Are you really looking for a religion, or are you trying to start a debate with a theist?

I'm a student of esotericism. This is not a religion, but has some aspects of it, plus aspects of science, philosophy, and more. The basic theme of esotericism is progress, progress of consciousness, knowledge, self-realization, justice, freedom, and revealing of the hidden part of the world, I mean, the kind of it I prefer. I'll try to explain it in scientific terms.
The world was created by three basic powers, three Rays. Their characteristics are extensively described and with modern knowledge we can identify the 1st ray with Strong nuclear force that transforms and destroys, 2nd with Gravity that binds and 3rd with Electromagnetic-Weak nuclear force, that binds but also combines everything into great variety.
Esotericism also recognizes the fact, that majority of the universe is unseen, hidden from our senses, in form of so-called dark matter and energy. It also says, that every atom of the universe is related to every other atom, in agreement with some interpretations of Quantum theory.
Esotericism also accepts, or in fact precedes, String theory. It recognizes 7 dimensions of the world, including our own. (plus 3D space and 1D time)

Esotericism is therefore to a great degree compatible with contemporary science. However, it is much more, than just that. Esotericism says, that life itself, specially human life, is multi-dimensional, in terms of String theory. It also equates particular dimensions to "world of emotions", "mental world", "spiritual world" and so on. By thinking, having emotions, or meditating we interfere with higher String dimensions at some level, in some way, or at least with that part of ourselves, that exists on that level. Esotericism uses this multi-dimensional idea of life to suggest explanation to otherwise unexplainable phenomena. That's basically it, there is a lot of areas where it gives a different look on life.

I'm an atheist because there is no proof for god. Sure, there's shit we don't know but that's all there is. Theism is inscrutable and religious belief is undertaken in the absence of any direct proof. That's the end of the story.

Anywhere else you go with religion after this comes down to your feelings.

Go with whatever religion or non-religion makes you feel better. Just like everyone else.

Really? Forget about religion in an organized sense of the word. In fact, forget about everything in an organized sense. It would take you a lifetime to figure out how to disprove God or Jesus or Allah or whatever and a great deal more quick to come to the conclusion that I came to when I was 6 years old. Namely that everyone is full of shit. It took me 20 more years to come to the conclusion that I was as well, so you see? You are wasting your time. Eliminate the obvious flaws and what you are left with is something as close to the truth as you could possibly hope for so long as you never allow that to cloud your judgment. Keep in mind you could be in the right place but wrong in your approach which makes for an unstable landing.

Maybe I was testing you Johnny boy. You see, I taught myself how to read before I went to school but was taught spelling and grammar in public schools. Again, one doesn't need training in the languages of the Bible in order to research the meanings of the words therein. Your insistence to the contrary speaks a great deal of your ignorance on the subject. Of a sort of underestimation of ones ability to educate themselves as opposed to being spoon fed all the information they need. In other words you have no legitimate complaint because otherwise you yourself would need accredited in specific idioms to have come to that conclusion. Its sort of like me asking if you are trained in atheism or otherwise telling you to shut the fuck up. There would eventually be no point for any of us to discuss anything unless we had been indoctrinated into the specific school of thought accepted by the masses. Currently that would be an Anglo-American apostate Christian one. You see there? I've run circles 'round you logically. Twice plus I shoved the word idiom in as a sort of malicious aside.

The problem I see here is that, when I'm forced to conclude that you are totally ignorant of the Bible you don't actually provide any contrary evidence, you start spouting nonsense about E=mc2 and a giraffe. So, if your argument is hinged upon my knowledge of those things it is an irrelevant argument to cover up your own ignorance on what it is we are actually talking about, but if you are arguing whether or not I am properly trained to discuss it I would be willing to hazard a guess that you are no more specifically trained in Giraffes or germ disease theory but I could be wrong on that. I don't think it matters. Now, lets set aside all of that and you and test me on my knowledge of the Bible in what is an atheist / theist discussion. I promise you. With all of the help here on this forum and everything you have ever read on the subject and with all of the specialized expertise of any scholars past or present at your disposal you will lose. All the more cause for concern on your part because I can't spell illuminate. You see that? Pay attention.

i'm willing to act as a sort of consultant.  i have a BA in religion from a secular and fairly liberal department.  most of my courses focused on the abrahamic faiths.  i took two semesters of greek and one of biblical hebrew.  i know those credentials aren't impressive, but i still keep up my studies.  i put grad school on indefinite hold when i got married but i was accepted to yale divinity a few years ago, if that says anything.  i'm just offering my services because so far i haven't encountered anyone else here with a degree in religion and i know some people are hung up on credentials.  if there's any question of biblical interpretation or historical context i might be able to shed some light.

I'm not certain that the conditions imposed by the contents of this sentence are possible...

Anyone who quotes Brak in their sig is fine with me, but I'm not terribly comfortable devising any rules and regions because I have no idea how any of this is supposed to be done. Iwbiek has expressed interest so I would be interested to hear what sort of rules and regions of discussion he would invoke and you and I discuss that, adding or subtracting anything from there that would take us in a direction we wouldn't want to go. My primary concern would be the Bible and how it is improperly perceived by atheists through the misrepresentation of apostate Christianity.

We could just jump right in like Marquis and Luminon seems to have done. I was actually working on a set of rules for fun that read like a Monty Python sketch but I got bored and had to give it up.

Edit: In fact, iwbiek posted this elsewhere which sounds pretty good to me. I have rendered the portions of particular interest to me in bold.

The only thing I would change is that I'm not trying to dismantle atheism and what I am looking for is a good discussion rather than a debate, but it is hard to have a one on one debate with that sort of attitude.

no prob

The direction I want to go in is the Bible. I am more interested in an atheist perspective on that subject than I am my own perspective. I know what my own perspective is, I don't know what an atheist perspective might be, though I suspect it is a disinterest in the Bible. The reason I mentioned science is that it seems that everything I have said about the Bible is completely ignored, and disinterest is often stated, followed by sermons on unrelated science issues.

I don't have a problem with that. Generally I have a broader sense of words like "Religion" and "God," than most and I may point these differences out but I can accept the common usage of words like that without much fuss. Words like "hell," "day" and "cross" can be important in a discussion about the Bible but I can provide citations for those.  

A disinterest in the Bible? No, I just think it's full of shit and now acts as a danger to society. That doesn't mean disinterest. We can get to that later though.

While we're still speaking casually, let me address something. I'm not sure that you understand the relevance of science when dealing with most theological subjects. What you see as derailing a thread by introducing science, is just getting at the underlying issue. There are parts of the Bible you cannot separate from science. Some are small and irrelevant, like rabbits chewing the cud. Some are huge, gaping holes, like the moon being a light source, or having photosynthesis without the sun. The latter two are inseparable from science. The former as well, though like I said, it doesn't really matter. Also, I'm sure there are better examples, I chose those because they appear so early in Genesis.

I won't make you defend rabbits chewing cud or pi being three, those are cheap shots, though true. But if you make a claim that is scientifically impossible, and I point it out, are you going to call foul? I'm curious.

I pretty much agree with you there on the subject of religion, but the Bible itself strongly encourages its readers to test it. It speaks highly of those who do. Most people who criticize the Bible do so not out of having tested it or examined the evidence but upon the assumption they make from others who have read it, or they themselves have given it a quick consideration with that premise in mind.

You don't question my existence because I'm writing this to you. If I tell you some things that you can test as to whether they are true or not you can in that way confirm what I have said. If I tell you some things that are difficult to believe that you can't test me on that I have personally experienced like, hypothetically speaking, that I had seen a UFO and had been abducted if everything I had ever told you was true and there was no possible alternative explanation you would be more inclined to believe what I had related to you. For me, the Bible is like that. It is eyewitness testimony that proves itself without a doubt in the areas where it is testable and in the supernatural it is trustworthy.

Most atheists have this sort of logical scientific pretense, that they must be shown the evidence, but evidence can be misinterpreted and is almost always ignored when presented to the atheist. Just look at my thread here on the soul. I explain to everyone that the soul isn't, according to the Bible, a hokey invisible part of the human that lives on after death and only one person actually got that. The rest kept attacking my idea of the soul as being an invisible hokey part of the human that lives on after death. They already have their minds made up and don't really give a rats ass about evidence.

I heard stories of Buddhist monks who could sit in the freezing cold mountains with nothing but a diaper on for long periods of time and I didn't believe it until I seen it. I heard a story of a man and his grandchildren who were human magnets. Anything metal would stick to them. Didn't believe it until I seen it. I heard stories of children as shepherds in Ngorongoro crater who would walk up to a lion and chase it away and didn't believe it until I seen it. I heard stories of evil spirits and didn't believe it until I seen it myself. If the only things in this world that are possible are the things you believe or have seen with your own eyes there isn't much need for a continuation of science and proving and testing the things you don't know anything about, is there? When you call for proof you are really trying to fit into a reality that you are most comfortable with. You are not asking for proof.

Well that applies to any human endeavor, though. The same could be said of anything, and this is fairly easy to observe. This is part of the reason that I believe in the Bible. The Bible doesn't twist things. It doesn't make David out to be a flawless leader inspiring his people, he is a jerk who sent a man to his certain death so he could boink the guy's wife. And again, the Bible proves itself true.

The word miracle is abused to that extent. Anything good that happens that is beyond expectation is attributed to God when God had nothing to do with it.

Maybe not but you will suspend reasonable thinking because you already think that you know something when in fact you haven't tested it. For example, the Bible doesn't teach that you will burn forever for any reason.

Isn't she like 50 or something?