Jumi
Well-Known Member
In naturalistic pantheism there shouldn't be any difference.
-
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!
Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone
- Thread starter Jumi
- Start date
Orbit
I'm a planet
The difference is in the mind of the person hearing the word "God" and thinking they have an atheist duty to refute it.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
How a person defines the term. In essence there's no difference. In attitude there is.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I've always been puzzled by pantheism. If God=universe, why bother to add God at all, it seems like a redundant term.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Except for the person's attitude towards nature and the Universe. Basically, for a naturalistic pantheist, it's not about proving that some mysterious creator God exists, but rather seeing the word God at its core, what it means at the most fundamental level, and realize that this term is identical with nature and Universe. The Universe did create itself and us and everything. It's more powerful. It's eternal. It contains all information and knowledge that ever can be found. And it's ultimately in control of our destiny. Many fundamental properties of what a "God" is.
gsa
Well-Known Member
Is it? Or is the difference the result of naturalists and materialists adopting language that is confusing and opaque?
I am not denying that there is an ability to have an "oceanic feeling" sensory experience that among other things might lead to a belief that you are in greater harmony with the universe. It is the adoption of the term "God" and other god language (divine, for example, or even "pantheist") that makes this very difficult to understand, because that language has certain connotations based on historical usage as well as modern usage in a culture that is predominantly monotheist.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
It's a personal preference rather than a belief.
The idea of God is in general something that is more powerful, eternal, contain all knowledge, creator of us, etc. And in most of those things, the Universe fits the bill.
The use of the term is to show reverence. Like calling your biological birth giver "mom". Some things we call things in life are based not only of the reference to it, but also the relevance and relationship. Calling the Universe God is like calling my living space home. We have many synonyms in language. Words that mean fundamentally the same thing, but they also carry emotions and other meanings on top of it. You call your wife "love" or "buttercup" or "honey". Not because it changes what they are fundamentally, but it changes your view and attitude towards her.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
The use of God and the word pantheism is 400 years old or more, even the naturalistic pantheism (Spinoza at least). The concept of pantheism is older than Christianity (and much older than atheism). So it's not something newly adopted.
Actually, it's the other way around. The modern usage has locked in the term God into a specific judeo-christian-muslim concept and people are rejecting old traditions of other definitions because it's too confusing to keep them all in mind.
The term "pantheism" was used the first time in 17th century. The concept of pantheism can be seen in the Stoics, but probably even in Heraclitus (500 BCE, that's 2,500 years ago). Also, Taoism can also be viewed as a pantheism (Tao Te Ching, 400 BCE).
So it's hardly just vogue.
And herein lies the problem this thread is about. There are in fact, historically, many definitions of the term "God". Many times when atheists (me included) argue with theists and the non-existence of God, it's under some specific definitions of God that not necessarily match the theists views. The God the atheist is dispelling is a God that the theist doesn't believe in either.
My best guess is that it involves an attitude of reverence and some form of faith in an underlying plan.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yes.
Not so much. At least not to me. Except that it gives me peace that things are what they are. Life is what it is. It's easier to accept what comes at you because it's not always in your control, but still leaves it open that it's up to you to do your best, since you won't get things without some effort (kindof a law of nature).
I'll be the judge of what helps me or not, thanks. I don't think you know what my objective here is.
You say that you believe in God. Since an idea can't be believed unless it's conceived, doesn't this mean that you really do have a concept of God after all?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Exactly.
The point here though is that the use of the term "God" differs with different people. Some of these aren't necessarily uses of things that do not exist, but for things that do exist. For a naturalistic pantheist, the Universe, reality, nature, existence, world, life, ... it does exist, and I'm quite sure that many, perhaps most hardcore atheists agree. So in this use, God does exist. The question for some atheists then becomes, not if the subject matter exists, but if the definition and use of the term God is approved to some higher authority (like dictionary or tradition). And, by that, we come back to the OP. Are we talking about different things when we talk about God? And is possible that an atheist (me included) can fall into the trap of talking about the Judeo-Christian-philosophical-traditional God while the theist is talking about a different God? It ultimately comes down to: we all see colors differently, so can I really tell someone that they're wrong about their favorite color?
So what makes "the Universe and nature" God, then?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
By choice.
The key here is that we have different definitions of God. The pantheistic definition is very old and not something I just made up. There are people who are pantheists. Some theists have more of pantheistic or panentheistic views but still call themselves theists. When the atheist is trying to disprove that theist's God, they're getting into a conundrum and lot of misunderstanding, simply because the atheist is trying to prove to the theist that some God doesn't exist, a God that the theist doesn't believe exist either. They're fundamentally in agreement about what exists or not, but they're only in disagreement of the use of the word (and many times without ever realizing it).
Plenty of terms show reverence. Why call the universe "God" as opposed to "Mom", "King", "home", "buddy", "My Lord", "Your Honour", etc.?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Why not? It's a person's choice, not yours.
The thing here is that I'm not trying to convince you about pantheism. I'm only trying to convince you that there are people who has other definitions of the term "God" that don't fit the judeo-christian-philosophical-traditional or atheist-defined term. Some theists are panentheists. Which means that atheists are preaching to the choir when they're trying to disprove the same God the theist doesn't believe in. Neither one of them believe in the atheist described God.
--edit
As an atheist, you disagree to the use of the term rather than the concept it stands for. Then atheism in this case is a rejection of a dictionary definition, not a rejection of the existence of a mysterious spirit thing.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Let me see. A little experiment. I might just confuse things or even be completely wrong. 
The gnomist believes gnomes exist.
The agnomist don't believe gnomes exist.
The argument from the agnomist is that gnomes obviously don't exist. No one has ever seen one. But the gnomist says that he has, and not only that, he can see one right now. The agnomist says it's impossible, "prove it!" is the response. The gnomist says, "I can see it right now, out there, through my window in the garden." The agnomist says, "You're hallucinating. It's impossible. There are no gnomes." The gnomist says, "No they do. I've had it for three years now. It was on sale all Lowe's for 49.99, and it's been standing there in my garden ever since." At which the agnomist responds, "That's not a gnome! A gnome is a living thing that lives underground and wears green hats, and they don't exist!"
The gnomist believes gnomes exist.
The agnomist don't believe gnomes exist.
The argument from the agnomist is that gnomes obviously don't exist. No one has ever seen one. But the gnomist says that he has, and not only that, he can see one right now. The agnomist says it's impossible, "prove it!" is the response. The gnomist says, "I can see it right now, out there, through my window in the garden." The agnomist says, "You're hallucinating. It's impossible. There are no gnomes." The gnomist says, "No they do. I've had it for three years now. It was on sale all Lowe's for 49.99, and it's been standing there in my garden ever since." At which the agnomist responds, "That's not a gnome! A gnome is a living thing that lives underground and wears green hats, and they don't exist!"
Shad
Veteran Member
Let me see. A little experiment. I might just confuse things or even be completely wrong.
The gnomist believes gnomes exist.
The agnomist don't believe gnomes exist.
The argument from the agnomist is that gnomes obviously don't exist. No one has ever seen one. But the gnomist says that he has, and not only that, he can see one right now. The agnomist says it's impossible, "prove it!" is the response. The gnomist says, "I can see it right now, out there, through my window in the garden." The agnomist says, "You're hallucinating. It's impossible. There are no gnomes." The gnomist says, "No they do. I've had it for three years now. It was on sale all Lowe's for 49.99, and it's been standing there in my garden ever since." At which the agnomist responds, "That's not a gnome! A gnome is a living thing that lives underground and wears green hats, and they don't exist!"
Which is only a demonstration of keeping the object vague and ambiguous leaves an out for the one making a claim. It is not the problem of the agnomist but the gnomist since they failed to provide details. It is a mix between ambiguity fallacy and aneddotal fallacies. Just as when someone claims they believe in the god of the Bible but fail to mention that they do not believe in Hell fire but oblivion as Hell instead.
Orbit
I'm a planet
It's not an object, it's a subject. And yes it is vague and ambiguous, and apophatic. You can't provide details for that which cannot be known.