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 ?
I don't suppose it actually matters to the life of the average person. It matters to me, because this pan(en)theism is how I define my personal relationship with God.
Pantheism (but not panentheism, which also accepts a person of God rather than impersonal force, like universe) is completely compatible with atheism.
I don't suppose it actually matters to the life of the average person. It matters to me, because this pan(en)theism is how I define my personal relationship with God.
Pantheism (but not panentheism, which also accepts a person of God rather than impersonal force, like universe) is completely compatible with atheism.
I'm interested and don't disagree. After all agnosticism even crediting some sorta cosmic mind is not incompatible with atheism in co -existence, just we can get along with irreligious theists.
Just how far along the scale from reverence for nature to regarding nature as a deity with a mind of its own would you say Pantheism is? Or can one select their own degree of Gaea (why not a goddess, hey?) to personal taste?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-28-2016 at 11:24 AM..
Reason: cancel a parenthis...save a cent.
If you're a theist, pantheist, deist, or the like, your belief sets are largely up to you. Unlike organized movements like Christianity or Judaism, there is no outside priests telling you what to think. So, how far? Completely up to you.
If you're a theist, pantheist, deist, or the like, your belief sets are largely up to you. Unlike organized movements like Christianity or Judaism, there is no outside priests telling you what to think. So, how far? Completely up to you.
lmao, said this at least ten times. I wonder how they will respond.
how does admitting that dark matter does exists affect your life?
lmao, said this at least ten times. I wonder how they will respond.
how does admitting that dark matter does exists affect your life?
They will respond as they did every other time. What a pantheist wishes to believe is totally up to them. What the discussion here has centered on is some pantheists trying to insist agnostics must admit the pantheists beliefs are correct and atheism is rendered null and void . I really don't know why you are having such a hard time with this concept, as one pantheist has repeatedly , albeit mistakenly , bragged how his belief in pantheism destroys atheism , which you could easily read and process if you so wished and had that ability .
So, is your issue here a language barrier problem , a reading comprehension problem , or simply a problem of biased reading ?
Last edited by wallflash; 05-28-2016 at 02:39 PM..
as we said 1000's time: nobody should be forcing a belief on anybody. we have been telling you that "fundy mentals" are the people that try and force a belief on others. thats what we have been saying.
again:
If a pantheist says "for them" atheism is null and void, that is on that person. Pantheist shouldn't force a belief on others. I am not so sure why you are so confused. Atheist that force a belief of "no god" on people are as bad as agnostics forcing an opinion on others.
Mystic and G said atheism is meaningless when they look at observations that support "something" over nothing for them. Why can't they claim that?
let me ask you this:
Why shouldn't I force "The ort cloud" on my brother if he said "no, I don't believe you, you are just making it up?"
as we said 1000's time: nobody should be forcing a belief on anybody. we have been telling you that "fundy mentals" are the people that try and force a belief on others. thats what we have been saying.
again:
If a pantheist says "for them" atheism is null and void, that is on that person. Pantheist shouldn't force a belief on others. I am not so sure why you are so confused. Atheist that force a belief of "no god" on people are as bad as agnostics forcing an opinion on others.
Mystic and G said atheism is meaningless when they look at observations that support "something" over nothing for them. Why can't they claim that?
let me ask you this:
Why shouldn't I force "The ort cloud" on my brother if he said "no, I don't believe you, you are just making it up?"
They are certainly welcome to claim that for themselves . Not one person has stated that they cannot . They both, on the other hand, have argued that THEIR belief in pantheism renders atheism null and void for EVERYONE .
So again, for the 11th time, what part of this so so hard for you to process ? Why do you post as if the atheists are insisting mystic and GR cannot be allowed to believe in pantheism , when nothing of the sort has been said ? Why can you not understand from reading the posts by the pantheists that they are insisting that no one should be an atheist because THEIR belief in pantheism renders atheism null and void ?
You seem to honestly not get this , so I guess we can rule out biased reading , leaving either a language barrier problem or reading comprehension as the issue here for you .
They will respond as they did every other time. What a pantheist wishes to believe is totally up to them. What the discussion here was about was pantheists trying to insist agnostics admit the pantheists beliefs are correct and atheism is rendered null and void . I really don't know why you are having such a hard time with this concept, as one pantheist has repeatedly bragged how his belief in pantheism destroys atheism , which you could easily read and process if you so wished and have that ability .
Is it a language barrier problem or a problem of biased reading ?
YOU were the one that proposed the hypothetical of everyone admiitting the Pantheist concept that "GOD = ALL" as valid.
Of course...one way it would "matter" is that the Atheist Concept, that is predicated and contingent upon no God(s) existing, would necessarily be nullified by that. Your claim it doesn't is illogical and bogus.
If a concept is dependent upon the nonexistence of some entity...objective evidence of the existence of that entity would effectively void that concept. That is just common-sense.
YOU proposed what you proposed (to accept ALL as GOD) in your OP...and asked, "So what?", "What difference does it make?", ""What does it change?", etc.
So...I hipped you to what it changed. But, you don't like that...so you get all twisted up over it...and you go off on anyone that tries to get you to understand where your reasoning is messed up.
You propose a scenario, and ask questions about it...then get mentally irregular over answers that don't suit your biased mindset!
But, please...don't stop with the "Acme Logic"...it's great entertainment! MEE MEEP!!
Oh..."For me!".
They are certainly welcome to claim that for themselves . Not one person has stated that they cannot . They both, on the other hand, have argued that THEIR belief in pantheism renders atheism null and void for EVERYONE .
So again, for the 11th time, what part of this so so hard for you to process ? Why do you post as if the atheists are insisting mystic and GR cannot be allowed to believe in pantheism , when nothing of the sort has been said ? Why can you not understand from reading the posts by the pantheists that they are insisting that no one should be an atheist because THEIR belief in pantheism renders atheism null and void ?
You seem to honestly not get this , so I guess we can rule out biased reading , leaving either a language barrier problem or reading comprehension as the issue here for you .
fine, you are allowed to believe what you want.
Lets play your little game again and see how fast we reach your limit of understanding.
Why shouldn't I force my belief on the ort cloud on my brother who says he doesn't believe me?
Lets play your little game again and see how fast we reach your limit of understanding.
Why shouldn't I force my belief on the ort cloud on my brother who says he doesn't believe me?
Oh, man! AA has fired up the steamroller again!
I can't wait for this!
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.
