In the simplest of terms...

Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a 'God', or supreme being.

Pantheism is a theistical belief of sorts, probably only because of Spinoza's intent to provide an inductively sound argument for the existence of 'God'. He succeeded in doing so, although he failed to describe the 'God' in which he believed.

Pantheism claims that an indivisible original substance is the origin of our existence, without anthropomorphism, nor intent, reason, or purpose for the manifestation of this reality.

Why could there not be knowledge of reality(for the lack of a better description) of which we have no perception, and therefore we, as humans, are completely unaware of it's elemental existence?

All things manifest from this origin in some way, shape or form.

It is curious to me how you seem to have taken a similar stance to that which I had suggested regarding 'God' perceiving itself through a physical manifestation.

I wonder if you also include the element of purpose within your perspective when it concerns this.

Eliminate that purpose, and you have pantheism.

Why could this not be the case? Moreover, why must there be an ability for a human ackowledgement which claims to understand?

Now then, is this still akin to pure atheism?

Seems more like Pantaoism to me...

Who's the one who is forcing labels on rain barrels?

So-called pantheists? True pantheism?



Which view of pantheism claims this?

There are "Atheistic Pantheistic views" today. I certainly won't deny that. In fact, I've even stated many times in the past that pantheism, in general as an abstract notion, can indeed be beneficial for atheists. And there are atheists who accept a 'pantheistic world view' meaning only that all is one.

There is such a thing as "Atheistic Pantheism". It's not considered to be a contradiction in terms because pantheism in it's most abstract form simply means all that exists is one

However technically there is a problem because the word itself mean,...

Pan = all

Theism = belief in god or at least belief in spirit.

So Pantheism is a belief that all is god or all is spirit.

So technically Atheistic Pantheism is a contradiction in terms, but many atheists ignore that technicality because the view that all-is-one is inviting even as an atheistic view.

I personally believe in "Spiritual Natural Pantheism". Not Atheistic Pantheism.



I have never denied this.

On the contrary I expect that it is true!

From my point of view that comes with the territory of Spiritual Pantheism. All is Spirit. The original meaning of the word.

So who's peeing in who's rain barrel?

So-called pantheists?????

True pantheists????

I'm even willing to recognize Atheistic Pantheism as a valid concept.

I've told atheists before that pantheism can be thought of atheistically.

Just go with "all-is-one" and forget about the technicality of suffix "theism"

But don't take it to such an extreme that you start claiming that Spiritual Pantheism is not longer "True Pantheism"

All you're doing then is peeing in my rain barrel.

I mean, emotionally I don't care. I'm not offended. You can pee in my rain barrel all you want and it won't offend me.

But when you're done peeing just realize that you haven't lessened the value of my rain barrel.

Your label of "So-called Pantheists" won't stick here. Take it somewhere else.

Just like with all religious concepts pantheism comes in many flavors. Even atheists are using the term now. This is true.

But that doesn't invalidate those who still think of it as a spirituality.

I think I prefer Panda-ism...if I have to ism anything.

I like Pandas.

I like that choice too.

In fact, I think I'm going to wander off and find some rose gardens to get lost in.

The original concept of pantheism James, came through Spinoza's writings, specifically Ethics I. There is no anthropomorphism involved, thus Einstein's claim in not believing in a personal 'God'... He understood what he read.

I am guilty as charged concerning the labels, uncharacteristically so, my apologies.

However, my beliefs are very close to Spinoza's, and therefore for another to mistranslate pantheism and stray away from his meanings is to discredit the validity, and add absolute confusion to the origin of pantheism.

Being who you are James, surely you can relate to this. How many times have you witnessed evolution being carelessly strewn about? That is about how I feel at times when another misconstrues what I believe is a valid inductive argument for the existence of 'God'...

Di even reads Spinoza...

This isn't true Michael.

Spinoza merely concieved his own version of panthism in the 1600's. He was not the originator of pantheism.

Hinduism and many of the Eastern Mystical religions were all pantheisic in nature, long before Jesus was even born, much less Spinoza.

Spinoza did not invent pantheism.

Moreover, I have read Spinoza. I ulitmately reject his views because his views were entirely based on the classical Newtonian world view of absolute time, absolute space, and absolute physical existence. I realize that he did his work right around the same time as Newton (possibly even before Newton), but the concepts of absolute time, absolute space, and absolute matter where already well established. This is why Isaac Newton ran with them himself.

Spinoza was a very brilliant philosopher for his day. But if he were alive today, in the face of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, I'm absolutely certain that he would re-think his ideas. He would have to because his entire world view was based on the classical view of the day.

He created a pantheisic view based on a tangible world. He also had no reason to beleive in a Big Bang. Back in those days they believed the universe was forever static. In fact, They weren't even aware that there are galaxies beyond the Milky way in the 1600's. They didn't even realize that the universe is explanding until the 1800's.

Spinoza's world view is just one world view that was created in the 1600's based on the knowledge of that day and he did not invent pantheism. He merely created his own version of pantheism.

i have to agree totally with abra on this one creative.

Thank your for that Abra.

I think to pick a single philosopher and base your world view on that is like putting yourself into a box.

JB

I gotta agree with my dear australian sister it's amazingly useless arguing about definitions.
that is all what we have done in this thread.
it is like we are looking on different dictionaries different definitions of the same words, yet there is no agreement whatsoever.
why we just don't share what we believe without trying to tell others why we think they are wrong.
and i know that somebody who read what i wrote in this thread will say that i did the same thing.
i have to say fair enough.
this is why I try to avoid posting because no matter what is very hard for me just to post what i know and believe without sounding in a way as if i were saying that others are wrong.
But honestly what i just try to say is what I believe and why other people's views don't make sense to me.

hard to do. i really feel sorry. however, if they are happy well good for them.

ahhh...

Rumi

I love reading Rumi's heart in words.

Artsy has an old thread full of Rumi.

it is in the catacombs of this forum.

Beautiful prose.

that was beautiful, Jess.

I will concede concerning the origin of pantheism. I was referring to the onlysound argument.

I once again state, Spinoza has the only inductively sound logical construct.

James, your opinion differs from many in philosophy and science also.

Differs from Einstein even...

Depends upon your circles, I suppose.

Again, your choice to place value where you may is a personal one. As is mine.

I think if you read it and came away with that summary, you either had a pre-conceived bias which smothered your perceptual faculty, or you just did not get it.

You constantly claim quantum mechanics and physics as substantive support for your claims.

Now then, in order to clarify for me, since you have clearly suggested that Spinoza contradicted quantum mechanics and/or physics, could we entertain the following suggestion?


Could we go through the thread I posted in the past which contained Ethics I axioms and the specific defintions for those terms in his construct. This would give me a better idea exactly what you are referring to, and allow further discussion focusing upon that subject.

If you would?

You know what...

Nevermind!

I just read through Jb's so-called consciousness thread again and saw your responses...

You are not who I thought to begin with.

Now you and JB speak for another? I quoted his words.

That is too much... truly too much.

Speak for your self.

I will not respond to you any more.

I have no reason to...

Be well.

In your humble opinion.



Einstein differed with himself. One minute he states that he doesn't believe in a personified God, the next minute he says that he doesn't believe that God's throws dice!

Clearly he wasn't certain precisely how he felt about the issue.

I think it's cyrstal clear that he didn't believe in the biblical God. He stated that many times. He was totally opposed to the idea of a God who keeps track of who's naughty or nice, and delves out punishements or rewards accordingly.

However, his very profound refusal to believe that God throws dice did indeed indicates that he believed in more than just a random act of creation. He held some kind of believe that there is more to God than pure randomness.

Ironically I think it's funny because Quantum Mechanics truly doesn't demand pure randomness. Had Einstein really given the matter a little more attention I think he would have realized this. I think he was clinging to absolute cause and effect yet. The absence of cause and effect does not need to lead to total chaos.



I have no problem with that. But then again, I'm not trying to label you a 'so-called' pantheist.

I just feel that Spinoza's construct is more atheistic than spiritual. And as I've said before I'll even honor atheistic pantheism as a valid non-spiritual view of the world.

I just personally don't see it as being spiritual.



I didn't say that it contradicted quantum mechanics. I simply said that it was constructed without an awarness of quantum mechanics.



I'll try. I have other things going on too. So please don't expect my full undivided attention. Why don't you just post the axioms here and maybe I can just pick out the ones that I disagree with.

Speak for another?

But you were the one who was trying to throw the words of another into JB's face?

You seem to have no problem flinging mud. But you become quite upset when any of it lands on you.

You shouldn't be trying to fling mud in the first place.

I have absolutely no ill-feelings toward you at all. I just think you were wrong in what you were trying to accuse JB of. It appears to me that you were just trying to prove that you were right and she was wrong, and you were trying to use the words of another to do it, but they didn't apply.

Hello W!

That beautiful Rumi thread was Bl8ant's ... mine was Hafiz ... both passionate magic ... I still go sit to wallow around in the words ...

Thank you for remembering ....

Who said this?

Learn how to separate the author from their writings, and then keep the notions on a separate plane.

I could do this too.

Here I will show you how it is done on an impersonal level...

I think to make this claim implies that ythe one making it thinks they know what my world view is, as well as what it has been based upon.

I think that this clearly shows how assumptive people so often perceive incorrectly as a result of their pseudo-knowledge base.

Therefore, as a result of this assumption being based upon false truthes(that which you mistakenly thought you knew), this also clearly displays a complete lack of the awareness which is necessary to effectively make an accurate and/or valid inference, nevermind the elemental incapacity.

I strongly suggest that you read this carefully.

If you continue to speak nothing but negativity towards me as a person...

I will disect your every response to me or towards me with an impersonal precision that will leave the message without life, and your tongue without substance.

<-------- tongue

Hey leave my tongue alone.

What if you believe in monotheistic polyduelism?

hummmm... what's a polyduelism?