Non-Anthropomorphic Immanent God = Atheism?

[shunyadragon]

Fair enough - thanks for the clarification.

clarification should not be needed.

No, I'm really not. This is your interpretation of the situation, not my actual state of being.

The language you used was most definitely emotional and over the top, and no need for interpretation.

 

[idav]

Correction: I never said the pantheism 'must be' pantheistic naturalism.

Of course, one is free to understand the term "pantheism" in what ever they see fit. Your over the top and being very emotional with such nonsense as accusations of invalidating peoples belief and cultural erasure.

Aren't you claiming pantheism is by definition naturalistic/atheistic? You also say "all is God" for pantheism and "all in God" for panentheism are not sufficient for definition? You've been the only one I notice attempt to limit the umbrella terms.

 

[Quintessence]

clarification should not be needed.

I'm not sure why you would think so. Good communication requires mutual clarification to ensure parties involved are correctly understanding what is meant or intended. Asking for and providing clarification helps avoid stuff like this:

The language you used was most definitely emotional and over the top, and no need for interpretation.

... which is still your interpretation of what I said. Similarly, I interpreted what you wrote earlier as insisting that pantheism must be naturalistic and monistic. I was wrong, and so are you here. It happens, and clarifying what we mean can help make sense of things.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure why you would think so. Good communication requires mutual clarification to ensure parties involved are correctly understanding what is meant or intended. Asking for and providing clarification helps avoid stuff like this:



... which is still your interpretation of what I said. Similarly, I interpreted what you wrote earlier as insisting that pantheism must be naturalistic and monistic. I was wrong, and so are you here. It happens, and clarifying what we mean can help make sense of things.

Many, many, many times I stated clearly describing central concept of 'pantheism,' and NOT that there are not alternate views. I do believe there is a problem of people describing 'pantheism' in a way it was not first proposed and how it is best defined today. The central concept remains that the cosmos (physical existence)=God.

From: monism pantheism difference - Google Search

"Pantheists are "monists" ... they believe that there is only one Being, and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.Pantheism is closely related to monism, as pantheists too believe all of reality is one substance, called Universe, God or Nature."

There are, of course, other forms of monism than pantheism

I do not consider Vedic belief systems as either pantheist nor panentheist, because of the central belief in the non-dualist illusionary nature of our existence.

 

[idav]

Many, many, many times I stated clearly describing central concept of 'pantheism,' and NOT that there are not alternate views. I do believe there is a problem of people describing 'pantheism' in a way it was not first proposed and how it is best defined today. The central concept remains that the cosmos (physical existence)=God.

From: monism pantheism difference - Google Search

"Pantheists are "monists" ... they believe that there is only one Being, and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.Pantheism is closely related to monism, as pantheists too believe all of reality is one substance, called Universe, God or Nature."

There are, of course, other forms of monism than pantheism

I do not consider Vedic belief systems as either pantheist nor panentheist, because of the central belief in the non-dualist illusionary nature of our existence.

There's that word again, when you say God = physical existence. It's just called existence, no qualifier.