Question My Beliefs, But Be Prepared To Answer For Yours :)

[Heisenberg]

Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism
- Richard Dawkins

 

[karri0n]

Pantheism -- the identification of "god" with nature -- is a well known instance of naturalistic theism. But the pantheist (or any alleged theist who wishes to describe his god soley in naturalistic terms ) is open to the charge of reducing his god to triviality. If god is take to be synonymous with nature or some aspect of the natural universe, we may then ask why the term "god" is used at all. It is superfluous and highly misleading. The label of "god" serves no function, except perhaps to create confusion), and one must suspect the naturalistic theist is simply an atheist who would rather avoid this designation.

~George H. Smith, author Atheism - The Case Against God
​

If the creative force that I have referenced above is indeed a known law of nature, I would love to read about it. Just what is it that is responsible for the innumerable interactions and coincidences that are necessary precursors to even to the possibility of matter existing?

The difference between pantheism(and other modern spiritualities such as modern polytheism) and atheism is in he understanding that deity is something that we humans have access to in more of a capacity than just being subject to the outcomes of this random chance. In addition, a modern polytheist understands that deities as most would describe them are personifications of this underlying force that can be more easily related to and worked with.​

 

[mindphuk]

If the creative force that I have referenced above is indeed a known law of nature, I would love to read about it. Just what is it that is responsible for the innumerable interactions and coincidences that are necessary precursors to even to the possibility of matter existing?

The difference between pantheism(and other modern spiritualities such as modern polytheism) and atheism is in he understanding that deity is something that we humans have access to in more of a capacity than just being subject to the outcomes of this random chance. In addition, a modern polytheist understands that deities as most would describe them are personifications of this underlying force that can be more easily related to and worked with.

What coincidences? Many physicists believe that the universe is infinite. Just because something seems improbable doesn't mean that it actually is when taking into account the time and size of our cosmos. It sounds like you might have fallen victim to the appealing fine-tuned universe argument. We've discussed that before too. Why does the natural creative force get to be called a deity? Why not still call the sun a god? Just because there are things that we haven't figured out doesn't mean the explanation is going to be something that people will feel like describing it as a personification which is nothing more than anthropomorphizing.

 

[karri0n]

Why not still call the sun a god? Just because there are things that we haven't figured out doesn't mean the explanation is going to be something that people will feel like describing it as a personification which is nothing more than anthropomorphizing.

Polytheists do regard the Sun and the Earth as gods. Both provide the necessary components for life.

 

[ginjawarrior]

If the creative force that I have referenced above is indeed a known law of nature, I would love to read about it. Just what is it that is responsible for the innumerable interactions and coincidences that are necessary precursors to even to the possibility of matter existing?

there is and simply put its Chance

its us humans obsessive tendencies to try and see patterns where there aren't any, that make simple chance more important than it really is

 

[mindphuk]

Polytheists do regard the Sun and the Earth as gods. Both provide the necessary components for life.

At some point the word "god" loses any substantive meaning.

 

[Heisenberg]

At some point the word "god" loses any substantive meaning.

And often people like Deepak Chopra are more than happy to be misunderstood when the common man equates this version of god with one that offers salvation and listens to prayers. People see it as scientific evidence of God and it sells lots of books.

 

[tyler.durden]

And often people like Deepak Chopra are more than happy to be misunderstood when the common man equates this version of god with one that offers salvation and listens to prayers. People see it as scientific evidence of God and it sells lots of books.

Yep, Chopra. They don't call him, 'The Profit' for nothing. I especially hate when he starts speaking in the language of quantum physics! I love watching him get owned in debate, here's one where RD calls him on his BS:


[video=youtube;Z-FaXD_igv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-FaXD_igv4[/video]

 

[olylifter420]

At some point the word "god" loses any substantive meaning

really? where? Just because your beliefs tell you so that means that it is now widely accepted?

 

[mindphuk]

really? where? Just because your beliefs tell you so that means that it is now widely accepted?

How about if you follow the line of discussion rather than take my words out of context?

 

[Hepheastus420]

That's deep man.(generally speaking)

 

[Brazko]

Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism
- Richard Dawkins

fallacious opinion, nothing more...

Why does the natural creative force get to be called a deity? Why not still call the sun a god? Just because there are things that we haven't figured out doesn't mean the explanation is going to be something that people will feel like describing it as a personification which is nothing more than anthropomorphizing.

We have properly identified Suns is why we don't call them gods. However when speaking in context of their influence over other things, discription of god-like nature is applicable in the provided concept of meaning. I understand the arguement but it is dumbfounded on asinine principles of just because instead of simply understanding it through conceptualized meaning.

Like, all hell is about to break loose... Or he dogged his ass out... Or that ass was as sweet as heaven...

Hell isn't breaking loose... but it provides meaning...

A dog wasn't unleashed to bite someone's ass.. but it provides meaning..

Heaven don't exist and we know Ass isn't sweet.. but it provides meaning...

It only gets confusing when in the grasps of emotional and sentimental bias that words become misfits and offensive to the nature of its actual context...

It's not fallacious, it's part of the claim that's made when using the term god or deity. Transcendent and outside of nature are minimum attributes that belong to god(s). If not, then we aren't really talking about god.


look again at what I wrote. The assumption that there is a "who" is exactly what I said was incorrect. You appear to be agreeing with me.

Pantheism -- the identification of "god" with nature -- is a well known instance of naturalistic theism. But the pantheist (or any alleged theist who wishes to describe his god soley in naturalistic terms ) is open to the charge of reducing his god to triviality. If god is take to be synonymous with nature or some aspect of the natural universe, we may then ask why the term "god" is used at all. It is superfluous and highly misleading. The label of "god" serves no function, except perhaps to create confusion), and one must suspect the naturalistic theist is simply an atheist who would rather avoid this designation.

~George H. Smith, author Atheism - The Case Against God
​

Or another take on it
Pantheism Is Confused Atheism

Again more fallacious opinions, bias and clouded with sentimental disposition

This is Pantheism...

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature

Not to be confused with Panentheism....

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God personally exists, interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism is differentiated from pantheism, which holds that God is not a distinct being but is synonymous with the universe.[1]
Simply put, in pantheism, God is the whole; however, in panentheism, the whole is in God. This means that the universe in the first formulation is practically the whole itself. In the second formulation, the universe and God are not ontologically equivalent. In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God.



Furthermore, its not a disposition for a God, its the disposition to the concept of God...

 

[Heisenberg]

The question is, if we redefine the term God to be synonymous with 'the universe' then why not just say, the universe, or nature? Why add a layer of metaphysical speculation to a reality that is fully explainable by naturalism? Furthermore, this metaphysical layer is arbitrary. Is there any way to verify that this mystical interpretation is any more valid than some other random interpretation? If someone says reality is ruled by the forces of nature, and in the essence of that reality is where we find god, are they really saying anything meaningful beyond the idea that nature rules all?

Where is the bias you speak of in this critique?

If we are speaking of spiritual pantheism we find even more assertions that are unjustified like reincarnation and collective consciousness. This is also where we most often find misuse of quantum theory, which makes the belief that much more suspect.

 

[karri0n]

The question is, if we redefine the term God to be synonymous with 'the universe' then why not just say, the universe, or nature?

When talking about pactitioners of modern spiritual systems, these words are often used interchangably. Quite a large number of modern spiritual practitioners are ex-catholics and Christians, and much like many atheists, are inheretly bothered and offended by the term "god". As such, in classes and discussion groups, when someone is questioning or seeking on a certain matter, and utterance one might hear frequently is "meditate on the question and release your intentions out to the universe". In this context, you'd be just as likely to hear "release your intention to the gods", "release your intentions to the god and goddess", or "release your intentions to nature".

It's a fundamental understanding that all gods are one god, and the source of this divinity is indeed a fundamental force of nature.

 

[mindphuk]

It's a fundamental understanding that all gods are one god, and the source of this divinity is indeed a fundamental force of nature.

It is a fundamental understanding that all blargs are one blarg, and the source of this blargness is indeed a fundamental force of nature.


Neither of these two sentence have any meaning by themselves. Both you and Brazko are talking a lot without saying much. You haven't answered the main objection to calling a force of nature god or divine and that is what do you mean? Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable value in any dialogue. In any discussion with a theist, before he explains why we should believe in god must first explain what he means by the word "god." What is the nature of god, how do we identify it (or him)? The pantheist runs into the problem of substituting something that already has definitions and many times explanations. You ignored my response when you said that some polytheists do consider the sun and the earth gods. Sure, the sun is invaluable to life itself but it is not a god anymore than my belly button lint is god and using those labels to things so well understood immediately renders those idea of gods meaningless. It is up to you to supply the meaning and so far you have failed to do so.

 

[karri0n]

What is the nature of god...?

There are those who spend nearly every waking minute of their entire lives in meditation and study in order to understand the answer to this question. The supposition that you could learn the answer to this question from a stoner posting on the internet is indeed one of the major failings of atheism. Spirituality is not something that can be put into words, it is something that needs to be experienced. A writer, priest, spiritual guide, or poster on a forum cannot show you or explain to you these things, but they can provide you with the knowledge and tools for you to seek out the answers on your own.

What is the nature of god, how do we identify it (or him)?

Your issue seems to be in regard to clear definitions of terms. I've put these forth before, but as they're difficult concepts for people who don't study modern spirituality(and often for those who do), it didn't stick. For your sake, I will put forth these two important distinctions and from this point forward use the terms in this way:

Divinity - The creative force of the universe. It doesn't have a form and really can't be measured or quantified(yet). It is a fundamental underlying aspect of reality, and beings with consciousness have a strange and not well understood tie to it that allows them to interact with it at varying levels(mainly dictated by intelligence - i.e. a person can work with divinity more than a cat can), though for the vast majority of the time the only interaction is in our ability to draw off of it. Only as a collective or through very specific techniques can we directly cause a change.

God - A specific aspect of this greater force, usually a personification, granted certain characteristics through the collective understanding and shaping by many minds, and in some cases, by aspects of the natural world in a way that we don't quite understand. An example of characteristics arriving from nature would be the Green Man or Horned God, who has been revered in nearly every hunter/gatherer culture across the globe, and always has aspects of the local flora and fauna. In Jungian psychology, he has been recognized as a deeply seated archetype in the minds of nearly all people, regardless of cultural bias.

 

[Padawanbater2]

This always seems like a scapegoat to me. "you'll never know until you try" - but you have to already know or else when you try, you won't recognize it?

Same thing when people tell me "your mind is already made up, you can't accept Jesus".

These are recovery statements, just like faith is a recovery emotion, just to save face no matter what happens.

You can't prove faith wrong, because there's nothing to test, you can't prove God wrong, because there's nothing to test, you can't accept Jesus, your mind is already made up..

Seems to be a pattern that arises when you get a little deeper into it. The fail-safe of being unable to test the claims make the claims strong to the theist but render them useless to the nonbeliever.

So when you say something like "spirituality is not something that can be put into words, it is something that needs to be experienced" I hear "here's more proof that you can't test, why don't you believe?!"

 

[karri0n]

This always seems like a scapegoat to me. "you'll never know until you try" - but you have to already know or else when you try, you won't recognize it?

Same thing when people tell me "your mind is already made up, you can't accept Jesus".

These are recovery statements, just like faith is a recovery emotion, just to save face no matter what happens.

You can't prove faith wrong, because there's nothing to test, you can't prove God wrong, because there's nothing to test, you can't accept Jesus, your mind is already made up..

Seems to be a pattern that arises when you get a little deeper into it. The fail-safe of being unable to test the claims make the claims strong to the theist but render them useless to the nonbeliever.

So when you say something like "spirituality is not something that can be put into words, it is something that needs to be experienced" I hear "here's more proof that you can't test, why don't you believe?!"

I feel the need to quote myself....

A writer, priest, spiritual guide, or poster on a forum cannot show you or explain to you these things, but they can provide you with the knowledge and tools for you to seek out the answers on your own.

Just like you won't understand the counterintuitive aspects of biology or physics, if you don't actively study and put forth quite a bit of effort, it can be excessively difficult, especially as a person who is not easily tricked or led and is naturally skeptical, to be able to understand the deeper aspects of spirituality. This is not dissimilar to the large number of physicists(which is growing ever smaller) who at one point in time have denied and rallied against any plausibility of the theories presented by Quantum mechanics. Without a proper understanding, of course it looks like nothing more than a bunch of garbage.

I was raised in a non-religious household, and in my high school years and and beyond, naturally leaned toward skepticism and atheism, and did my fair share of reading on subjects such as biology, physics, astrophysics, etc. My first foray into the world of modern spirituality was based on me arguing and attempting to disprove claims made by the person who eventually became my first spiritual guide/teacher/priestess. The more I learned, the more I started to see just how it is that these claims and theories make sense, even within a scientific understanding of the world.

 

[jackoladd]

I believe everything comes down to chance. It is just chance that the building blocks for the universe were present ,it is just chance that there is life and nature.There is no reason for anything , I disagree with the idea of a creator who established order and created the laws of nature and physics and who punishes the wicked etc.etc., but that doesnt mean i dont have an inkling of a belief in a creator.My theory is that after the big bang everything was chance and still is but thinking before the big bang is where my mind gets fried. did an entity create the big bang? and if so are there other entities making other bangs?

I know this has come out pretty unclear and thats because my thoughts are unclear. I'm just having a bit of a ramble lol peace

 

[mindphuk]

There are those who spend nearly every waking minute of their entire lives in meditation and study in order to understand the answer to this question. The supposition that you could learn the answer to this question from a stoner posting on the internet is indeed one of the major failings of atheism. Spirituality is not something that can be put into words, it is something that needs to be experienced. A writer, priest, spiritual guide, or poster on a forum cannot show you or explain to you these things, but they can provide you with the knowledge and tools for you to seek out the answers on your own.

Deflection.
I'm not asking deep level spiritual questions here, just the basic, "why should I accept your claim that a god or gods exist?"

I can have a deep spiritual experience while pondering the universe and looking at the newest and relatively close supernova in M101 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/25/m101-supernova-update/

However that deep spiritual connectedness I might feel does not mean that there is more to our natural world than we can observe.

Your issue seems to be in regard to clear definitions of terms. I've put these forth before, but as they're difficult concepts for people who don't study modern spirituality(and often for those who do), it didn't stick. For your sake, I will put forth these two important distinctions and from this point forward use the terms in this way:

Divinity - The creative force of the universe. It doesn't have a form and really can't be measured or quantified(yet). It is a fundamental underlying aspect of reality, and beings with consciousness have a strange and not well understood tie to it that allows them to interact with it at varying levels(mainly dictated by intelligence - i.e. a person can work with divinity more than a cat can), though for the vast majority of the time the only interaction is in our ability to draw off of it. Only as a collective or through very specific techniques can we directly cause a change.

God - A specific aspect of this greater force, usually a personification, granted certain characteristics through the collective understanding and shaping by many minds, and in some cases, by aspects of the natural world in a way that we don't quite understand. An example of characteristics arriving from nature would be the Green Man or Horned God, who has been revered in nearly every hunter/gatherer culture across the globe, and always has aspects of the local flora and fauna. In Jungian psychology, he has been recognized as a deeply seated archetype in the minds of nearly all people, regardless of cultural bias.

Of course definitions of terms is important. Otherwise, how else am I supposed to understand what you are trying to say?

Okay, so we, in our human experience, tend to anthropomorphize things. How do we go from this underlying conceptual framework to one where you believe these things have any basis in reality?

I can think of love as a cupid baby sporting a quiver of arrows but that doesn't make it a true representation of reality.

You seem to want to have all of the trappings of religion and deities without being subjected to the criticisms. You appear to be creating a concept of god and divinity without the obvious problems that the theist has. This to me is no more than word games. God either exists or not. Is part of nature or not. Affects our lives or not. Interacts with us or not.
Once you start allowing some characteristics, you begin to allow things that can be tested but then whine and say it can't be tested because not testing is part of the rules.

You either have a non-useful powerless but a feel-good deity or you have circular/problematic logic.