Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by darryl, Apr 24, 2012.
High-class atheism, with a hook ''we look after the universe because we are pantheists.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Don't underestimate the implict impact that religious morality has had on your own morality and how religious morality is vowen into your own morality.
And there isn't really such a thing as "humans without religion."
But in terms of interpersonal communication between (self-declared) theists and non-theists, it comes down to theists, quite selfishly, demanding to have the upper hand.
In an interaction with a theist, one encounters the mentality that things have to be the theist's way, or it's the highway.
I can discuss metaphysics but what do you have in mind? The problem is we go down this road then perhaps most of the users here will not understand what is being said, I have studied metaphysics so I have picked up some bit n bobs of what it is about over the years. If users want to know what pantheism really is, then I suggest reading this article:
Agreed. I used to be guilty of referring to the universe as "god". But I found that it just confused people. There's a lot of baggage attached to the word "god".
Here is a chart I have done:
As you can see, pantheism wins.
Do you think miracles and revealed truth exists through "understanding" nature?
We are part of nature; what makes any of our thoughts "anti-rational"?
According to your own personal benchmarks.
I think you have a very poor understanding of...well, all of those concepts.
Perhaps we'd have more luck with your brother, Darryl, or your other brother, Darryl.
Don't get me wrong, I'm about as close to pantheist as they come... But how can pantheism explain my favorite color, or which flavor of ice cream I like, or what I find attractive?
Beauty is obviously subjective.
That is your personal opinion and the only reason you say that is becuase you do not like or understand pantheism. Of course coming to an online forum people are going to express their personal opinions I am open for that being a pantheist... it is expected to get an reaction from the atheists and theists who may not like the idea, but just becuase you do not like something, no need to resort to a personal level. My chart was compiled from scholars in the field who have written on pantheism. For example see the book Infinite minds: a philosophical cosmology by John Leslie or for example Spinoza, practical philosophy by Gilles Deleuze. Just becuase you may happen to reject pantheism does not make me have a "very poor understanding" of the subject at hand. I doubt you have ever read a book on pantheism.
You lost me on this? You on drugs?
In what way does it "win"?
Is the objective merely to explain things with unfalsifiable claims?
Is the idea to pick one's beliefs based not on what the tenets of the claim are but on what they claim to explain, regardless of whether those claims are unfalsifiable or not?
If so then the FSM explains everything as well, so I trust you'll be converting to Pastafarianism?
It wins according to what the chart says, it solves the problems of atheism and theism. Once again the chart is what pantheism says according to writers on the subject. If you read "ethics" by Spinoza you will see the similarities.
I understand this is a science forum and you are probably very into scientism, but this is a philosophy thread. Cheers.
No, it doesn't "solve" anything, unless you're someone who merely accepts all unfalsifiable claims as true.
In which case Pastafarianism is still looking for recruits.
Your argument here is akin to marking a test paper by the number of answers submitted rather than actually looking at detail.
I'm not disputing that it makes claims that address those areas... I'm calling you out on your attempt to make it seem a favourable view to hold based seemingly solely on the number of answers submitted, rather than whether those answers are either meaningful or... dare I say it... true.
"Johnny attempted more questions than Peter... ergo Johnny wins."
If the task was to attempt questions, then sure - Johnny wins.
If the task is to answer those questions truthfully, however...?
If you wish to start debating the person rather than the arguments then you will get short shrift in this forum.
And I guess the irony is lost on you that you suggest that because I may have a certain philosophical persuasion that my arguments in a philosophy thread are thus less valid.
And I also guess you missed that "Comparative Religion" (where this thread is currently located) is in the SCIENCE section rather than the Religion subforum of the Philosophy section?
So far you have stated that the reason to be a pantheist is first because it "makes sense to you", and then because it attempts to answer more questions than theism or atheism... and thus "wins".
Even if those answers are unfalsifiable.
You claim to understand pantheism yet miss the point that many consider it atheistic... or perhaps it is that you don't understand atheism?
As an atheist, does it make more sense to me than a theistic view? Sure.
But as a non-pantheistic atheist, does it make more sense than saying "I don't know"? No. If it did then I would undoubtedly be a pantheist.
Ultimately the reason to be anything, once one has thought about it, is because it makes sense to them.
There is no right or wrong, no "win" or lose, when the matter is wholly unfalsifiable.
There is just what works for the individual.
Can you explain to me what is unfalsifiable on the list? You may be right, I just want to see which ones are or not.
Fair play but I would like to know your spin on these questions according to what you believe atheism says on these matters:
Answer with yes or no:
1. Can it explian existence
2. Can it explain evil
3. Can it explain beauty
4. Does it contradict science
5. Can it explain poor design
6. Compatible with purpose
7. Compatible with life after death
Users on this thread have never explored or educated themselves on what pantheism is or what it is actually saying. If they read Bruno, Spinoza or someone like John Leslie they would realise it is not a form of atheism.
Back in the day theists were very quick to criticise pantheism and call it a form of atheism, but this is becuase 1. they did not understand it and 2. atheism meant simply the non belief in a personal God. If you are using number 2. Then yes perhaps some critics may call pantheism a form of atheism, but not ultimately becuase reading over what pantheism actually involves... the universe (nature) is divine according to pantheism that does not fit into with the atheistic view. The problem is, is that in the WEST the majority of people have been programmed since birth and either sub-consciously brainwashed by Christian (monotheistic) religion, these people seem to want to personalize everything they seem to think that if you reject a personal God, then you are automatically an atheist.
If this thread is to move on, then I suggest the atheists answer the above questions and explain why atheism explains more over the others.
Very true, my mistake for putting it in the wrong section. Religion/philosophy is not science I am not quite sure why comparing religions is even in the science section.
It is not the questions that are unfalsifiable - but the explanations given.
So you provide the explanation that pantheism gives for each... and we'll take it from there, okay.
Atheism in and of itself says nothing on any of them.
Atheism is merely a stance with regard one's belief in the existence or otherwise of God.
It is not a question of whether one view or other is able to formulate answers, but whether those answers are correct/true etc, or merely whether they seem reasonable/acceptable to someone. In which case there is no "right or wrong", no "winner or loser" - just a better fit for the individual.
You seriously think that (no one has ever explored pantheism, or read Spinoza etc)?
It is also questionable whether Spinoza was a pantheist or actually a panentheist.
As for whether it is atheistic or not, while some philosophers would say it is not, others disagree. As you say, it does depend on what one's view of atheism is.
The term atheism is a Western word, deriving from Greek, so it is not surprising it is interepreted with regard the Western view of theism, that being what it is counter to.
Further many hold the view that if something is not theistic then it is atheistic... that there is no middle ground (at least for those that have considered the matter). And many hold pantheism as non-theistic... thus by default atheistic.
But there is no black and white here.
It doesn't in and of itself.
But as said previously, to judge a philosophy (or lack of) by the number of questions answered without looking at the content of those answers is, in my opinion, grossly flawed.
I'm sure the FSM answers them all, so why choose pantheism over pastafarianism?
If you are someone who believes in an unfalsifiable afterlife, believes in an unfalsifiable "purpose", and accepts unfalsifiable claims regarding creation, design etc - but don't believe in a personal deity - then sure, pantheism fits the bill.
Per the Posting guidelines for Comparative Religion forum: "Comparative Religion is different from Religion forum.
This forum is designed for more scientific approach to the religion, or in other words ‘more rational than emotional’ approach."
So basically atheists are retardly intelligent. They take a word made by man and realize that it lies in the imagination... Does is not also have a connection to the physical world? Could an atheist not consider the universe, the earth, or an atom God or part of what the rest of the world believes to have a connection with such a powerful word? No, they can't. The word has a strict definition by man and does not vary in the slightest. Unless you talk to a pantheist who believes that word to be not only the greatest source of understanding but also the greatest source of misunderstanding. It is the greatest source of understanding because it provides an absolute example of a persons overall personality just by hearing another's thoughts on the subject. It is the shallowest start to seeing deeply into a person, yet we often begin with other conversations in feeble attempts to guess an individuals "religion". Shallow souls who feel they understand someone because they can inadvertently identify their personality through religion without knowing the experiences that lead to the thought.
To truly know someone all you have to accept is their feelings on words as a whole. From there you just choose words they dislike and provide examples using the word for what they like. To know yourself is a much more difficult task which requires actively following and understanding not only your emotions but the effects your words bring to the people around you. This isn't necessarily being nice to everyone, it's being able to choose a reason to treat a person a specific way. How you treat most people around you says the most about you own personality. And there are ways to change a person's personality if you understand the experiences that lead them to act in a negative fashion. Maybe not to the world but at the very least to yourself.
To know yourself you have to acknowledge a contrast in someone else and resolve it in your own accord. If resolutions fail you have not only failed to understand another, but also yourself.
This is where pantheists exceed and avoid solipsism. Beyond the contrast between the two definitions of corse.
If you want to call the universe a God, I don't have a problem with it. It doesn't explain anything, but if it gives you a feeling of connectedness, go for it. I think it would be like Taoism in this respect.
They can do all those things, but then question why the use of the term "God" that would be utterly superfluous?
If, as darryl states, pantheism is not atheistic, then there must be more to pantheism than merely equating the universe to God.
If it is merely equating, then as Coleridge and others argue: why bother with the term God at all? What does it offer that other words can't?
Yes, what does it mean that the universe is a God? Is there a brain anywhere? Taoism avoids this question by suggesting not an active thing, but a passive process that grows out of it's own nature.
Separate names with a comma.