Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Thanks, but how on earth would you imagine atheism demands faith? It is the absence of such faith. Atheism has no position on an 'ultimate source' by the way - that would be a question for theoretical physics.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pantheism & Atheism
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Baladas
An Págánach
This depends on the definition of "faith".
faith
noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
: a system of religious beliefs
The first is definitely true for me, if not for all people to some extent. I trust in the scientific method and (typically) trust the consensus of the scientific community on issues.
I trust my senses. I trust my wife, I trust that solipsism is not true, etc.
In this way "faith" is better rendered "trust" though due to the tendency that many have for using it to refer to religion.
The second two?
Not a chance.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, I am using the definition relevant to the context here, the second one. I assumed that was obvious.
Baladas
An Págánach
Right. I am just too tired to be posting I suppose.
Sleeplessness makes me a bit...off.
I think that what I meant to get at was that perhaps this was the definition intended by idav.
Sorry about that.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, I assumed Idav was using the word 'faith' in the religious context. Something atheism rejects.
I thought I was atheist!
Sexed up atheism may make sense in their common ground but ultimately depends on believing in god nor not.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I would disagree, I think theism is a specific sort of God. I could call my car 'God', does that make me a theist?I thought I was atheist!
Sexed up atheism may make sense in their common ground but ultimately depends on believing in god nor not.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, I stated that I identify as pantheist.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Ok.
Yes theism can be specific as is pantheism. Atheist vs Theist however doesn't have to be specific.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Why not?
Well.thry can thry are just answers to different questions about gods. Really i never just say theism cause i think its to vague and then your saying it can even be taken to be specific like the personal gods. That is true too, anyway i try to be specific personally.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well I am only connecting 'theism' to a belief in theistic deities - hardly controversial. Theism does refer to theistic (personal, interventionist) Gods.
I am beginning to see two distinct (to me) types of pantheism. One is "sexed-up atheism" and one is not. They key difference to me is if they believe consciousness is a emergent physical property (the sexed-up atheism position) or if they believe consciousness is a non-physical thing beyond materialism and the creator/designer of the physical (the non-atheist position).
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I don't think that the notion of consciousness being a 'non-physical thing beyond materialism' is at all relevant to pantheism. The origin of consciousness is not a part of what defines pantheism.
Concisousness is covered by oneness.
Really?...In Advaita pantheism it certainly is relevant. The notion that consciousness is an emergent property of the material is rejected. In Advaita, consciousness incarnates matter. How can that not be relevant?
But the two pantheisms I talked about differ on the source of that consciousness. A pretty fundamental difference. Is matter fundamental, or is consciousness fundamental?
Pantheism1: Consciousness is fundamental and the material is a product of consciousness.
Pantheism 2: Matter is fundamental and consciousness is a product of matter.
What is 'fundamental' in the consciousness you discuss above? Where does it come from?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure, advaita is similar to pantheism, but not the topic here. Even if you add 'pantheism' to Advaita as you did.
Because the topic is pantheism-atheism, not Advaita - which although similar is not the topic.
Pantheism in the western world does not assert a primacy of consciousness as you do. Pantheism does not claim that consciousness is primary.
I hate to point this out to you George, but you appear to misunderstand the basics of Advaita. Advaita essentially means 'not two'. You seem to interpret this as suggesting that consciousness is primary, and matter a product of consciousness - however according to Advaita there is no such duality. Matter IS consciousness, and visa versa.
Last edited: