What is pantheism?

[sisyphus__]

See topic.

[Enmos]

The best excuse for religion I know of.

[Vkothii]

Pantheism is a form of theism.
There's monotheism too. I think there are some others, and atheism, of course. Those are the ones who deny the existence of theism, whatever that might be. It's just that no-one seems to really know.

[JDawg]

Pantheism is the belief that God is existence, as opposed to simply the creator of it.

[Enmos]

Pantheism is the belief that God is existence, as opposed to simply the creator of it.

In other words: they substituted the word 'reality' with the word 'God'.

[ronan]

In other words: they substituted the word 'reality' with the word 'God'.

or the other way arround ;-)

[Enmos]

or the other way arround ;-)

Then it wouldn't be a religion, would it..

[fadingCaptain]

Pantheism says the universe itself is god. Apparently Pantheists are big fans of redundancy.

[Orleander]

^%&$* you mean it has NOTHING to do with panthers!?

[Enmos]

^%&$* you mean it has NOTHING to do with panthers!?

No, that is Patherism.. :p

[sisyphus__]

You guys are horrible at explaining things....

[Enmos]

You guys are horrible at explaining things....

How would you know ? You asked the question.. :shrug:

[Medicine*Woman]

Pantheism is a form of theism.
There's monotheism too. I think there are some others, and atheism, of course. Those are the ones who deny the existence of theism, whatever that might be. It's just that no-one seems to really know.
*************
M*W: What atheist denies the existence of theism? We know it's there, that's why we're atheists!

[Vkothii]

What atheist denies the existence of theism? We know it's there, that's why we're atheists!Sure, atheists are against it, that's their job, right? But what is it they're against? I know a lot of them think they know what it is.
It's just that I personally have never been able to follow any argument about it - it just doesn't make a lot of sense (to me, that is).

[sisyphus__]

*************
M*W: What atheist denies the existence of theism? We know it's there, that's why we're atheists!

:D:D:D


Enmos:


How would I know? I know what pantheism is! I simply want to HEAR what pantheism is, idiot


;-P

[JDawg]

How would I know? I know what pantheism is! I simply want to HEAR what pantheism is, idiot

Tell us then, Captain Emoticon, how would you explain what Pantheism is?

[sisyphus__]

Tell us then, Captain Emoticon, how would you explain what Pantheism is?

Why would you ask such a dumb question G homes?



I am not "captain emoticion" or what the hell ever you would like to call it either. I feel that pantheism is a beliefe in God as the universe and there are varying forms of it, that is all. However I would like to hear a more intricate defination to it other than what it is and how it occurs --- etc.



For christs sake, sometimes I think everyone on sciforums is stupid except for me.

[JDawg]

Why would you ask such a dumb question G homes?

Because I felt like it...sissy.

I am not "captain emoticion" or what the hell ever you would like to call it either. I feel that pantheism is a beliefe in God as the universe and there are varying forms of it, that is all. However I would like to hear a more intricate defination to it other than what it is and how it occurs --- etc.


No, sadly, you never reached the rank of Captain. Nowhere close, actually. You served for four years as "Ensign Emoticon", but were dishonorably discharged after violating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Anyway, to your point...wait, did you have a point? Oh, OK, I see it now. You would like to hear a more intricate defination to it other than what it is and how it occurs...hmm. See, I'm at a loss here, and for a couple of reasons. First, I don't know what a "defination" is, so you'll have to elaborate on that. You certainly couldn't have been looking for a more intricate definition, because "what it is" and "how it occurs" would make up the sum total of its definition. So just let me know what you really meant by "defination", and I will be happy to oblige.

For christs sake, sometimes I think everyone on sciforums is stupid except for me.

Your impeccable grammar, attention to punctuation and capitalization, and language-bending use of the word "intricate" tell me that you, sir, are a genius. No, really. Stand up and take a bow. You've earned it.

[Vkothii]

For christs sake, sometimes I think everyone on sciforums is stupid except for me.I get that too....?

[sisyphus__]

I get that too....?

Well yeah, I mean, the idiot Dawgster dissing my perfectly fine position just goes to prove my point. The only reason I have ever really enjoyed sciforums is because it is of a far less quality than other forums and therefore a place to publish a bunch of bullshit ideas that someone thinks are great. There are exceptions.



Because I felt like it...sissy.
Obviously.




No, sadly, you never reached the rank of Captain. Nowhere close, actually. You served for four years as "Ensign Emoticon", but were dishonorably discharged after violating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

You've followed me around for four years on sciforums? What a pathetic loser.
I would qualify as the emoticoner.

Anyway, to your point...wait, did you have a point? Oh, OK, I see it now. You would like to hear a more intricate defination to it other than what it is and how it occurs...hmm. See, I'm at a loss here, and for a couple of reasons. First, I don't know what a "defination" is, so you'll have to elaborate on that. You certainly couldn't have been looking for a more intricate definition, because "what it is" and "how it occurs" would make up the sum total of its definition. So just let me know what you really meant by "defination", and I will be happy to oblige.

First hand idiocy. Just goes to show you the quality of this forum.



Your impeccable grammar, attention to punctuation and capitalization, and language-bending use of the word "intricate" tell me that you, sir, are a genius. No, really. Stand up and take a bow. You've earned it.

Why thank you. Idiot.

Oh, by the way. A defination of pantheism would incorperate most everything.
Asking a question on sciforums is like asking idiots to show how retarted they are.

[JDawg]

You've followed me around for four years on sciforums?

No, but your story is written on bathroom stalls across the midwest. During my journeys, it is hard not to find a new story on the life and times of Ensign Emoticon T. Douchebag.

First hand idiocy. Just goes to show you the quality of this forum.

First hand idiocy? Were you trying to say first rate idiocy? Or first class idiocy? Something like that? I don't think first hand idiocy is what you were going for...

Oh, by the way. A defination of pantheism would incorperate most everything.

Oh, OK. So you're saying a defination incorperates, while a definition incorporates? Do I have that right?

Asking a question on sciforums is like asking idiots to show how retarted they are.

Yes...how "retarted" indeed...

[sisyphus__]

Quit the issues with language you moron. There is no sense in that.
You have everything right except for the langauge.
Good job at being a loser :p

[JDawg]

Quit the issues with language you moron. There is no sense in that.
You have everything right except for the langauge.

I don't know what this means. All I know is that you're calling everyone here stupid, yet you can't even spell the insults right. That's what I'm saying. Not only is the pot calling the kettle black, but pot is also calling the couch, curtains, and carpet black, as well.

[sisyphus__]

Isn't that all you are doing?

I asked a question and get bullshit.

Thanks a lot loser.

[JDawg]

Isn't that all you are doing?

Calling you an idiot? No, I'm doing much more than that. I've implied that you sleep with long-haul truckers, that you were kicked out of military for open homosexuality, and that you lack a basic understanding of the English language. Don't pidgeonhole me into your one-dimensional mudslinging world. I don't sling mud, I sling mountains!

I asked a question and get bullshit.

Ah, I call bullshit on that one. These were some of the responses you got:

Pantheism is the belief that God is existence, as opposed to simply the creator of it.


In other words: they substituted the word 'reality' with the word 'God'.

Pantheism says the universe itself is god. Apparently Pantheists are big fans of redundancy.

And this is what you offered in return:

You guys are horrible at explaining things....

So you did not get bullshit in response. You got quality, concise answers to your question. Then you started insulting us, claiming that you already knew what the answer was, you just wanted it repeated back to you. Then you said no, you actually wanted to hear a more in-depth answer, yet you haven't given a clue as to what, exactly, you want to hear. You should be able to give us a hint as to what you're looking for, Sissy. After all, you do already know the answer, right?

[sisyphus__]

Not necessarially loserface. I want to hear some concisely worded explainations other than "God is the beliefe that the universe is God." I want an explaination. Not a wikipedia although that would obviously do better....

What do some pantheists believe?
How would you go about becoming a pantheism?
What varients are there of pantheism?

Can you get the drift buddy or do I have to fart on you?

[Enmos]

How would I know? I know what pantheism is! I simply want to HEAR what pantheism is, idiot


;-P

:confused:
So you know what it is, but still ask others what it is as if you don't know ?
Should I simply have copied and pasted the wiki page, or a dictionary definition ?

[sisyphus__]

No you shouldn't have. I want to hear pantheism discussed.

Simple.

[Enmos]

No you shouldn't have. I want to hear pantheism discussed.

Simple.

Well, isn't that what I tried to do ?
I said it's the best excuse for religion.. only no one replied to that.

[sisyphus__]

Well, isn't that what I tried to do ?
I said it's the best excuse for religion.. only no one replied to that.

Perhaps my usersubtitle should reflect itself towards the general attitude of sciforums itself then... or some such very similar to this.

People don't respond to what one wishes; and your comment was the best that I recieved (who ever reads this thread and finds otherwise like JD is an idiot).

I think it would be interesting to hear [sorry I was just interrupted] an explaination or a hearing about that idea. Seriously. The best excuse for religion is a good one, it sort of leaves the pantheists... well, atheists. However it appears that also it has some signifigant value, considering the universe as God is one of the main ways to have some faith. Not only that but it is a far more logical way of believing in God. Beliefe in God is usually subject to logic weather or not we believe it or not. See... I am a dude looking for debate just likek you and yet get none.

[Enmos]

Perhaps my usersubtitle should reflect itself towards the general attitude of sciforums itself then... or some such very similar to this.

People don't respond to what one wishes; and your comment was the best that I recieved (who ever reads this thread and finds otherwise like JD is an idiot).

I think it would be interesting to hear [sorry I was just interrupted] an explaination or a hearing about that idea. Seriously. The best excuse for religion is a good one, it sort of leaves the pantheists... well, atheists. However it appears that also it has some signifigant value, considering the universe as God is one of the main ways to have some faith. Not only that but it is a far more logical way of believing in God. Beliefe in God is usually subject to logic weather or not we believe it or not. See... I am a dude looking for debate just likek you and yet get none.

I agree with this. I think Pantheism is the religion that lies closest to atheism.
Some atheist are virtually pantheists anyway, only they don't anthropomorphize nature.

[JDawg]

I agree with this. I think Pantheism is the religion that lies closest to atheism.
Some atheist are virtually pantheists anyway, only they don't anthropomorphize nature.

There really isn't any religion that is "close" to atheism, because atheism is the absence of belief in a god. And I personally believe that the second you incorporate any notion of the supernatural into society, you open it up to be exploited and twisted into other religions that may very well believe in the same principal, but add things onto it that make it more sinister. Like how sun and star worship and appreciation because the building blocks for the Abrahamic religions. If you want to believe that God is everything, as opposed to some being outside the realm of the universe, then fine, but what's going to happen is that some group is going to take up that this deity is in fact very aware of the goings on in the world, and wants you to act a certain way so as not to, for example, upset his stomach or something.

It's a dangerous notion any way you cut it.

[Crunchy Cat]

See topic.

Pantheism is when someone projects human qualities (emotions, desires, consciousness, etc.) on the universe. In other words they accept without evidence that the universe itself is a sapient life form.

[sisyphus__]

There really isn't any religion that is "close" to atheism, because atheism is the absence of belief in a god. And I personally believe that the second you incorporate any notion of the supernatural into society, you open it up to be exploited and twisted into other religions that may very well believe in the same principal, but add things onto it that make it more sinister. Like how sun and star worship and appreciation because the building blocks for the Abrahamic religions. If you want to believe that God is everything, as opposed to some being outside the realm of the universe, then fine, but what's going to happen is that some group is going to take up that this deity is in fact very aware of the goings on in the world, and wants you to act a certain way so as not to, for example, upset his stomach or something.

It's a dangerous notion any way you cut it.

Then you add on top of that the thoughts of a pms (pantheistic multi person solipsism or whatnot) and things get hectic. Seriously though, I personally believe that pantheism is the religion of a taking up for, it is a very interesting one, one which is the more logical of beliefs for certain reasons if you follow. Anyhow, the danger is out, when one realizes that for thought to occur thought must, occur. I wouldn't mind examining my beliefs, but I will always hold that there is a God existent in nature. I can't imagine something outside of the universe. ...

Also I can't really put my finger on it but believing that the universe is God is right in all respects. It is God that does things, it is solipsism that sees all as a single mind, it is ... sorry getting all upset and shit...

It is right, to consider that as a single mind, God is the doer of things which are beyond our control. We can call God that being which exists in fairy tales, but when you say that their isn't rebirth or something of this nature then you are denying pantheism, the religion that I want discussed.

[sisyphus__]

Pantheism is when someone projects human qualities (emotions, desires, consciousness, etc.) on the universe. In other words they accept without evidence that the universe itself is a sapient life form.
:bugeye:

[JDawg]

Then you add on top of that the thoughts of a pms (pantheistic multi person solipsism or whatnot) and things get hectic. Seriously though, I personally believe that pantheism is the religion of a taking up for, it is a very interesting one, one which is the more logical of beliefs for certain reasons if you follow. Anyhow, the danger is out, when one realizes that for thought to occur thought must, occur. I wouldn't mind examining my beliefs, but I will always hold that there is a God existent in nature. I can't imagine something outside of the universe. ...

Well, I don't personally believe there is any religion worth taking up for. Just because it is interesting does not mean you have to believe it. We find literary and intellectual value in the beliefs of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Romans, and in this country, the Native Americans, but we accept that all of those are forms of mythology. Why, just because one picture of God is more interesting than the other, does it have to be true? Why can't it just fall into the category of the rest?

And if you will always hold that there is a God, then you aren't really willing to examine your beliefs.

Also I can't really put my finger on it but believing that the universe is God is right in all respects. It is God that does things, it is solipsism that sees all as a single mind, it is ... sorry getting all upset and shit...

Again, I don't see the need to attribute the "god" label to it. It just is what it is, what's wrong with accepting that? That's all the evidence we have at the moment, and probably all we ever will.

It is right, to consider that as a single mind, God is the doer of things which are beyond our control. We can call God that being which exists in fairy tales, but when you say that their isn't rebirth or something of this nature then you are denying pantheism, the religion that I want discussed.

Well, first, I can deny it and still discuss it. Just to make that clear. Also, I don't know in what context you mean "rebirth".

Second, why the "god" label? Why can't it just be "the universe"? Why can't it just be what it is? Why the need for some deeper spiritual meaning?

[Crunchy Cat]

:bugeye:

Were you looking for the truth or just an answer to make you feel good?

[sisyphus__]

Were you looking for the truth or just an answer to make you feel good?

:bugeye:

[ronan]

Then it wouldn't be a religion, would it..

why not?

[JDawg]

Were you looking for the truth or just an answer to make you feel good?

By his lack of a response to my post, I say yes, he is just looking for something to make him feel good. He's not interested in opinions that would oppose his own. He's looking for reassurance.

[Crunchy Cat]

By his lack of a response to my post, I say yes, he is just looking for something to make him feel good. He's not interested in opinions that would oppose his own. He's looking for reassurance.

It's a trend with him recently. He asks objective questions but expects subjective answers targeted at making him feel good.

[Simon Anders]

Pantheism is the belief not simply that God is in and is everything. However it is not simply another word for, for example, universe. It means that this everything is conscious, alive.

[Simon Anders]

Pantheism is when someone projects human qualities (emotions, desires, consciousness, etc.) on the universe. In other words they accept without evidence that the universe itself is a sapient life form.
Scientists used to use this same argument in relation to animals. It was taboo to 'project' things like emotions, intentions, consciousness and so on onto animals. Then slowly they shifted from this assinine position set off by Descartes. Duh.

What was the psychological mechanism they were under the sway of when they could not notice the obvious?

[fadingCaptain]

"Pantheism is the belief not simply that God is in and is everything. However it is not simply another word for, for example, universe. It means that this everything is conscious, alive."

I don't really understand this. If everything is alive then how can we die? When you say 'conscious' and 'alive' does that mean something different than everyday uses of the terms? If so, please describe.

[Simon Anders]

I don't really understand this. If everything is alive then how can we die? There are different answers to this. It can be that life is constantly changing. That there is no death, but also that there are no continuous individuals. Some might answer that there is rebirth. There are a variety of positions and beliefs.

When you say 'conscious' and 'alive' does that mean something different than everyday uses of the terms? Humans have gotten into habits of seeing things as dead that are not like us. This trend shifted again in the '1st world' but for a long time animals were seen - at least by many intellectuals - as machines without consciousness in the sense we have it. Nor emotions, motivations, etc.

Even women, and certain other races were seen as not quite human, less sentient.

As I said there has been a counter trend for a while. I think this will continue. That we will notice that more and more is alive, though not in the same ways we are - for example, they are much slower than us, perhaps.

As far as can tell the whole damn thing is abuzz with life.

[Crunchy Cat]

Scientists used to use this same argument in relation to animals. It was taboo to 'project' things like emotions, intentions, consciousness and so on onto animals. Then slowly they shifted from this assinine position set off by Descartes. Duh.

What was the psychological mechanism they were under the sway of when they could not notice the obvious?

As I recall, that line of thinking was theistically induced because only humans had 'souls'. Where theism goes, fruitcake will follow most assuredly.

[fadingCaptain]

"As far as can tell the whole damn thing is abuzz with life."

The problem with this is you have now effectively stripped the word "life" of all meaning. What properties do you speak of when you say it is abuzz with life? If a rock is alive then what are we? Extra alive with consciousness? The details are where we find out what we are actually talking about. What does a Pantheist attribute to the universe (specifically) that an atheist would not?

[Simon Anders]

"As far as can tell the whole damn thing is abuzz with life."

The problem with this is you have now effectively stripped the word "life" of all meaning. What properties do you speak of when you say it is abuzz with life? If a rock is alive then what are we? Extra alive with consciousness? The details are where we find out what we are actually talking about. What does a Pantheist attribute to the universe (specifically) that an atheist would not?

I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc.

Many people are so used to assumptions of deadness and lack of sentience as the default liklihood that they think someone who experiences things differently bears the onus of proof.

For me it is quite the opposite.

[JDawg]

I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc.

Dude, pass the acid.

[Simon Anders]

As I recall, that line of thinking was theistically induced because only humans had 'souls'. Where theism goes, fruitcake will follow most assuredly. Then it is interesting that the scientific community at least in many portions of the West clung to this idea longer than many other groups. Sure, Christianity makes a division, for example, but many 'pagan' systems do not have so sharp a boundary. And I am far more likely to told I am anthropomorphizing animals by science fans than religious people - even including a lot of flexibility for how this is worded.

[Simon Anders]

Dude, pass the acid.
You would have said the same thing to Einstein. What seems weird to you might simply be something you have been trained to think is normal. I think it is sad that so many have to take drugs to have certain kinds of experiences. I am quite sure some scientist has taken acid and realized, from that moment forward, that this or that animal was a little more complicated than they had realized. On the other hand, there is no need to take this kind of step to notice such things.

[JDawg]

You would have said the same thing to Einstein.

Dude, you are no Einstein. You're just spewing philosophical garbage.

[Simon Anders]

Dude, you are no Einstein. You're just spewing philosophical garbage.
1) never said I was. I was talking about the fact that ideas that run counter to habit, tradition and culture often seem obviously wrong
2) Oddly enough I am writing in a RELIGION subforum and have presented a possible set of answers to what pantheism is. Saying that it is garbage is a waste of text.

Oh, wait. Let me try it. What you said,JDAwg, was garbage.

You're right: it moves the discussion along. How could I have missed the use of such arguments.

[JDawg]

1) never said I was. I was talking about the fact that ideas that run counter to habit, tradition and culture often seem obviously wrong
2) Oddly enough I am writing in a RELIGION subforum and have presented a possible set of answers to what pantheism is. Saying that it is garbage is a waste of text.


No, what you were doing is what most religious people do: Insult the intelligence of others.

You said "I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc." which implies that we're ignorant, or deaf, or blind. That we're so stupid, we can't see what is so obviously there. It is that kind of backhanded insult that really gets under my skin, because it's such bullshit.

[Simon Anders]

No, what you were doing is what most religious people do: Insult the intelligence of others. I am posting in a thread entitled What is pantheism? Seems like I am on topic and have answered the question from my perspective. I am not insulting anyone's perspective and unless you can think of answers to that question that you will not label garbage, I really can't see what you are doing here.

You said "I would say that those who encounter deadness everywhere or presume that things are dead are not really noticing, listening, etc." which implies that we're ignorant, or deaf, or blind. That we're so stupid, we can't see what is so obviously there. It is that kind of backhanded insult that really gets under my skin, because it's such bullshit. I would say trained not to notice. If I thought you were stupid I would have said that. I think there is a lot of training about what is real and what is not. Some of this is banal even for people who think that the only things we can know are things validated by the scientific method. That there are things we do not notice because of how we are trained.

I can, however, see what you are saying. I worded it in a way that comes from my irritation at how I see 'science' and the technological abilities generated from it interact with the world. I think the hubris involved in what we think is dead or not sentient and we can change on a whim - not simply to survive - is based on a kind of cultural bias. You, I am sure, disagree. But at least I can get across the context I am in where this attitude has UNBELIEVABLE SWAY in the world. It is not as if this worldview of yours is some minority attitude, in fact it is shared, either de facto or directly, by perhaps most religious people also. If you find my sense that more is alive and more is sentient than currently acknowledged by science garbage, at least you can see where I do not see you as in some weak minority position.

The world is seen by most as more or less dead. Animals and plants and ecosystems are seen as replaceable, improvable and of no importance EXCEPT in terms of how they affect us. If you are bothered by me, you certainly have nothing to worry about. I see current genetic reasearch and modification plans and proceeding slowly but surely, as one example amongst many. And certainly industrial treatment of, well, everything, is not being held back by the monotheisms at least.

But I can see how my post in this thread could be taken personally by those here, which is not fair, especially given that the post I was responding to was fairly non-judgemental, even if it was implicit that what I was saying must be false. (Oh, it just must be wrong)

I also think it is quite clear that a bias against noticing that animals have consciousness and are not simply machines has been present in science and that this attitude was considered neutral and rational, especially between professionals in the life sciences. Those who crossed the line were treated like shit and their careers were in jeopardy. Then things changed over the last 4 decades and it has become much more acceptable to talk about motivation, consciousness, emotions and intentions in animals. This transition has not been faced by the scientific community as a whole. If they were wrong, how did that happen? How did they not notice what many lay people did? - or professionals who worked with animals, but not as scientists.

Is it possible that the current limitations on granting consciousness, etc. to other 'things' will shift further and be more inclusive? There is a trend in that direction.

I find little humility in relation to this idea, unless I speak with someone like Rupert Sheldrake, for example, or others in the small minority of scientists who either realize we do not know or actively consider it likely that more is conscious than we realize.

So my apolagies for how I came across, the broader context bled into my post. I certainly do not consider you stupid, blind or deaf.

I do think you are wrong.

[JDawg]

You have it backwards. It is religion that considered animals to be these servile beings with no souls and that are totally replaceable, non-sentient. Like just about all scientific discovery, we had to shed the ignorance of religious dogma to learn that animals are, in fact, just as much a part of the fabric of life as we are. It was scientific research that figured out that they have emotions, that they experience fear, and it is scientific research that let us understand that they are almost exactly what we are. It's religion, not science, that leads the way in this.

It's why the religious kind buck the idea of evolution. It's not because it discounts a God--it doesn't do that at all--it is because evolution gives us a very much animal parent species, and makes us more like apes than they would like to hear.

So if you want to put blame on anything, put it on religion, not science.

[Crunchy Cat]

Then it is interesting that the scientific community at least in many portions of the West clung to this idea longer than many other groups.

It's sort of moot, they got over it when the majority of the scientific community expelled fantasy.


Sure, Christianity makes a division, for example, but many 'pagan' systems do not have so sharp a boundary. And I am far more likely to told I am anthropomorphizing animals by science fans than religious people - even including a lot of flexibility for how this is worded.

Ok.

[Simon Anders]

You have it backwards. It is religion that considered animals to be these servile beings with no souls and that are totally replaceable, non-sentient.
This is facile in many ways. My guess. You are thinking mostly of Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and absolutely many pagan religions do not fit your generalization AT ALL. Also science continued to do this long after it considered itself out of the sway of religions.
Like just about all scientific discovery, we had to shed the ignorance of religious dogma to learn that animals are, in fact, just as much a part of the fabric of life as we are. It was scientific research that figured out that they have emotions,
No. Many people knew this long before scientists finally accepted it. And they certainly did not prove it. They simply stopped doubting it. In any case pagans, people who worked with animals, pet owners knew this for a long time despite the attitudes of scientists.

that they experience fear, and it is scientific research that let us understand that they are almost exactly what we are. It's religion, not science, that leads the way in this. NO. see above. Also their are dueling trends in science. Some scientists now see us also as simply complex machines.

It's why the religious kind buck the idea of evolution. It's not because it discounts a God--it doesn't do that at all--it is because evolution gives us a very much animal parent species, and makes us more like apes than they would like to hear. Again Christianity is what you are thinking of. And in a thread on the topic of pantheism, this is a clear mistake.

[JDawg]

This is facile in many ways. My guess. You are thinking mostly of Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and absolutely many pagan religions do not fit your generalization AT ALL.

Judeo-Christian belief systems do, and since Islam is a ripoff of Christianity...

No. Many people knew this long before scientists finally accepted it. And they certainly did not prove it. They simply stopped doubting it. In any case pagans, people who worked with animals, pet owners knew this for a long time despite the attitudes of scientists.

Many people? Bull.

NO. see above. Also their are dueling trends in science. Some scientists now see us also as simply complex machines.

Clear misunderstanding of science. And there is nothing wrong with seeing as complex machines. We're natural complex machines. With emotions and all that stuff.

Again Christianity is what you are thinking of. And in a thread on the topic of pantheism, this is a clear mistake.

Well, considering that Pantheism is nowhere near as large as the Judeo-Christian mythology's fanbase, I'd say I'm right on topic.

[Zephyr]

You have it backwards. It is religion that considered animals to be these servile beings with no souls and that are totally replaceable, non-sentient.
Which religion?

Think of parables and fables. How many fables tell us the fox is cunning, the bear is courageous, the snake is evil? Aren't those human attributes?

Didn't the bible have a cunning serpent?

[JDawg]

Which religion?

Think of parables and fables. How many fables tell us the fox is cunning, the bear is courageous, the snake is evil? Aren't those human attributes?

Didn't the bible have a cunning serpent?

Well, the serpent was really the devil in disguise, was it not?

Also, I'm not even sure what we're arguing anymore...is it that science didn't believe animals had a level of intelligence? I mean, so what if that's true? Maybe science was too busy gloating that it finally got you religious types to understand that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Ever think of THAT!? :D

[Simon Anders]

Judeo-Christian belief systems do, and since Islam is a ripoff of Christianity... But has certain practices that clearly deal with animals as conscious, experiencing subject. I also notice that you do not acknowledge that your generalization was wrong.

Many people? Bull. You are not aware of how many so called pagan religions considered animals to have spirits, souls, consciousness, etc? Many 'regular' people considered it obvious and spoke about their pets and farm animals this way. I know, I remember how common this was, all over the West. Let alone all those in religions that do not fit your model.


Clear misunderstanding of science. And there is nothing wrong with seeing as complex machines. We're natural complex machines. With emotions and all that stuff. It's a clear misunderstanding of science on my part AND there is nothing wrong with the fact that science sees things this way. Not sure what you are trying to say. It seems like I understand what science is trying to say. And I am well aware of how scientists see emotions, including those scientists who see them in mechanistic terms. I happen to think the view is limited. My disagreeing does not mean I misunderstand it.

Well, considering that Pantheism is nowhere near as large as the Judeo-Christian mythology's fanbase, I'd say I'm right on topic.
Are you really so invested in not admitting you are off here? If there was a thread discussing baseball, would you start making comments AS IF we were talking about football (soccer) since this is a more popular sport worldwide? Though if you add up the religions that do posit consciousness in animals the JudaoC. trad is outnumbered. Further the JC adherents are rarely pantheists, though some mystics are.

I think you are emotionally invested in being right and not admitting shit. I think you are being immature and you simply must win for whatever reasons you have psychologically.

I am putting you on ignore.

[Zephyr]

Well, the serpent was really the devil in disguise, was it not?

Also, I'm not even sure what we're arguing anymore...is it that science didn't believe animals had a level of intelligence? I mean, so what if that's true? Maybe science was too busy gloating that it finally got you religious types to understand that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. Ever think of THAT!? :D
Don't ask me what we're arguing, I just thought your post was interesting. I'm not a religious type, but I don't think blanket statements about religions calling animals soulless are accurate. Some animals are even considered holy (cows in Hinduism?)

[JDawg]

But has certain practices that clearly deal with animals as conscious, experiencing subject. I also notice that you do not acknowledge that your generalization was wrong.


But how doesn't science view them the same way? I'm not sure how science views animals as any less conscious than us...So no, my generalization was not wrong. Yours seems to be, however.

You are not aware of how many so called pagan religions considered animals to have spirits, souls, consciousness, etc? Many 'regular' people considered it obvious and spoke about their pets and farm animals this way. I know, I remember how common this was, all over the West. Let alone all those in religions that do not fit your model.

I'm still failing to see where science doesn't consider animals as conscious.

It's a clear misunderstanding of science on my part AND there is nothing wrong with the fact that science sees things this way. Not sure what you are trying to say. It seems like I understand what science is trying to say. And I am well aware of how scientists see emotions, including those scientists who see them in mechanistic terms. I happen to think the view is limited. My disagreeing does not mean I misunderstand it.

Because like every religious person, you demand science tells you about more than just the material. Stop expecting science to say that we're all wonderful beings with purpose and destiny. It can't do that, because science isn't about that.

I think you are emotionally invested in being right and not admitting shit. I think you are being immature and you simply must win for whatever reasons you have psychologically.

Get fucked, dipshit. A week ago you were thanking me for admitting when I was wrong. Stop taking this shit so seriously, you religious drone.

[Simon Anders]

Going back to the original question:

These two quotes are taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which can be found at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.

There are probably more (grass-root) pantheists than Protestants, or theists in general, and pantheism continues to be the traditional religious alternative to theism for those who reject the classical theistic notion of God. Not only is pantheism not antithetical to religion, but certain religions are better understood as pantheistic rather than theistic when their doctrines are examined. Philosophical Taoism is the most pantheistic, but Advaita Vedanta, certain forms of Buddhism and some mystical strands in monotheistic traditions are also pantheistic. But even apart from any religious tradition many people profess pantheistic beliefs — though somewhat obscurely. Pantheism remains a much neglected topic of inquiry. Given their prevalence, non-theistic notions of deity have not received the kind of careful philosophical attention they deserve. Certainly the central claims of pantheism are prima facie no more "fantastic" than the central claims of theism — and probably a great deal less so.

You can, even, be a patheist atheist, but here ideas of reverence and belonging would like be described in different terms and perhaps would be experienced differently.

[JDawg]

But those who are pantheistic, in my opinion, are those who are too afraid to fully abandon ship. They don't buy the tradition God, but they fear repercussion in the afterlife, so they go with the whole "I'm Spiritual" nonsense.

But I'll give them this...I prefer a non-theistic pantheism (oxymoron?) to the traditional Abrahamic religions, because at least I can scoff at pantheism and not have to be concerned with going to hell afterward! :D

[Vkothii]

I'm kind of pantheistic. Except I don't believe there are any external deities, only externalisations.
We are (our own) deities, you see.

As for "after life", I dunno, what about "before death"? That's "life" right? "After" death, or "after" life kind of comes out meaningless.

You had a "before life" though. Not in the reincarnation of someone sense, I mean in the normal, biological sense.
You're here because of a single, unbroken genetic line that goes back through all the generations, all the individual humans that needed to live to get to you.

It goes back all the way to our predecessors, and theirs, all the way back past the mammals, the fish, right back to the first organisms that could pass on their characteristics. Right back to the very first form of life billions of years ago.

It may as well have been the time it took for the gametes that turned into you to fuse.

If you don't pass on your "self" in the only way we animals can do so, by reproducing, the whole thing will have been a biological fizzer, as far as evolution is concerned. But that is the only option available for any form of "after death or after life". You, only get before life, then before death.

[JDawg]

I've always wondered about that. People who are totally afraid of an afterlife where there is just nothingness...well, there was a long time before you existed...was that scary? No, of course not.

There may very well be some sort of consciousness we all enter when we are not alive in this forum, maybe it's not something we could fathom in this form, I don't know. I would be happy just knowing that my line has survived in my son or daughter.

[Vkothii]

That was a Freudian there with "forum", right?

You simply cannot conceive of your non-existence.
An awareness is so because of being "alive". The absence of life, is then also the absence of awareness, you'd think.
(I don't know where I get this stuff from)

[JDawg]

Nope, I meant "form". As in "Human Form".

[Simon Anders]

I'm kind of pantheistic. Except I don't believe there are any external deities, only externalisations.
We are (our own) deities, you see.Well it wouldnät be an external deity. It is an immanent one which you are a part of. Though their seem to be other versions of pantheism where there is no deity, but a universe that is divine. And then you have to spend some time defining that term.


You had a "before life" though. Not in the reincarnation of someone sense, I mean in the normal, biological sense.I donät know if that counts as a 'you'.

If you don't pass on your "self" in the only way we animals can do so, by reproducing, the whole thing will have been a biological fizzer, as far as evolution is concerned. But that is the only option available for any form of "after death or after life". You, only get before life, then before death. I think that is compatible with some forms of pantheism.

[Simon Anders]

That was a Freudian there with "forum", right?

You simply cannot conceive of your non-existence.
An awareness is so because of being "alive". The absence of life, is then also the absence of awareness, you'd think.
(I don't know where I get this stuff from)I think one can conceive one's nonexistence but it is not easy to do and the brain (or the soul or whatever) tends to shunt away from such thoughts. I think it is different from conceiving one's death, or not necessarily included in that experience.
Absence of life seems to pretty clearly include absence of awareness.

[fadingCaptain]

Simon,
If I can take you back a page or two in this thread....
"For me it is quite the opposite."
You say you see life everywhere (correct me if I am wrong). How would you describe the "life" in a rock? I ask because I have heard claims like this before (it is typically associated with new-age type spirituality). However, I have never really gotten the details, and as always the devil is in the details. So, describe the life in a rock. (I am not being facetious here, if you are wondering)

[JDawg]

I think one can conceive one's nonexistence but it is not easy to do and the brain (or the soul or whatever) tends to shunt away from such thoughts. I think it is different from conceiving one's death, or not necessarily included in that experience.
Absence of life seems to pretty clearly include absence of awareness.

That was my point. What's to be afraid of? Death is probably just like pre-life. You aren't aware of it, so there's nothing to fear.

[Simon Anders]

Simon,
If I can take you back a page or two in this thread....
"For me it is quite the opposite."
You say you see life everywhere (correct me if I am wrong). How would you describe the "life" in a rock? I ask because I have heard claims like this before (it is typically associated with new-age type spirituality). However, I have never really gotten the details, and as always the devil is in the details. So, describe the life in a rock. (I am not being facetious here, if you are wondering)
To answer a non-facetious question like this can still be pretty problematic. I want to make it clear that in answering I am not trying to convince. I do not think there is anything I could say that could (or should) convince someone who does not experience things the way I do. I need to make that very clear. There are people here, and elsewhere, who take descriptions of experience and someone's sense of things as something like the missionary practices of Christians or even the Inquisition. You know what I mean. If I say I believe this or that, then some people will take that as 'and you should believe it too' bringing their bagage from interactions with monotheists, especially Christians. As a kind of a pantheist/animist/pagan, my experience of and knowledge about monotheists leads me to be rather cranky with them also, so I have sympathy for this reaction, but it should be pretty clear to everyone that, for example, pantheist/animist/pagan groups have suffered rather badly at the hands of both monotheists and secular regimes.

Yes, I do experience life in rocks. You could call it a feeling of presence, that is specific, or individual. If you take away the verbal communication from your relationship with someone you know well, for example. In other words the discrete language based stream of information, one still can get a very specific feeling of the other person. A vibe. Whatever. I get that from animals, plants and other natural places and things. I experience the same underlying life and varying attitudes.

I realize this is vague, but then if you think of someone you love and their vibe/essential presence, this also would be hard to put into words. So to take seriously your non-facetious question I gave a non-facetious answer. It is, again, not meant to convince you.

[Enmos]

To answer a non-facetious question like this can still be pretty problematic. I want to make it clear that in answering I am not trying to convince. I do not think there is anything I could say that could (or should) convince someone who does not experience things the way I do. I need to make that very clear. There are people here, and elsewhere, who take descriptions of experience and someone's sense of things as something like the missionary practices of Christians or even the Inquisition. You know what I mean. If I say I believe this or that, then some people will take that as 'and you should believe it too' bringing their bagage from interactions with monotheists, especially Christians. As a kind of a pantheist/animist/pagan, my experience of and knowledge about monotheists leads me to be rather cranky with them also, so I have sympathy for this reaction, but it should be pretty clear to everyone that, for example, pantheist/animist/pagan groups have suffered rather badly at the hands of both monotheists and secular regimes.

Yes, I do experience life in rocks. You could call it a feeling of presence, that is specific, or individual. If you take away the verbal communication from your relationship with someone you know well, for example. In other words the discrete language based stream of information, one still can get a very specific feeling of the other person. A vibe. Whatever. I get that from animals, plants and other natural places and things. I experience the same underlying life and varying attitudes.

I realize this is vague, but then if you think of someone you love and their vibe/essential presence, this also would be hard to put into words. So to take seriously your non-facetious question I gave a non-facetious answer. It is, again, not meant to convince you.

Simon, how do you define 'life' ?

[Simon Anders]

I should have added that I am not always taking this or that as an individual. (But everything seems to be alive, especially in nature - though even certain 'human-made things have this quality to me, those that haven't had their life compressed into almost nothing.) Part of a living body, you could say.