Freedomain Radio

What are your thoughts on panthiesm?  If there is one thing that you can call god or devine then it is reality its self.

 Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god.

Where as pantheism goes beyond that. By being a pantheist you reject any mystical beliefs.  Pantheism by definition is the the opposite of mysticism, because even if there is something "beyond" reality the pantheist wouldn't find value in it.

Its kind of splitting hairs and the quote has been made that "pantheism is just sexed up atheism".  But maybe by calling your self a pantheist you are making a more powerful statement.

 I can also see how it could possibly do more damage by kind of endorsing the idea of god. 

What say you?
 

Remember119104:

Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god.

Actually, it's the knowledge that there are no gods - or rather, an acceptance of reality that there are no gods.

I don't know anything about pantheism, but knowing that there are no gods would seem to preclude it as a valid position... 

Stef, your logical arguments against god mainly deal with certain gods and how they are self-contradictory (i.e. omnipotent). But you wouldn't argue that a God that is very powerful and very knowledgeable DEFINITELY does not exist, would you? If not, then you do not KNOW that there are no gods.

Of course, I may be wrong. For example, the definition of any god could be being omnipotent. But I don't think desitic gods are said to be omnipotent.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm just completely ignoring your argument about the defintion of "existing" is, in which case clearly no desitic or theistic god meets the critera.

[youtube:DB4vi6gRM70]

afruff23:

Stef, your logical arguments against god mainly deal with certain gods and how they are self-contradictory (i.e. omnipotent). But you wouldn't argue that a God that is very powerful and very knowledgeable DEFINITELY does not exist, would you? If not, then you do not KNOW that there are no gods.

Of course, I may be wrong. For example, the definition of any god could be being omnipotent. But I don't think desitic gods are said to be omnipotent.

EDIT: Or maybe I'm just completely ignoring your argument about the defintion of "existing" is, in which case clearly no desitic or theistic god meets the critera.

Life without material form or without matter and energy is also a contradiction.  It's like saying there is a tree without any characteristics of a tree like bark, limbs, leaves, wood, or plant cells.

believers in "that which does not exist does exist" get so confused by truths and falsehoods. the beaten wife who stays "loyal" to her husband thinks she remaining "loyal" to god and morality. she keeps the "faith" in goodness...AWE, what a sick bitch.

ashe:

AWE, what a sick bitch.

I agreed with everything else you said but I felt a bit shocked and anxious when you said this, what did you mean? What is "AWE"? 

Remember119104:

What are your thoughts on panthiesm?  If there is one thing that you can call god or devine then it is reality its self.

 Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god.

It is a lack of belief, the default position prior to indoctrination and/or rejection of reality.

 

Where as pantheism goes beyond that. By being a pantheist you reject any mystical beliefs.  Pantheism by definition is the the opposite of mysticism, because even if there is something "beyond" reality the pantheist wouldn't find value in it.

Beyond?  No, pantheism is a cop-out for someone who isn't quite willing to let go of the mysticism, but who is also marginally reasonable enough to realize the major religions are nonsense.  That said, there are two main breeds of pantheist: the one who believes consciousness precedes matter and/or that everything is god, and the one who merely redefines reality as god.  The latter is a rather confusing position, since "reality" seems a much more straightforward and descriptive term.

But maybe by calling your self a pantheist you are making a more powerful statement.

All most pantheists and mystical agnostics get from me is an eye-roll.  If that reaction defines a "powerful statement," then I suppose I'll grant you that. 

agreed, perhaps I should be more careful with my definitions

To explain pantheism more to those who aren't sure what it means the greek roots of the words mean "all is god".  But once you put the word into cultural context perhaps a better definition is "nature is god" or "reality is god".

as you can see the concept of the god that the atheist opposes and the "god" that the pantheist endorses are two very different things.  So pantheism and atheism are not contradictory terms though if you break down their greek roots it may seem that way.

Perhaps worshiping reality means giving tribute to sagebush or some other kind of nonsense.  But I think I better way to "worship" reality is through science, philosophy and living in harmony with reality.

Perhaps this is just sexing up atheism but I know it helped me come to terms with secular ethics.  Because for me the only reason I still believed in god (at least for a period in my life) is that I didn't think that morality was possible with out a supernatural being.  Pantheism helped me make the transition from "right and wrong is the product of mans relationship with something beyond reality" To "right and wrong is the product of mans relationship with reality its self."

And really by definition isn't pantheism the opposite of mysticism?  The real issue that we face isn't just the concept of a God(s), but mysticism as a whole. Its all of the beliefs that worship something beyond reality.  And this is exactly what pantheism opposes directly, where as atheism only opposes the concept of God (as a being).

Just something to think about... I can also see how people would think that pantheism is just a confusing and sexed up title.

I am very curious to see what the FDR community has to think. 

Beyond?  No, pantheism is a cop-out for someone who isn't quite willing to let go of the mysticism, but who is also marginally reasonable enough to realize the major religions are nonsense.  That said, there are two main breeds of pantheist: the one who believes consciousness precedes matter and/or that everything is god, and the one who merely redefines reality as god.  The latter is a rather confusing position, since "reality" seems a much more straightforward and descriptive term.

 

Pantheism by definition is the opposite of mysticism.  But perhaps that not how it is used.

Perhaps it is just a sexed up atheism, but in any case I am sure you have read my above post and we can talk about this some more.
 

This is the definition of Pantheism I found and was my understanding of it:

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

Remember119104:

Pantheism by definition is the opposite of mysticism. 

"Pantheism is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism)
 

But perhaps that not how it is used.

Your "definition" is simply incorrect, save perhaps for referring strictly to the redefinition of reality version, which as I've stated is needlessly convoluted. 

 

Perhaps it is just a sexed up atheism,

Again, no, except for one specific approach, and even that is debatable.  Also, what you're describing is not traditional pantheism at all.  From the same Wiki:

"Naturalistic pantheism, based on the relatively recent views of Baruch Spinoza (who may have been influenced by Biblical pantheism) and John Toland (who coined the term "pantheism"), as well as contemporary influences.

The vast majority of persons who can be identified as "pantheistic" are of the classical variety (such as Hindus, Sufis, Unitarians, neopagans, New Agers, Etc.), while most persons who self-identify as "pantheist" alone (rather than as members of another religion) are of the naturalistic variety. The division between the three strains of pantheism are not entirely clear in all situations, and remains a source of some controversy in pantheist circles."

 At no point can this be construed "sexed up atheism."  It's clinging to mysticism despite realizing the absurdity of it.  I have more respect for Christians.  At least many of them are truly ignorant.

I am afraid its just not that simple.

 Dictionary.com

1: the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.

2: any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

American Heritage Dictionary 

1: A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.

2: Belief in and worship of all gods.

Wordnet 

1: (rare) worship that admits or tolerates all gods 

2: the doctrine or belief that God is the universe and its phenomena (taken or conceived of as a whole) or the doctrine that regards the universe as a manifestation of God 

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy 

The belief that God, or a group of gods, is identical with the whole natural world; pantheism comes from Greek roots meaning “belief that everything is a god.”

Webster Revised

The doctrine that the universe, taken or conceived of as a whole, is God; the doctrine that there is no God but the combined force and laws which are manifested in the existing universe; cosmotheism.

 As you can see my definition is not simply wrong. 

 I don't see how you can believe in anything mystical if you are a pantheist because to believe in something mystical is to believe in something "beyond reality" which is the opposite of trying to understand and live in harmony with reality its self.  If you do then perhaps you are more of a panentheist, which means all in god.  Perhaps there are many concepts that are around the area of pantheism but the most simple one is that God and Reality are are the same thing.  If god and reality are the same thing then there is nothing supernatural about god, but god is the definition of natural its self.  Similar to the way that to most punk rockers the word anarchy means "no order of any kind" but the more simple definition is "no government".

I am more then open to the idea that pantheism is an ambiguous confusing word that shouldn't be used or endorsed.  But I know that thinking about things from that perspective was helpful in my own life.  It helped me understand how ethics is mans relationship with reality rather then some supernatural being.  And I think that reality has a lot of the aspects that people create with their gods.  Isn't reality the only real authority?  Don't we need to understand and live in harmony with reality to be happy or success?  I just know that projecting some old beliefs onto reality helped me understand rational ethics, but perhaps thats all that its is good for.

angelus:

I'm kind of confused on your definition of "god", also there's an incredible amount of difference between the pantheist groups you've mentioned. For example, Hindus believe in many individual gods that one can perform rituals to, whereas Sufism has one god (allah) that is the essence of everything.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  It isn't my definition, and I didn't personally mention any of those groups.  The point is that all said religions are pantheistic, just as Christianity (trinity notwithstanding), Judaism and Islam are monotheistic.  Nobody claimed they were compatible or shared the same concept of "God."

Remember119104:

As you can see my definition is not simply wrong.

I see nothing of the sort, but you are completely proving my point about your favored flavor of pantheism and its somewhat incongruous relatives comprising a bizarrely convoluted pile of shit.  If it's just reality or the universe or existence, why is the God label even required?  Where does this God come from?  What does it do?  How do you know?  Why is it God at all, instead of just reality?  You open a completely unnecessary can of worms, because you know better but simply can't let go of the mysticism.  It's sad, really.  But if you got something useful out of it ... hey, whatever.  I'm sure most religions have benefits if one looks hard enough.