Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it were admitted, for the sake of argument , that we can define the term God so as to make the physical universe God to us , so what? How will anyone's life who makes this admission be changed in the slightest ? How would admitting that the physical universe is the source of our physical existence make the slightest difference to an agnostic or atheist ? They already admit this , they just don't term it God or use other theistic terms . So now what? What has been changed by an agnostic agreeing to use a term that simply defines what he already believes in theistic language ?
Atheism will always exist, despite the absurd pronouncements of rendering it null and void by certain posters here, because belief in the supernatural gods will exist for some, and so by definition disbelief in any supernatural gods will also exist , which is atheism .
So at the end of the day, what is the point in 1000 post threads arguing the existence or redefinition of any sort of God when the type of God being argued for is simply an insistence on the use of a theistic term for what atheists already believe about their own existence , i.e. , that it stems from the existence of the physical universe ?
Of what use , point, value, etc , is this line of pantheist argument ?
Last edited by wallflash; 05-21-2016 at 08:23 AM..
... what would it matter in substance? If it were admitted, for the sake of argument , that we can define the term God so as to make the physical universe God to us , so what? How will anyone's life who makes this admission be changed in the slightest ?
The word religion comes from the Latin root religare, to bind together. It evolved into a meaning, to bind people together in reverence. Reverence is the act of acknowledging something of ultimate value other than one's own personal interest.
One of the most common sources of conflict in humanity stems from different perceptions of what God is to us, only one of which defines God as something that the existence of which is something that no one denies. All the rest of the definitions rely on belief in something explicitly supernatural, with no reason (literally) to believe it other than personal preference, personal aggrandizement, and personal advantage.
Pantheism breaks down one more of the thousands of walls between people. It opens the door for those who revere the natural and real to derive the most critical benefit of religare that those who revere the supernatural and fantastical currently derive: Community within covenant grounded in reverence, which is demonstrably stronger than community grounded solely in community.
(Don't get me wrong: A cadre are unusually close friends can offer the same benefits, at least for certain periods of time. [Seinfeld is a perfect example of a small but strong community, essentially devoid of reverence.] However, community within covenant grounded in reverence capitalizes on how our society is hardwired. That, combined with some of the trappings of organized religion are attributable for the long-lasting nature of religious communities, as compared to ad hoc, otherwise un-tethered communities.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Atheism will always exist, despite the absurd pronouncements of rendering it null and void by certain posters here, because belief in the supernatural gods will exist for some, and so by definition disbelief in any supernatural gods will also exist , which is atheism .
You've already acknowledged that pantheism = physical universe. So either you're saying that pantheism is a form of atheism (which would be wrong), or your claim equating atheism with disbelief in any supernatural gods is inaccurate in some way. The later is the case: Atheism is disbelief in any notion of god, natural or supernatural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
So at the end of the day, what is the point in 1000 post threads arguing the existence or redefinition of any sort of God when the type of God being argued for is simply an insistence on the use of a theistic term for what atheists already believe about their own existence , i.e. , that it stems from the existence of the physical universe ?
That's a good question. I would guess that may stem in part from when people are attempting to discuss spirituality based on a more pan(en)theistic view and when atheists chime in it seems they almost inevitably resort to the same old arguments which are based on the tenets of the more fundamentalist views of the Abrahamic religions. Maybe, then, it's simply a desire to not see every discussion devolve into that?
Pantheism is the belief that all of reality is identical with divinity.
Panentheism is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and time.
Therefore, pantheism holds that God is defined as the physical universe, while panentheism has a place for the divine having its own conception beyond the physical universe. The point of panentheism is that God (which, in the case of panentheism, would still need to be defined elsewhere, and can therefore rely on claims about the supernatural) happens to be resident everywhere. So panentheism is not really what the OP is about, afaic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
That's a good question. I would guess that may stem in part from when people are attempting to discuss spirituality based on a more pan(en)theistic view and when atheists chime in it seems they almost inevitably resort to the same old arguments which are based on the tenents of the more fundamentalist views of the Abrahamic religions. Maybe, then, it's simply a desire to not see every discussion devolve into that? Just a guess.
Fundamentalist atheism hinges on attacking theism of all sorts based on the refutable aspects of the Abrahamic religions - it relies on the fallacy of guilt by association.
That definition, much like every other definition I have read on this forum, makes it sound like this "pantheism" is nothing more than taking things we already have words for..... reality, universe, everything and so forth..... and merely calling them divinity or god.
But in terms of any actual content I am seeing nothing. All of everything remains all of everything, regardless of whether you call it "universe" "everything" "god" or "spudnikky-dikky-wab-wub".
Pantheism is the belief that all of reality is identical with divinity.
Panentheism is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and time.
Therefore, panentheism has a place for the divine having its own conception beyond the universe. That conception of God simply inhabits everywhere, in the panentheistic perspective. So panentheism is not really what the OP is about, afaic.
I understand the difference, but I don't think pantheists are the only ones seeking a bit more common ground.
That definition, much like every other definition I have read on this forum, makes it sound like this "pantheism" is nothing more than taking things we already have words for..... reality, universe, everything and so forth..... and merely calling them divinity or god.
So what you're saying is that the difference is reverence.
Reverence versus no reverence.
So why would you use the words "nothing more than" with regard to such a dichotomy?!?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
But in terms of any actual content I am seeing nothing.
That's clear. I'm working on that as much as I can. Be patient; I am.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
I understand the difference, but I don't think pantheists are the only ones seeking a bit more common ground.
No question, but to be honest I cannot put my finger on any regular poster here who is a panentheist and not a pantheist. Perhaps you can point a few out?
No question, but to be honest I cannot put my finger on any regular poster here who is a panentheist. Perhaps you can point a few out?
I wouldn't presume to speak definitively for any specific poster, but there are quite a few I suspect. I would consider myself to be leaning in that direction for a working hypothesis*.
*Using that term in the loosest, most personal way; I am not a scientist.
If it were admitted, for the sake of argument , that we can define the term God so as to make the physical universe God to us , so what? How will anyone's life who makes this admission be changed in the slightest ? How would admitting that the physical universe is the source of our physical existence make the slightest difference to an agnostic or atheist ? They already admit this , they just don't term it God or use other theistic terms . So now what? What has been changed by an agnostic agreeing to use a term that simply defines what he already believes in theistic language ?
Atheism will always exist, despite the absurd pronouncements of rendering it null and void by certain posters here, because belief in the supernatural gods will exist for some, and so by definition disbelief in any supernatural gods will also exist , which is atheism .
So at the end of the day, what is the point in 1000 post threads arguing the existence or redefinition of any sort of God when the type of God being argued for is simply an insistence on the use of a theistic term for what atheists already believe about their own existence , i.e. , that it stems from the existence of the physical universe ?
Of what use , point, value, etc , is this line of pantheist argument ?
First...bUU is doing great here. Really good. I wish I could explain as well.
What "use" does it have?
Well, for me, it does a great job filling in the lag time during my work as I sit there at the PC waiting for a response, to give info and/or opinion, or perform another required task.
Just like the Atheists that obviously get off on twisting up the Religious for their nonverifiable beliefs (as demonstrated by the tens of thousands of posts over the course of years doing it)...I dig pointing out the objective existence of the GOD that I perceive, that is irrefutable.
This thus renders Atheism null and void...and the debates with the Atheists on this fact are very interesting to me. Though...it has not been quite as interesting lately...for a variety of reasons.
I wouldn't presume to speak definitively for any specific poster, but there are quite a few I suspect. I would consider myself to be leaning in that direction for a working hypothesis*.
*Using that term in the loosest, most personal way; I am not a scientist.
If you could refer me to any specific threads where panentheistic views were shared, that would be great.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
