• 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!

Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
God is just a word and an extremely ambiguous word at that, which God do you believe in?
And I could asked a similar question to atheists, which God don't you believe in?

Christians would answer by saying, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
Atheists would answer by saying, "Any God at all."

"God" is indeed just a word, probably the most Protean word in the English language.
 

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
Atheism just points to one aspect of the universe you do not or should not believe in, namely an intelligent supreme being that created the universe. It usually does not elaborate on the things you do or should believe in.

Scientific Pantheist just substitutes the word "God" which they consider imaginary to a non-sentient "Cosmos":bow: which they consider to be real.
 

brbubba

Underling
Pantheist = Everything is God
Atheist = Nothing is God


So how can "Pantheist-Atheist" be anything but a contradiction?

It is a contradiction, but people try to use the "how do you define God" defense. But it still doesn't matter, because no matter how you define God, the two will still contradict each other. So then they get around this by changing the definition of God in each separate case, which is complete absurdity. How you define God is really irrelevant to this particular point.

Scientific Pantheist just substitutes the word "God" which they consider imaginary to a non-sentient "Cosmos":bow: which they consider to be real.

Which I said earlier is equally absurd. If you are a moral atheist then you are a moral atheist. Why use the term Pantheist for your own ends, what purpose is it serving? I still contend that extrapolating the natural workings of the universe and calling it Pantheism or anything religious is pointless and only serves to obfuscate the term Pantheism.
 
Last edited:

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
Atheism just points to one aspect of the universe you do not or should not believe in, namely an intelligent supreme being that created the universe. It usually does not elaborate on the things you do or should believe in.

Scientific Pantheist just substitutes the word "God" which they consider imaginary to a non-sentient "Cosmos":bow: which they consider to be real.

Atheists, just be atheists and forget about all the pretension.
 

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
Fine, whatever. If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. Why obfuscate?
That is basically all scientific pantheism is, as Richard Dawkins puts it "sexed up atheism" but unlike many regular atheists I do have an intense interest in cosmology as to the universe's great size and age and look up in awe at the sky admiring the Milky Way on a clear moonless night in the desert. It is the nearest I can possibly get to a religious experience and certainly a lot closer to any religious experience I had when I was a young kid growing up and having to attend church every Sunday.
 

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
That is basically all scientific pantheism is, as Richard Dawkins puts it "sexed up atheism" but unlike many regular atheists I do have an intense interest in cosmology as to the universe's great size and age and look up in awe at the sky admiring the Milky Way on a clear moonless night in the desert. It is the nearest I can possibly get to a religious experience and certainly a lot closer to any religious experience I had when I was a young kid growing up and having to attend church every Sunday.
Yeah. I just don't see why atheism needs sexing up, and imprecise communication is a pet peeve.
 

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
Yeah. I just don't see why atheism needs sexing up, and imprecise communication is a pet peeve.

Where I differ from many classical atheists is that I subscribe to a theory that the "self" is necessary rather than contingent, so if your parents had never met I find it highly plausible you would become someone else instead. This is probably more at odds with secular humanism than just atheism. I just think if I was contingent on one certain female out of billions getting into bed one certain male also out of billions and one certain sperm fertilizing one particular egg then the chances of my existence would be so vanishingly slim that my very existence would be a kind of a paradox.

So I more subscribe to the idea that it is actually not possible to be consciously of any of those failed attempts to exist as it is only through states of existence we have a perception of a sense of place and time. So I just think we simply MUST exist out of anthropic necessity because it is not possible to observe your states of non-existence or any states unfriendly to our existence such as on dead planets or even universes that lack the fine tuning to enable the emergence of living things. I find it quite plausible the emergence of sujectivity or consciousness with the "self" is as much a very important phase of the universe we observe as the emergence of metallicity.
 
Last edited:

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
A true pantheist has no god. A true pantheist is his or her own master.
1) They're not mutually exclusive.
2) One of my favorite things about pantheism is that few of its adherents are so pretentious as to issue proclamations regarding who is (not) "a true pantheist."
 
Last edited:

Twig pentagram

High Priest
1) They're not mutually exclusive.
2) One of my favorite things about pantheism is that few of its adherents are so pretentious as to issue proclamations regarding who is (not) "a true pantheist."
The very definition of pantheist is atheistic. If you're a pantheist than you have no supreme being. As for the "true" word, maybe I should'nt of used it in that context. At the time I could'nt find a better word to use.
 

St Giordano Bruno

Well-Known Member
A true pantheist just loves the natural world without reading some supernatural being into it, nor does he/she desire to ever invent one.
 

brbubba

Underling
The very definition of pantheist is atheistic. If you're a pantheist than you have no supreme being. As for the "true" word, maybe I should'nt of used it in that context. At the time I could'nt find a better word to use.

You're going to have to provide a reference on that one. The word God is in the definition of Pantheism, which is pretty much universally accepted. How you define God is what differentiates a classical vs a naturalistic Pantheist.

A true pantheist just loves the natural world without reading some supernatural being into it, nor does he/she desire to ever invent one.

Where I differ from many classical atheists is that I subscribe to a theory that the "self" is necessary rather than contingent, so if your parents had never met I find it highly plausible you would become someone else instead. This is probably more at odds with secular humanism than just atheism. I just think if I was contingent on one certain female out of billions getting into bed one certain male also out of billions and one certain sperm fertilizing one particular egg then the chances of my existence would be so vanishingly slim that my very existence would be a kind of a paradox.

That sounds like supernatural to me. Also I've argued that awe is a supernatural feeling because science makes no presumptions about awe other than its place as a biochemical reaction in the brain. Attributing characteristics to the universe that don't actually exist is very non scientific IMO.

Also be careful with the word "natural." The WPM uses the word natural as an imprecise term and, if anything, seem to imply that natural is anything not man made. In reality the natural world of Pantheism is everything, including everything man made.
 
Top