Pantheist = Everything is an Image of GodPantheist = Everything is God
Atheist = Nothing is God
So how can "Pantheist-Atheist" be anything but a contradiction?
Atheist = God is an Image of God
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pantheist = Everything is an Image of GodPantheist = Everything is God
Atheist = Nothing is God
So how can "Pantheist-Atheist" be anything but a contradiction?
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?
Pantheist = Everything is God
Atheist = Nothing is God
So how can "Pantheist-Atheist" be anything but a contradiction?
Scientific Pantheist just substitutes the word "God" which they consider imaginary to a non-sentient "Cosmos":bow: which they consider to be real.
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.
But in another thread, you basically said it's not a God at all. So why call it one?The difference is a scientific pantheist can touch his God/AKA Cosmos/AKA nature.
That is why I assign it to its rightful title "the Cosmos" and forget about calling it God or Zeus or Brahman or whatever.But in another thread, you basically said it's not a God at all. So why call it one?
Fine, whatever. If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. Why obfuscate?That is why I assign it to its rightful title "the Cosmos" and forget about calling is God or Zeus or whatever.
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.Fine, whatever. If you don't believe in God, you're an atheist. Why obfuscate?
Yeah. I just don't see why atheism needs sexing up, and imprecise communication is a pet peeve.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.
The difference is a scientific pantheist can touch his God/AKA Cosmos/AKA nature. The orthodox Abrahamic theist can only imagine theirs.
A true pantheist has no god. A true pantheist is his or her own master.So that means your god is the mundane.
1) They're not mutually exclusive.A true pantheist has no god. A true pantheist is his or her own master.
A true pantheist has no god. A true pantheist is his or her own master.
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.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.
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 is a very pantheistic statement, and I could'nt have said it better myself.A true pantheist just loves the natural world without reading some supernatural being into it, nor does he/she desire to ever invent one.