http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantheism)
Definition of PANTHEISM
1
: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2
: the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pantheism
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Doctrine that the universe is God and, conversely, that there is no god apart from the substance, forces, and laws manifested in the universe. Pantheism characterizes many Buddhist and Hindu doctrines and can be seen in such Hindu works as the Vedas and the Bhagavadgita. Numerous Greek philosophers contributed to the foundations of Western pantheism. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the tradition was continued in Neoplatonism and Judeo-Christian mysticism. In the 17th century Benedict de Spinoza formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic philosophical system, arguing that God and Nature are merely two names for one reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've often heard by Theists that since Atheists do not believe in an immaterial world, than they must by default worship the natural, or material world, that they are pure naturalists that worship nature and only the things they can see. Now, considering Atheism is the lack of a belief in any deity(ies), I do find the worship criticism quite incorrect.
Based on the definitions provided above, I see Pantheism as something that can bridge the gap between secular and religious people. But religionists misuse the term as an attack, stating that Atheists do indeed worship something; that being themselves, and nature, and material objects.
Would any users on this forum identify themselves as Pantheists? And how do the Atheists of this forum respond back to the charges religionists make, as described above?
1) is meaningless wordsalad and 2) is superstitious nonsense, so no I don't identify with either of these.
Quote from: "frosty"And how do the Atheists of this forum respond back to the charges religionists make, as described above?
If I'm feeling patient, I respond by questioning the base assumption that one must worship anything at all.
If impatient, I simply retort that the question is like asking if teetotalers get drunk from water. (The question is incorrect in that it assumes that teetotalers get drunk)
Quote from: "frosty"---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pantheism
noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Doctrine that the universe is God and, conversely, that there is no god apart from the substance, forces, and laws manifested in the universe. Pantheism characterizes many Buddhist and Hindu doctrines and can be seen in such Hindu works as the Vedas and the Bhagavadgita. Numerous Greek philosophers contributed to the foundations of Western pantheism. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the tradition was continued in Neoplatonism and Judeo-Christian mysticism. In the 17th century Benedict de Spinoza formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic philosophical system, arguing that God and Nature are merely two names for one reality.
About pantheism, it's an interesting gewgaw - a sort of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too between otherwise diametrically opposing supernaturalism and naturalism. Or at least, that's how it appears. (I've found that at the end of the day, the cake is always either eaten or not eaten, not both)
One especially interesting thing about it - perhaps the only interesting thing - is how very little it actually diverges from atheism. Call the universe whatever you like, a peach is still sweet, water is still wet, and supernatural beings are thoroughly absent. And this idea was popularized at an age when avowed atheism was still harshly punished in the West. Very curious...
Quote from: "frosty"I've often heard by Theists that since Atheists do not believe in an immaterial world, than they must by default worship the natural, or material world
Non sequitur is the juice that keeps the vicious circle of religion alive. This is just another example of theists' disorganized thought processes.
As for pantheism, I don't see the point. Worship the universe, a tree, or a supernatural being. All three are unnecessary. Reality will continue with or without that human pastime.
It's classic projection. Some religionists can't imagine a person's not having religion or objects of worship, and so they project what they feel are necessary onto others. Often they have to torture logic to do so, calling atheism a religion and nature the object of worship. Sometimes they claim that atheists worship humans as gods, a classic misunderstanding and slander of the term humanist.
I read somewhere where a guy said that the earth is either 1/18th or 118/th the size of an atom comparatively to the universe if the universe were the size of he earth. If a person can truly grasp the significance of that, the whole idea that a god would care about who fucks who or where women should be when they have their period is absurd.
Quote from: "aitm"I read somewhere where a guy said that the earth is either 1/18th or 118/th the size of an atom comparatively to the universe if the universe were the size of he earth. If a person can truly grasp the significance of that, the whole idea that a god would care about who fucks who or where women should be when they have their period is absurd.
(//http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/aeNNq5q_700b.jpg)
Quote from: "Plu"1) is meaningless wordsalad and 2) is superstitious nonsense, so no I don't identify with either of these.
You see we can agree. I too think this is just a semantic trick of sorts and nothing more.
God isn't nature and nature isn't god. Nature is nature and god is nothing but a weak explaination used as a tool to enslave weak minds!
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "aitm"I read somewhere where a guy said that the earth is either 1/18th or 118/th the size of an atom comparatively to the universe if the universe were the size of he earth. If a person can truly grasp the significance of that, the whole idea that a god would care about who fucks who or where women should be when they have their period is absurd.
[ Image (//http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/aeNNq5q_700b.jpg) ]
That's hilarious
You may as well just call the universe the universe if that's all there is though personally I would suggest the universe requires a context that isn't the universe and wasn't itself created. I know just the thing for the job.
Quote from: "frosty"I've often heard by Theists that since Atheists do not believe in an immaterial world, than they must by default worship the natural, or material world, that they are pure naturalists that worship nature and only the things they can see. Now, considering Atheism is the lack of a belief in any deity(ies), I do find the worship criticism quite incorrect.
Of course it's incorrect. Theists can't live their lives without worshiping something. Just because not worshiping something is foreign to their experience, does not mean they have any idea of what they are talking about.
Quote from: "frosty"Based on the definitions provided above, I see Pantheism as something that can bridge the gap between secular and religious people. But religionists misuse the term as an attack, stating that Atheists do indeed worship something; that being themselves, and nature, and material objects.
Would any users on this forum identify themselves as Pantheists? And how do the Atheists of this forum respond back to the charges religionists make, as described above?
Some might, but while many pantheists might be a sort of distant kin, I wouldn't call them atheists. They believe in a god. Atheists don't. And the Christian herring about worshiping nature is just noise they invent to fill the gaps in their understanding. And no, I don't think Pantheism bridges a gap. It's just not as nutty as most religions. But there are also varying degrees of woo in Pantheism that can run on a scale from none at all to actually endowing the universe with magical qualities.
The universe would have immense magical qualities if it brought itself into existence via nothing for no reason.
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"The universe would have immense magical qualities if it brought itself into existence via nothing for no reason.
Perhaps, but we don't know what brought it into existence, so claiming that it was magic is the argument from ignorance fallacy.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Passion of Christ"The universe would have immense magical qualities if it brought itself into existence via nothing for no reason.
Perhaps, but we don't know what brought it into existence, so claiming that it was magic is the argument from ignorance fallacy.
It will have to be non-created, eternal, beyond space and time so kind of like God. All you have to do is allow it to be a purposeful force which given the complex and finely balanced nature of the universe would seem somewhat likely. You can go the hog and say that the creator of the universe loves his creatures as his children and has a relationship with them which seems likely given the universal human spiritual experience. So you have a chain of good hard logical deduction there that results in the end conclusion based on the solid foundation of evidence. This dispels all the magic from the equation leaving you with pure reason and faith.
There is no reason to believe that there ever was "nothing". Also, if there can be something that was eternal, why not just the universe itself?
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Passion of Christ"The universe would have immense magical qualities if it brought itself into existence via nothing for no reason.
Perhaps, but we don't know what brought it into existence, so claiming that it was magic is the argument from ignorance fallacy.
It will have to be non-created, eternal, beyond space and time so kind of like God. All you have to do is allow it to be a purposeful force which given the complex and finely balanced nature of the universe would seem somewhat likely. You can go the hog and say that the creator of the universe loves his creatures as his children and has a relationship with them which seems likely given the universal human spiritual experience. So you have a chain of good hard logical deduction there that results in the end conclusion based on the solid foundation of evidence.
Allowing for a purposeful force is a leap of faith. A leap of faith is something you use to fill in the gaps when you don't know. So for me, I just don't know. I would like to know. That would be nice, but I'm just a human. I don't know and can't know everything. I have to accept that.
Is the universe complex? It seems to be. Finely balanced? I don't know. It seems like a lot of chaos. The human spiritual experience might be common, but has never been universal. There have always been those who have wondered about and been in awe of the universe without assuming it's magic.
If one defines the pantheist "god" as just a synomym "nature" you might just as well drop that horrible word "God" altogether, that only serves to confuse people.
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "Passion of Christ"The universe would have immense magical qualities if it brought itself into existence via nothing for no reason.
Perhaps, but we don't know what brought it into existence, so claiming that it was magic is the argument from ignorance fallacy.
It will have to be non-created, eternal, beyond space and time so kind of like God. All you have to do is allow it to be a purposeful force which given the complex and finely balanced nature of the universe would seem somewhat likely. You can go the hog and say that the creator of the universe loves his creatures as his children and has a relationship with them which seems likely given the universal human spiritual experience. So you have a chain of good hard logical deduction there that results in the end conclusion based on the solid foundation of evidence. This dispels all the magic from the equation leaving you with pure reason and faith.
And yet I see absolutely no proof of anything you're saying here. You are merely mentioning subjective, personal, anecdotal information that is based on speculation. Peppering terms like "logical" and "pure reason" in your post doesn't make it contain such a value merely because you claim it does.
Quote from: "frosty"And yet I see absolutely no proof of anything you're saying here. You are merely mentioning subjective, personal, anecdotal information that is based on speculation. Peppering terms like "logical" and "pure reason" in your post doesn't make it contain such a value merely because you claim it does.
It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists. This way you avoid either an infinite regress or a universe that just exists for no reason without an explanation as to why it should ever have been brought into existence in the first place. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space, vast and old though it is as it didn't always exist and it wasn't always that big it had to grow and develop over time. We have good degree of factual knowledge about what happened when and how, though science won't stop making new discoveries. There things we can't ever know or have to take on faith but the existence of God is logically and scientifically sound as you can see when you apply the reasoning and it certainly fits with all of our scientific knowledge of the finely ordered physical laws.
Quote from: "Passion of Christ"Quote from: "frosty"And yet I see absolutely no proof of anything you're saying here. You are merely mentioning subjective, personal, anecdotal information that is based on speculation. Peppering terms like "logical" and "pure reason" in your post doesn't make it contain such a value merely because you claim it does.
It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists. This way you avoid either an infinite regress or a universe that just exists for no reason without an explanation as to why it should ever have been brought into existence in the first place. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space, vast and old though it is as it didn't always exist and it wasn't always that big it had to grow and develop over time. We have good degree of factual knowledge about what happened when and how, though science won't stop making new discoveries. There things we can't ever know or have to take on faith but the existence of God is logically and scientifically sound as you can see when you apply the reasoning and it certainly fits with all of our scientific knowledge of the finely ordered physical laws.
Nah.
Once again, everything you are saying is anecdotal, subjective speculation and conjecture. I need some actual data to be convinced of what you are saying. So far literally everything you have posted in this topic and on this entire forum is just your own
subjective opinion. You have a good stream of words, but you don't get to dictate reality, and nobody who thinks independently will listen to anything you say unless you provide some type of data citation for your claims.
Try again, thumper.
Pantheism is fucking retarded. Pantheists are morons.
Quote from: frosty on March 10, 2014, 09:03:33 PM
It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists. This way you avoid either an infinite regress or a universe that just exists for no reason without an explanation as to why it should ever have been brought into existence in the first place. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space, vast and old though it is as it didn't always exist and it wasn't always that big it had to grow and develop over time. We have good degree of factual knowledge about what happened when and how, though science won't stop making new discoveries. There things we can't ever know or have to take on faith but the existence of God is logically and scientifically sound as you can see when you apply the reasoning and it certainly fits with all of our scientific knowledge of the finely ordered physical laws.
Nah.
Once again, everything you are saying is anecdotal, subjective speculation and conjecture. I need some actual data to be convinced of what you are saying. So far literally everything you have posted in this topic and on this entire forum is just your own subjective opinion. You have a good stream of words, but you don't get to dictate reality, and nobody who thinks independently will listen to anything you say unless you provide some type of data citation for your claims.
Try again, thumper.
He can't provide any evidence, it's just his versin of Craig's Kalam argument and his so-called "logic". It's garbage in, garbage out any way You see it. No point waiting for evidence.
"It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest rang the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists"
You're right, and as far as we know this universe started with the Big Bang.
Oh? I'm wrong you say? It all started with god? Okay, so if everything has a starting point, what's the starting point of god? Oh? God doesn't have one. Well that's a rather convenient, but illogical and unsupported assertion. If god doesn't have a starting point why must matter or energy? Oops!
Here's what I think is possible. The creation of this universe required god to convert itself to matter and energy. So the creation of the universe was a supernatural act that ended god. So god no longer exists. You can't prove I'm wrong.
Quote from: rex on April 26, 2014, 04:32:57 AM
Pantheism is fucking retarded. Pantheists are morons.
You seem to be quite a negative little boy. I made this thread to discuss Pantheism, not call Pantheists morons. Please go crawl into a hole or something.
Worshipping/revering the natural universe, Nature, "reality", as it really is, does seem quite a rational stance. Albert Einstein wrote about the "cosmic religious feeling", which has nothing to do with a personal God.
Problems come when, as has been mentioned, the universe is viewed to have magical properties and/or moral properties in the absence of evidence. Then it becomes just another false deity.
There is a difference between naturalistic forms of pantheism and more superstitious ones. Philosophically though, the naturalist ones are not really that distinct from atheism.
Spinoza used "God" as a synonym of "Nature". That got him kicked out of the Jewish community for heresy. It's easy to see why this stance is antagonistic to belief in Yahweh. Spinoza may have been God-intoxicated but it wasn't with a religious deity, more with reverence for the natural order. There is no need to buy into Spinoza's antiquated views on metaphysics either to accept this point.
Then again, the term "God" carries a lot of baggage so may be best discarded. Even so, the distinction between the most naturalistic forms of pantheism, and full-blown atheism, is more a matter of semantics than anything else.
Quote from: Passion of Christ on March 08, 2014, 03:19:19 PM
1. It's very reasonable to conclude that everything that exists anywhere must have an ultimate starting point and it would be sensible to suggest that the ultimate starting point is the same thing for everything that exists.
2. So this fits with logic and what we understand of the universe scientifically. The universe as a finite physical construction matter/energy time and space,
"It is very reasonable" is still an assumption. Lacking any specific evidence to the contrary, the conclusions of scientific inquiry are still more valid because they are based on a process of observation/testing that faith does not apply. I will go with what can be shown as observable and testable over assumption every time.
No it doesn't. The universe as a single entity does not denote either a single cause or multiple causes, multiple universes or anything else by and of itself. We cannot A Priori determine the universe's origin nor specify a cause without further evidence that can demonstrate either or both.
Good points! The universe is a creation of our minds from information through our senses from reality that we only know as information. When we watch a movie or TV we create what we see from information, same with virtual reality systems. We are the creators, and the universe is just information that different events happen in, with no beginning or end. When we die, our information joins the universe, just like it was before we were born. :eek: Deal with it! Solitary
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 27, 2013, 03:30:18 AM
If I'm feeling patient, I respond by questioning the base assumption that one must worship anything at all.
I've met theists that don't worship God, not that I can see. They just seem to be walking around, not going to church, and not praying. Supposedly, they worship god "in their own way", or so I've been told. But WTF does that mean? The notion that someone has to "worship" something or "believe" in something doesn't seem to be based on anything logical. It's just another popular theist pontification made without much actual thought.
Quote from: SGOS on November 16, 2014, 05:54:56 AM
I've met theists that don't worship God, not that I can see. They just seem to be walking around, not going to church, and not praying. Supposedly, they worship god "in their own way", or so I've been told. But WTF does that mean? The notion that someone has to "worship" something or "believe" in something doesn't seem to be based on anything logical. It's just another popular theist pontification made without much actual thought.
And the number of people in that category is growing. It is also a number that is hard to measure statistically. If you go door to door and survey these types they would probably identify as Christian and even wear the Roman torture device jewelry, but in any active way they aren't really Christians, at best agnostics. I have maintained on here for awhile that the actual number of agnostics is much higher than given. I know from my own experience that church rolls are padded with numbers of non attendees to make it look like there are more members than the ones that actually contribute. That is especially true in Mormonism.
Quote from: frosty on December 27, 2013, 03:06:20 AM
I've often heard by Theists that since Atheists do not believe in an immaterial world, than they must by default worship the natural, or material world, that they are pure naturalists that worship nature and only the things they can see.
Psh. I am an ontological materialist. That means that I accept that immaterial things can exist, but are the byproducts of the material, and do not exist independent of the material.
It's just another form of theism
No it isn't Ace! You are missing the point of evidence by stressing factors that may support a conclusion other than the one proposed.
Pantheism is derived from the Greek πᾶν pan (meaning "all") and θεόÏ, theos (meaning "God" if used as a noun, or "divine" if used as an adjective). There are a variety of definitions of pantheism.
As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism. From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.
Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totally of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God).Because of this, some pantheist groups avoid usage of the word 'God' for its association with a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god, and use other words like 'universe' or 'nature'. The universe and nature are objectively real, so can't be transcendent, or imaginary, like a god or God. Solitary
Hinduism
Main article: Hindu views on Pantheism
Hindu religious texts are the oldest known literature containing pantheistic concepts. The Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism teaches that the Atman (true self; human soul) is indistinct from Brahman (the unknown reality of everything).
The branches of Hinduism teaching forms of pantheism are known as non-dualist schools.All MahÄvÄkyas (Great Sayings) of the Upanishads, in one way or another, seem
Taoism
In the tradition of its leading thinkers Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi, Taoism is comparable with pantheism, as the Tao is always spoken of with profound religious reverence and respect, similar to the way that pantheism discusses the "God" that is everything. The Tao te Ching never speaks of a transcendent God, but of a mysterious and numinous ground of being underlying all things. Zhuangzi emphasized the pantheistic content of Taoism even more clearly: "Heaven and I were created together, and all things and I are one." When Tung Kuo Tzu asked Zhuangzi where the Tao was, he replied that it was in the ant, the grass, the clay tile, even in excrement: "There is nowhere where it is not… There is not a single thing without Tao."
Albert Einstein is considered to be a pantheist by some commentators.
In 2008, one of Albert Einstein's letters, written in 1954 in German, in which he dismissed belief in a personal God, was sold at auction for more than US$330,000. Einstein wrote, "We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul ["Beseeltheit"] as it reveals itself in man and animal," in a letter to Eduard Büsching (25 October 1929) after Büsching sent Einstein a copy of his book Es gibt keinen Gott. Einstein responded that the book only dealt with the concept of a personal God and not the impersonal God of pantheism. "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly," he wrote in another letter in 1954.
Pantheism is mentioned in a Papal encyclical in 2009 and a statement on New Year's Day in 2010, criticizing pantheism for denying the superiority of humans over nature and "seeing the source of man '​s salvation in nature". In a review of the 2009 film Avatar, Ross Douthat, an author, described pantheism as "Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now".
In 2011, a letter written in 1886 by William Herndon, Abraham Lincoln's law partner, was sold at auction for US$30,000. In it, Herndon writes of the U.S. President's evolving religious views, which included pantheism.
"Mr. Lincoln’s religion is too well known to me to allow of even a shadow of a doubt; he is or was a Theist and a Rationalist, denying all extraordinary â€" supernatural inspiration or revelation. At one time in his life, to say the least, he was an elevated Pantheist, doubting the immortality of the soul as the Christian world understands that term. He believed that the soul lost its identity and was immortal as a force. Subsequent to this he rose to the belief of a God, and this is all the change he ever underwent."