Reasons to be a pantheist

[spidergoat]

more like defaulting to the fantasy of "I am the superman" destroys the world through the hijacking of science

That is not the default position, it's a product of religious indoctrination that still cannot give up the concept.

Its religion that introduces the concept that human beings are precisely not in charge of the world and why.

No, the Bible for instance installs us as stewards and caretakers of the Earth. It's a hierarchy with God at the top and us the next ones down. That's why evangelicals drive gas hogging SUVs and don't care. On the other hand, if we are here through a series of unusual natural circumstances, our position in this world is not guaranteed, and more caution is called for.

 

[wynn]

Nonsense

Its religion that introduces the concept that human beings are precisely not in charge of the world and why.

Oh, and Protestants - they also have some gems of notions about the necessity of meateating and casual sex.

 

[lightgigantic]

That is not the default position, it's a product of religious indoctrination that still cannot give up the concept.

Its the default position of not thinking one is ultimately under the jurisdiction of a higher authority ... a gem contribution of atheism

No, the Bible for instance installs us as stewards and caretakers of the Earth.

terms which certainly install a sense of obligational duty that atheism doesn't call ...

It's a hierarchy with God at the top and us the next ones down. That's why evangelicals drive gas hogging SUVs and don't care. On the other hand, if we are here through a series of unusual natural circumstances, our position in this world is not guaranteed, and more caution is called for.

and if that hierarchy at the top is not properly respected or followed in accordance (or minor virtues are called upon to supersede major virtues) then the stewardship tends to fall on its ass - even mundane politics works in the same manner.

In fact you could even say that its the human tendency to turn that stewardship on its ass since the history of religion is one of re-assessment and re-establishment of religious principles.

IOW the re-assessment of atheist values is about seeing to the ultimate pursuit of beg, borrow and steal

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Those faithful Catholics who won't even consider going out without a raincoat. I know families who have seven kids!! And they aren't from south of the boarder.

Wasn't at all suprised when the hospitals spoke out.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

terms which certainly install a sense of obligational duty that atheism doesn't call ...

.....

IOW the re-assessment of atheist values is about seeing to the ultimate pursuit of beg, borrow and steal

Under your logic an atheist would only mow his grass in order to steal his neighbors fertilizer. As if pride is an emotion that does not exist to an atheist...

 

[NietzscheHimself]

terms which certainly install a sense of obligational duty that atheism doesn't call ...

.....

IOW the re-assessment of atheist values is about seeing to the ultimate pursuit of beg, borrow and steal

Under your logic an atheist would only mow his grass in order to steal his neighbors fertilizer. As if pride is an emotion that does not exist to an atheist...

Thanks Dostoyevsky...

 

[darryl]

NietzscheHimself what are you personal views of pantheism?

Some theists may say I am ignorant for stating this, but I think its safe to say that with all the evidence there is no personal God, there are many reasons for this, which do not need to be debated on this thread. So what are we left with?

1. Atheism
2. Pantheism (this is what I choose)
3. New age

Regarding New age, this is quite a deep subject, but its proponents do not believe in a creator God or deity, but instead some metaphysical immaterial impersonal force etc. As this is a science forum I don't think many folk here would go for number 3... as they would claim it is wishful thinking, vitalism or no different than a watered down version of theism.

Well I am happy with pantheism, and I have always had this view for a long time. I have a big criticism of both theism and atheism, I think the evidence fits pantheism nicely... of course this comes down to personal opinion, but perhaps we could get round to discussing that at some point. cheers.

 

[spidergoat]

Its the default position of not thinking one is ultimately under the jurisdiction of a higher authority ... a gem contribution of atheism






terms which certainly install a sense of obligational duty that atheism doesn't call ...


and if that hierarchy at the top is not properly respected or followed in accordance (or minor virtues are called upon to supersede major virtues) then the stewardship tends to fall on its ass - even mundane politics works in the same manner.

In fact you could even say that its the human tendency to turn that stewardship on its ass since the history of religion is one of re-assessment and re-establishment of religious principles.

IOW the re-assessment of atheist values is about seeing to the ultimate pursuit of beg, borrow and steal

Your interpretation of morality in the absence of a fantasy king is purely pejorative. Nothing about atheism implies selfishness to the detriment of society. In fact, it makes society the highest value, because it's what we truly depend on.

We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven.
– Robert Green Ingersoll, “The Gods” (1872)​

 

[Sarkus]

Some theists may say I am ignorant for stating this, but I think its safe to say that with all the evidence there is no personal God, there are many reasons for this, which do not need to be debated on this thread. So what are we left with?

1. Atheism
2. Pantheism (this is what I choose)
3. New age

Regarding New age, this is quite a deep subject, but its proponents do not believe in a creator God or deity, but instead some metaphysical immaterial impersonal force etc. As this is a science forum I don't think many folk here would go for number 3... as they would claim it is wishful thinking, vitalism or no different than a watered down version of theism.

I tend to see New Age as a pantheism without the need for a "God". I.e. it is still the same universe, working in the same way as pantheism, but rather than ascribe the universe with the name "God", the New Age is more based on the processes within.
I'm not saying they are synonymous but that there is considerable overlap - just a different focus.

Well I am happy with pantheism, and I have always had this view for a long time. I have a big criticism of both theism and atheism, I think the evidence fits pantheism nicely... of course this comes down to personal opinion, but perhaps we could get round to discussing that at some point. cheers.

If you're viewing atheism as the claim that God does not exist then I would possibly concur that pantheism is a more workable hypothesis in the interim... if one feels the need for to invoke the concept of God.
Personally I can do without.
Atheism - as merely the rejection of the personal theistic God - is otherwise an equally viable concept. Just without the apparent comfort-blanket of an unfalsifiable / redundant concept of "God".

 

[Yazata]

Pantheism makes the most sense to me and it does not contradict the sciences.

Or at least it needn't.

According to pantheism God is not a personality distinct from nature. If we understand that all is nature and God is nature then perhaps people will respect the earth more.

I'm kind of attracted to the idea that the universe all around us has... depths... that we don't realize. I kind of imagine myself surrounded by transcendence, sometimes.

It seems to me that pantheism typically goes along with sort of an aesthetic approach to reality. It isn't just a science-style rational analysis of everything, it's a lot more emotional, it emphasizes the beauty of nature, its awesomeness, and especially its transcendental dimension. There's a feeling that there's something profoundly mysterious about the universe, something that mankind should strive to become more aware of and ultimately to merge with. And many times that leads to some sort of nature mysticism.

If somebody believes and experiences that, then arguably it's supernatural revelation, of a sort, I guess.

I can't say that I believe it, but I don't want to totally dismiss it either. I'm an agnostic, and while I sense very strongly that tremendously important things are happening all around me that I know nothing about, I'm not convinced that worship is the right response.

 

[gmilam]

IOW the re-assessment of atheist values is about seeing to the ultimate pursuit of beg, borrow and steal

This tells me much more about you than it tells me about any atheists I know.

I always have to wonder about the morals of someone who believes that without religion humans are all liars and thieves. (IOW - It's probably a good thing that you believe in religion.)

 

[spidergoat]

Pantheism makes the most sense to me and it does not contradict the sciences.

According to pantheism God is not a personality distinct from nature. If we understand that all is nature and God is nature then perhaps people will respect the earth more.

I think it contradicts science because:
1. no evidence for it
2. unfalsifiable

 

[Sarkus]

Which means it doesn't actually contradict science - it just is not a scientific position.

 

[spidergoat]

What's the diff?

 

[Sarkus]

To contradict science it must go against science - i.e. be contrary to.
If it is merely unscientific then it is merely not part of the scientific realm, and it can neither contradict nor support science.

 

[kx000]

I believe God interprets nature from 3rd persons p.o.v.

 

[Rav]

I think it contradicts science because:
1. no evidence for it
2. unfalsifiable

When darryl uses the word "god" he's not talking about any entity other than the universe itself. He's not even saying that the universe has a "personality". The thing to understand about naturalistic pantheism is that it is not an invocation of anything at all, it is simply the belief that the universe itself is ontologically primary. In other words, that if anything is going to be called god, it should be nature, as it is.

@darryl: You should probably stop using the word "god" unless you're prepared to comprehensively qualify it.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

NietzscheHimself what are you personal views of pantheism?

Some theists may say I am ignorant for stating this, but I think its safe to say that with all the evidence there is no personal God, there are many reasons for this, which do not need to be debated on this thread. So what are we left with?

1. Atheism
2. Pantheism (this is what I choose)
3. New age

Regarding New age, this is quite a deep subject, but its proponents do not believe in a creator God or deity, but instead some metaphysical immaterial impersonal force etc. As this is a science forum I don't think many folk here would go for number 3... as they would claim it is wishful thinking, vitalism or no different than a watered down version of theism.

Well I am happy with pantheism, and I have always had this view for a long time. I have a big criticism of both theism and atheism, I think the evidence fits pantheism nicely... of course this comes down to personal opinion, but perhaps we could get round to discussing that at some point. cheers.

If you have read my words you obviously know my stance on it. What you are seeking here by asking an audience in general is confirmation. Yet you hide your truest thoughts for fear of rejection while you still acknowledge I am with you. Give up your connection to the number three and attempt some metaphysics. If you can type I can follow that particular road. Take all comments as serious jokes as I know you already will.

 

[lightgigantic]

This tells me much more about you than it tells me about any atheists I know.

I always have to wonder about the morals of someone who believes that without religion humans are all liars and thieves. (IOW - It's probably a good thing that you believe in religion.)

extended selfishness is still selfishness
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Your interpretation of morality in the absence of a fantasy king is purely pejorative. Nothing about atheism implies selfishness to the detriment of society. In fact, it makes society the highest value, because it's what we truly depend on.

We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven.
– Robert Green Ingersoll, “The Gods” (1872)​

I didn't say there was an absence of morality

I am saying that all issues of morality are relegated to selfishness or extended selfishness