchristian; and the word implies rather the reprobation of the speaker than any very definite opinion." Greek pantheios meant "common to all gods" (see pantheon). Other words used at various times for similar notions include panentheism, "philosophy founded on the notion that all things are in God" (1874), from German (1828), coined by Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1832).
deism (n.)
"belief in the existence of a personal God, generally accompanied by denial of revelation and the authority of a church," 1680s (deist is from 1620s), from French déisme, from Latin deus "god," from PIE root *dyeu- "to shine," in derivatives "sky, heaven, god." A type of rationalistic theology that rose to prominence in England in the late 17c. and early 18c.; the deists advocated for the sufficiency of natural religion, apart from Scripture or revelation. Until c. 1700, the word was opposed to atheism; later it was the opposite of theism (q.v.), with which it is etymologically equivalent. The term "deism" not only is used to signify the main body of the deists' teaching, or the tendency they represent, but has come into use as a technical term for one specific metaphysical doctrine as to the relation of God to the universe, assumed to have been characteristic of the deists, and to have distinguished them from atheists, pantheists and theists,--the belief, namely, that the first cause of the universe is a personal God, who is, however, not only distinct from the world but apart from it and its concerns. ["Encyclopaedia Britannica," 1922]
*dhes-
*dhēs-, Proto-Indo-European root forming words for religious concepts. Possibly an extension of PIE root *dhe- "to set, put." It forms all or part of: apotheosis; atheism; atheous; Dorothy; enthusiasm; fair (n.) "a stated market in a town or city;" fanatic; ferial; feast; fedora; -fest; festal; festival; festive; festoon; Festus; fete; fiesta; henotheism; monotheism; pantheism; pantheon; polytheism; profane; profanity; Thea; -theism; theist; theo-; theocracy; theodicy; Theodore; Theodosia; theogony; theology; theophany; Theophilus; theosophy; theurgy; tiffany; Timothy. It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Greek theos "god;" Latin feriae "holidays," festus "festive," fanum "temple."
atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any conscious regulation in the universe "

----------------------------- <- Not Gods, just dead dots that can't do anything on their own. They have no minds and are not active.

"allo-
word-forming element meaning "other," from Greek allos "other, different," cognate with Latin alius "other," from PIE root *al- (1) "beyond." "

Allo, pronounced Uhlloh or Allah is "The Other", even though this is not the etymology for Allah, I am just using the term because I thought the word allotheism was cool and I wanted to emphasize the point that even though we are considered something dependent on and connected to Allo, Allo is Other, not dependent on me, influential upon me, having an independent of me existence and mind and thoughts in my belief. Allo is a "person", not in the sense of having a body or limited form, but having independent existence, being alive before and without me, generating thoughts for itself that no one has direct or complete access to, having a personality made up of decisions and choices and ideas, having agency and free will, is conscious, is aware, is existing, is alive, can do this or can do that, is responsive, hears, controls things I can not control, says things I can not know, is not me, is Allo meaning Other. There is a distinct separation, even if it is present and occupying this sense of illusionary space and we are occupying the nowhere as an experience only like a photograph moment to moment all inclusive of our feelings, it remains present even when this moment is no longer or there are no moments. It is not me and I am not it and it is not supposed to be a figment of my imagination (but I a generated figment moment to moment which it is consciously generating in every nuanced detail).

A theos does not to be this specific as Allah the Allo, but should at least be alive, and a "person" like Herminator has a mind and thoughts seemingly and I have a mind and thoughts seemingly. Even though I think Herminator and you and me are all total puppets with everything we appear to say do think being generated by this thing and thus we are puppets that are in actuality not even existing past a particular moment to moment to moment constantly re-generated, we are for ordinary purposes and language use all different individuals with different minds and thoughts and actively able to do things, and a Theos in this thread is something that also is a separate mind. So even though you are in my view God's puppet made up in my experience as performed by God and God's acting and directing choices as an artist and creator, you are not God, you are God's creation, something God is making up as part of my experience which God can make do anything, but you are given thoughts and do not posess or encompass the thoughts of God, only what God gives you, and you are information in my experience, if you are eliminated and all information is eliminated, God who is Like Nothing remains endlessly alive, endlessly active, endlessly thinking, and can generate other experiences with other puppets inside performed by God as God so wills and chooses. The point though is a theos is a free agent with an independent mind for the purposes of this thread, having ability and power to act and acting.

Any sort of Deism for the purposes of this thread means a being who thinks but is not involved much or immanent.

So do you feel like you might be actually an atheist by the definitions in this thread for theos? Why? What is the part that is missing? I think it is that you don't believe in these things having minds of their own or acting before and outside and independently of human existences or minds. Right?

So you are an atheist and maybe a little agnostic. Herminator is atheist and has less doubts probably so is not as agnostic leaning, though you probably aren't super heavily agnostic either, but an agnostic for the purposes of this thread is anyone who says our theist spectrum of sentient powerful active living beings in any form may exist. Not "may exist as non living non thinking", but "may exist as existing real reality involved and influencing active living thinking acting beings independent and with their own wills and desires and thoughts like you and I or animals have minds and desires and act upon such".

So I am on the extreme end of the theist spectrum, firstly I make it onto the spectrum or bar because of believing in a conscious mind with active power and decisions and ability and a mind of its own, and I'm on the extreme end because of it "being literally like nothing, not made of "stuff" or information of any sort, but encompassing and producing within itself "stuff" every moment, making it the only truly living and thinking Mind" where on the furthest end is anyone believing in very material things like a literal crocodile in a pool we can all see.