Freedomain Radio

The anarchist finds the same problems of definition in which there is endless confusion and endless explaination.

I agree with the term philosopher how ever this is not anymore defined in my favor then pantheism.  There are those that call them selves philosophers that reality seems to be the last of thier interests. Rand already tried to put the word intellectual back to its orginal meaning, so far we have had little luck.  But I suppose you could say we are making some head way, and maybe thats all that we can really ask for.  That is definatly a possibility.

If you are suggesting that your own personal belief is that the term "god" does not = omniscience and omnipotence and omniprescence, then I am cool with that explanation except that, you are knowingly using a term that other people attribute omniscience and omnipotence and omniprescence to and therefore confusing the ultimate goal (I presume which is communicating that you do not believe in magic or sky pixies?). If this is the case, it would definitely suit your purpose more to use different terms to communicate more effectively. However, in an effort not to throw my atheist baggage onto you, how would atheism be any different? I use the term atheist to describe the abscene of omniscience and omnipotence and omniprescence in reality. Do you think there are alternative interpretations of the word "atheism"? Also, if you persist in using "pantheism" as a term to redifine the meaning of "god", what term are you using to refer to the (positive or negative...I'm getting confused now) abscence or prescence of mystiscm in the universe?

No I am not a mystic.

I guess the problem is that atheism is a simple statement of fact... It is like saying "unicorns do not exist" which is true but it doesn't really give the person you are  communicating to anything other then the fact that you don't believe in unicorns. Thats kind of why I think it would be nice to have a word that stated a definition that is in opposition to mysticism or the supernatrual as a whole rather then just God. And not only in opposition to these things in the weather they exist or not, but also concerning values. 

I believe the point of objectivism and what stef has done better is to value reality above "things beyond it".  I know this seems basic but it is so vitally important.  The real issue that we face as a movement is where man should place his value, either reality or non-reality. There are those that hate reality (mystics and religious people. which I write about in my blog Religion as Cynicism) and those of use who embrace truth and try understand it and establish a healthy relationship with it which I believe is the point of FDR.

Perhaps pantheism is not the best word to use.  But it seemed to me that it is the closest thing we have. because if you break it down I believe its simplest form is "reality is god" simmilar to the way Nietzche said "God is dead"

Perhaps if pantheism is used in this way the best thing to do would to use it as a medaphor rather then a position.

I would also like to add that by using the term pantheism (depsite whatever you may mean by that term) most people consider that term to represent the belief in many, many Gods, which would be even worse than the belief in just one God, thereby making pantheism a very weak term to use in the pursuit of empirical understanding.

The most apt word for an oppossition to mysticism is Naturalist. Belief in one natural world.