Non-Anthropomorphic Immanent God = Atheism?

[shunyadragon]

Of course you don't agree with pantheism if your panentheist. Just the same pantheism doesn't completely agree with panentheism or atheism. Far as I am concerned pantheists are the true monotheists.

Except for the fact that they do not believe in a God outside our physical existence.

 

[sun rise]

IMO, anything called "God" has been attributed with human characteristics. It comes along with the term.

If someone uses the terms "God" or "god" only in a non-literal way, then they're likely atheists. Using "Old Man Winter," "Mother Nature" or "Lady Luck" in a figurative way doesn't make a person a polytheist; in the same way, using "God" figuratively doesn't make a person a theist.


In general, I've found that most people who say that "God" is "the cosmos" or "nature" or the like don't actually mean that "God" is nothing more than the cosmos or nature. Generally, they're imbuing the cosmos or nature with attributes over and above the their conventional meaning.

For instance, defining "God" apophatically doesn't make much sense if all you mean by "God" is "the cosmos."

My understanding is that attributing human characteristics to God in Islam is forbidden.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My understanding is that attributing human characteristics to God in Islam is forbidden.

And yet they refer to God with "He" and "Him."

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet they refer to God with "He" and "Him."

This is only a convenience and limitation of human language, and not attributing human attributes to God. In the Baha'i Faith and Islam God is unknowable, without gender, and without human attributes.

 

[idav]

Except for the fact that they do not believe in a God outside our physical existence.

No cause then they'd be panentheist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Spinoza isn't saying "God" is allegorical. "the world are thought of as parts of one great substance", that's belief in something higher.

Incomplete concerning the citation of Spinoza. If you take the whole citation into account, in fact, he did not say that. Again . . .

"For Spinoza the claim that God is the same as the cosmos is spelled out as the thesis that there exists one and only one particular substance which he refers to as ‘God or nature’; the individual thing referred to as ‘God’ is one and the same object as the complex unit referred to as ‘nature’ or ‘the cosmos."

 

[shunyadragon]

No cause then they'd be panentheist.

Incorrect and incomplete as far as far as the panentheist. The God of the panentheist is not equated with the same as our physical existence as pantheist view defines God. The panentheist God is separate from the physical existence, but in intimate association with the physical existence.The God of the panentheist is an apophatic unknowable God as in the Baha'i Faith. In fact it close the belief of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[idav]

Incorrect and incomplete as far as far as the panentheist. The God of the panentheist is not equated with the same as our physical existence as pantheist view defines God. The panentheist God is separate from the physical existence, but in intimate association with the physical existence.The God of the panentheist is an apophatic unknowable God as in the Baha'i Faith. In fact it close the belief of the Baha'i Faith.

Its not incorrect or incomplete, panentheism is meant to be an umbrella term that covers several religions deities mainly the monotheistic faiths. Yes panentheism might sound Baha'i, it also sounds Hindu, and Jewish.

 

[Jumi]

I would think atheists would contest that, even though that would mean the population of atheists would go up.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No. Givin the root word means, "Without God's".

Etymologically it means without theism, and theism meant without belief in personal God(s). Deism (pandeism and panendeism) and pantheism (and panentheism) were considered subsets of atheism. Some people still find those parameters to be less unwieldy but it is more in use in certain theological and philosophical circles than in common use.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is only a convenience and limitation of human language, and not attributing human attributes to God.

In English at least, things without gender are referred to with "it." In this context, gender is a human attribute.

In the Baha'i Faith and Islam God is unknowable, without gender, and without human attributes.

People don't form entire religions around unknowable things and the actions and desires of these unknowable things.

Like I said earlier, the genderless pronoun in English is "it." English doesn't have gendered nouns like some other languages. The term "he" necessarily implies that thing being referred to has a (male) gender.

And the 101 attributes of God listed here sure seem pretty human to me:
Attributes of God

 

[Willamena]

My view is that it's mostly just weak-minded sophistry. If God is not transcendental, then God must be anthropomorphic, as it must exist within and through us. Yet, existence, itself, and including ourselves specifically, manifests inexplicable degrees of transcendence: from matter to life, and from life to conscious self-awareness. So to claim that God is a lesser form of existence, by claiming that God is not transcendental, defies the definition of a even a man, much less a "god".

It defies many images of god, yes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Etymologically it means without theism, and theism meant without belief in personal God(s). Deism (pandeism and panendeism) and pantheism (and panentheism) were considered subsets of atheism. Some people still find those parameters to be less unwieldy but it is more in use in certain theological and philosophical circles than in common use.

It's likely schematics. This is a section from Wiki but it seems academic circles reflects the the terms meaning in the same way.

Wiki...


"The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)"

 

[Willamena]

Except for the fact that they do not believe in a God outside our physical existence.

That's not an exception but a requirement.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's not an exception but a requirement.

True

 

[shunyadragon]

In English at least, things without gender are referred to with "it." In this context, gender is a human attribute.

Scripture does not follow secular English convention.

People don't form entire religions around unknowable things and the actions and desires of these unknowable things.

ignorance of the nature of a religions beliefs, is not knowledge from your perspective.

Like I said earlier, the genderless pronoun in English is "it." English doesn't have gendered nouns like some other languages. The term "he" necessarily implies that thing being referred to has a (male) gender.

Like I said earlier . . .

Scripture does not follow secular English convention.

And the 101 attributes of God listed here sure seem pretty human to me:
Attributes of God[/QUOTE]

Attributes of God are not God, they are attributes of Creation and humanity.

 

[idav]

Incomplete concerning the citation of Spinoza. If you take the whole citation into account, in fact, he did not say that. Again . . .

"For Spinoza the claim that God is the same as the cosmos is spelled out as the thesis that there exists one and only one particular substance which he refers to as ‘God or nature’; the individual thing referred to as ‘God’ is one and the same object as the complex unit referred to as ‘nature’ or ‘the cosmos."

He does say it right after the part you cut off.

""On such a scheme the finite things of the world are thought of as something like parts of the one great substance, ""

 

[shunyadragon]

He does say it right after the part you cut off.

""On such a scheme the finite things of the world are thought of as something like parts of the one great substance, ""

True, but the sum of the parts is the cosmos. The first part clearly and specifically defines pantheism.

 

[idav]

True, but the sum of the parts is the cosmos. The first part clearly and specifically defines pantheism.

I'm trying to understand what your getting at. A pantheist by definition holds a belief in a certain type of god, you can disagree with the belief but doesn't undermine its theism.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm trying to understand what your getting at. A pantheist by definition holds a belief in a certain type of god, you can disagree with the belief but doesn't undermine its theism.

Reread Spinoza. There is no certain type of God in pantheism. The God of pantheism is the physical cosmos. It is a symbolic use of the word 'God.'