chairman bill wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

BWE wrote:but, no. not a theist.

Then you also don't understand what pantheism means.

Generally, pantheism can refer to those who view the cosmos as deity, but also those who don't hold to any sense of god/supreme being nonsense. Theism is different from deism, in that theism envisages god(s) that are transcendent, involved in human affairs, and so on, whereas deism posits a wholly transcendent deity who doesn't, one who lit the blue touch-paper to start everything off, then left it to its own devices. Pantheism isn't deist, but isn't theist either. If the only thing worthy of consideration as 'divine' is the cosmos, it is clearly stating no gods outside of nature, and none inside either. Whilst some might actually regard the cosmos as god, the term god becomes meaningless if you spend more than five seconds thinking about it. Hence Dawkins' 'sexed-up atheism' comment.

Both deism and theism profess a belief in a god, which is all that matter in relation to whether one is an atheist or not.
Pantheism is the belief that the universe is a deity or in multiple deities.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pantheism

pantheism
Line breaks: pan|the¦ism
Pronunciation: /ˈpanθiːɪz(ə)m/
1A doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2The worship or tolerance of many gods.

BWE wrote:I am not a true atheist.

This is a nonsense statement and is a load of bollocks. You really really don't understand the concept of 'non-belief', do you?

Atheism/Theism is a binary statement. You can only be in one 'state' or the other. There is no 'half-way' house.

Whereas one can invent various states of belief and apply them to the 'Theist' label such as Deism, Pantheism (and other imaginary beliefs involving 'deities'), one cannot have different states of non-belief and apply them to the 'Atheist' label since to have a 'non-belief in Zeus' but have a 'belief in Allah', for example, is still in the 'Theist' category. The 'Atheist' label is a singular unmodifiable negative statement of 'non-belief in the existence of deities' - in this context one cannot have different states of 'non-belief' in the same way as having different states of belief (in deities) as do Theists.

To be fair, if one accepts the distinction between theism and pantheism, as BWE has done, then I'd be happy to say that he isn't a theist. He is, however, an atheist, because that IS a true dichotomy. Not much getting around that.

Pantheism. Ah, there I go writing crap before I fully understood it...

It seems to me that it is a term used to 'fill-in' our lack of knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Perhaps this is a reflection of, perhaps, a very real physical limitation (considering the complexity and size of the Universe) of our brain's capabilities.

Animavore wrote:Ulysses is amazing. Who wouldn't enjoy it?

I'm not sure I can say I "enjoyed" it, but I definitely appreciated it.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...Pantheism is the belief that the universe is a deity or in multiple deities.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pantheism

pantheism
Line breaks: pan|the¦ism
Pronunciation: /ˈpanθiːɪz(ə)m/
1A doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2The worship or tolerance of many gods.

Well if you search around, you'll find a multitude of definitions.

chairman bill wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:...Pantheism is the belief that the universe is a deity or in multiple deities.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pantheism

pantheism
Line breaks: pan|the¦ism
Pronunciation: /ˈpanθiːɪz(ə)m/
1A doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2The worship or tolerance of many gods.

Well if you search around, you'll find a multitude of definitions.

I figured that. But unless you can explain why pan-theism, is not a form of theism, I don't see how that doesn't fit the nomer.

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:I would start by simply saying that I've yet to see a coherent definition of God. If you can produce one that isn't a self-contradiction somewhere, and that isn't simply in conflict with experience, I would be willing to go ahead and accept it.

Do you mean that, if we just put our thinking caps on, we can take a concept invented by ignorant goat roasters and turn it into a proposition that everyone of intelligence and critical ability can get behind? Is that it?

You see, it's not about 'existence' at all. It's about construction. By and for the people, as the saying goes.

Very true and important to understand. To again make a comparison I have used before: A scientific concept like the Higgs boson may at some point exist as a construct, but one whose existence is hypothesized based on empirical observations. And the fact that it can be conceived of as a coherent construction was not enough to confirm its existence. That still required the expenditure of billions of dollars, as well as incalculable human resources in the form of scientific and engineering expertise, to construct the Large Hadron Collider. If construction of a concept that doesn't immediately collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions was all that was required, there'd be no need for all that heavy lifting.

Alan B wrote:Pantheism. Ah, there I go writing crap before I fully understood it...

It seems to me that it is a term used to 'fill-in' our lack of knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Perhaps this is a reflection of, perhaps, a very real physical limitation (considering the complexity and size of the Universe) of our brain's capabilities.

Which is why Dawkins referred to it as sexed-up atheism. I can see the attraction myself, though I have no use for it. if you're going to be in awe of something, it might at least be something demonstrably real and awesome. I'm pretty much in awe of the universe myself, especially having learned a bit about it. For me, though, I don't see any good reason to attach the moniker 'god' to it, when the moniker 'universe' works perfectly well without all the baggage.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

BWE wrote:

Fallible wrote:Oh, a true atheist. What are you then, a false one?

I am probably closer to a Pantheist. After being asked to articulate a third position once, I wrote this and the follow up posts if you are actually interested in how I articulate my own position.

Those posts demonstrate that you do not actually understand what atheism is.

Well, it means I was defining it differently than you at any rate. But it strikes me as propogandistic to call it a simple lack of belief in gods as if that were the only legitimate use of the term. As an ism, it is a 'point of view'. I have read hundreds of blog posts by dawkins, myers, and message board heroes who cully equate atheism with a particular physicalist belief in science as having all the.relevant characteristics of the deity it replaced. So if atheism as used as an alternative to theism, then it is a positive belief and very much not pantheistic, If not, it is a far less useful label than many appear to make it out to be.

Done this. You're wrong. There is only one robust definition. If you wish to continue this discussion, you can begin by rebutting the linked post, which deals comprehensively with all of your objections. Please do so in that thread, which is all about how horribly wrong you are.

Edit: Incidentally, I've fucked your last post over and posted my response in the other thread.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p2232075

hackenslash wrote:

Alan B wrote:Pantheism. Ah, there I go writing crap before I fully understood it...

It seems to me that it is a term used to 'fill-in' our lack of knowledge and understanding of the Universe. Perhaps this is a reflection of, perhaps, a very real physical limitation (considering the complexity and size of the Universe) of our brain's capabilities.

Which is why Dawkins referred to it as sexed-up atheism. I can see the attraction myself, though I have no use for it. if you're going to be in awe of something, it might at least be something demonstrably real and awesome. I'm pretty much in awe of the universe myself, especially having learned a bit about it. For me, though, I don't see any good reason to attach the moniker 'god' to it, when the moniker 'universe' works perfectly well without all the baggage.

Here's my take on pantheism: Suppose we call it Stephen Fry Pan Theism. We can take the concept of the cosmic egg and scramble it. That's always good for a few yolks. Meanwhile, bacon the forum, there's six degrees of separation of those yolks, but I'll leave those remarks for later, in case someone shows up who's rasher than I am. Til then that's the last you'll hear ovum me.

Silly sausage.

Betting he is writing a thread on his forum about how his genius is so unappreciated by the braying monkeys that call themselves rational.

KeenIdiot wrote:Betting he is writing a thread on his forum about how his genius is so unappreciated by the braying monkeys that call themselves rational.

I suspect you are correct. Lonely guys often spend their time wanking in one way or another.

Stephen Fry-Pan Theism

FIFY

[/pedant]

hackenslash wrote:Which is why Dawkins referred to it as sexed-up atheism. I can see the attraction myself, though I have no use for it. if you're going to be in awe of something, it might at least be something demonstrably real and awesome. I'm pretty much in awe of the universe myself, especially having learned a bit about it. For me, though, I don't see any good reason to attach the moniker 'god' to it, when the moniker 'universe' works perfectly well without all the baggage.

Having a further think about this pantheism, I would describe it as an attempt by people who cannot find it in themselves to completely reject the idea of a personal 'deity' or are unable to categorically express a non-belief in such. So, they come up with an alternative wooish concept: the whole Universe is, ah, 'God'. This goes hand-in-hand with with their inability to accept that the Universe is awfully big such that it cannot be comprehended, so their minds become 'over-boggled' - hence a 'God' thingy to explain it all. Why not just say the Universe is wonderful and awe-inspiring in its complexity and admit that we do not know everything about it (and may never will)? The invention of a 'God' property will not change that.

Whether or not a theist 'belief' extols a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god or 'a god is the Universe' thingy is irrelevant. As far as I am concerned the 'pantheist' concept still relies on a mystic deistic property (of the Universe) to replace an anthropomorphic deity, which still makes them 'theists'.
This gives rise to the religiously inclined pantheist to seek to be 'in tune' with nature (God), and other such wooberish, etc.


From Wiki

Pantheism is derived from the Greek πᾶν pan (meaning "all") and θεός theos (meaning "God"). There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.[4]:p.8

As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism.[5] From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God.[2] All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.[7] Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God).

and

"If the pantheist starts with the belief that the one great reality, eternal and infinite, is God, he sees everything finite and temporal as but some part of God. There is nothing separate or distinct from God, for God is the universe. If, on the other hand, the conception taken as the foundation of the system is that the great inclusive unity is the world itself, or the universe, God is swallowed up in that unity, which may be designated nature."

BWE wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

BWE wrote:

Fallible wrote:Oh, a true atheist. What are you then, a false one?

I am probably closer to a Pantheist. After being asked to articulate a third position once, I wrote this and the follow up posts if you are actually interested in how I articulate my own position.

Those posts demonstrate that you do not actually understand what atheism is.

Well, it means I was defining it differently than you at any rate.

Incorrectly and inaccurately to be precise.

BWE wrote:But it strikes me as propogandistic to call it a simple lack of belief in gods as if that were the only legitimate use of the term.

It is the only legitimate use of the term that encompasses all atheists, rather than specific subsets.

BWE wrote:As an ism, it is a 'point of view'.

And alinear is a form of linearity.
And atypical is a typical thing.
FSS.

BWE wrote:I have read hundreds of blog posts by dawkins, myers, and message board heroes who cully equate atheism with a particular physicalist belief in science as having all the.relevant characteristics of the deity it replaced.

Ah, the appeal to 'I've read stuff'. We've dismissed that as a fallacy.

BWE wrote:So if atheism as used as an alternative to theism, then it is a positive belief and very much not pantheistic, If not, it is a far less useful label than many appear to make it out to be.

Except it isn't an alternative, it's the opposite:
Theism: belief in one or more deities.
A-theism, not believing in the existence of one or more deities.

BWE wrote:As an ism, it is a 'point of view'.

Aneurysm
Aphorism
Atavism
Autism

Yep, all points of view.

Shall we move onto -isms that start with B?

Like bipedalism?

Or botulism?

Yep, all points of view.

24 letters left.

Fallible wrote:Oh, a true atheist. What are you then, a false one?

Are false atheists those who don't believe in false Gods?