Can you be a Pantheist and an Atheist?

[brbubba]

Explain the relation between fantastic unicorns and natural sensations of awe and humility.


Im assuming the differences are numerous as the number of individuals and the people who feel the need to define a category or a label. however Naturalistic Pantheism may narrow it down considerably.

If I experience unicorns then I can posit that they are natural. If you experience a sense of awe and humility then you can posit that it feels natural to you. But both unicorns and awe are beyond the the purview of science. In fact, science would simply say that any emotions you feel are biochemical reactions in the brain. So if all you are doing is "feeling," then you are an emotional atheist, but if you are positing that there is something more to it, then you have to go beyond science.

I'm intrigued with this question on the basis of semantics. As a classical pantheist if someone called me an atheist, the entire notion would be very very far from my mindset. So I think there is value in standardizing a base for the word pantheist. Just as there is a base for someone calling themselves a christian.

It is most certainly not someone who lacks belief in all gods. That would be impossible, as shown by pantheism. I believe in pantheism's god, but I don't find it necessary to revere it or call it god.

So now you don't revere nature, aka God?

 

[Tathagata]

"Everything God, and no God, are identical positions."


.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Do you, or can you ascribe to both terms simultaneously and why?

My own personal view is that no, you cannot, by definition, ascribe to both beliefs simultaneously. I have found that in many cases, where this dual dependency exists, it is typically to assert one's differing views on God when approached from a Judeo Christian perspective. However, I posit that this is an antagonistic stance, that is likely done simply to be contrary instead of attempting to describe one's true feelings regarding Pantheism. Furthermore, it doesn't help the debate when people like Dawkins refer to Pantheism as "sexed up atheism," leading to even more confusion.

Here's a nice online source that might be good for the discussion. Is Pantheism Atheistic?

No you can't be pantheist and atheist. Pantheist think everything is divine and atheist think divinity dose'nt exist.

 

[Willamena]

"Everything God, and no God, are identical positions."


.

"Something God and no God" can also be identical positions.

 

[doppelganger]

If everything is "God," then no thing is "God." Does a non-thing "exist"?

 

[blackout]

If everything is "God," then no thing is "God." Does a non-thing "exist"?

Quite!

And as well ,if any'thing can be experienced as "divinity" or "god",
then it naturally (and inclusively) follows
that no'thing can.
(as "no" is a variety of "any")

*UV is so happy that Dopp's back* :hug:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If everything is "God," then no thing is "God." Does a non-thing "exist"?

If it can be perceived, sensed, or imagined, sure. Why not?

I say, what the hell.....I have a 50/50 shot at being reasonable.

 

[doppelganger]

If it can be perceived, sensed, or imagined, sure. Why not?

I say, what the hell.....I have a 50/50 shot at being reasonable.

How does one imagine, perceive or sense a non-thing?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

How does one imagine, perceive or sense a non-thing?

By thinking about it really really really hard.

I see it as the power of our creative potential.

 

[doppelganger]

By thinking about it really really really hard.

I see it as the power of our creative potential.

Can you be more specific? What are you doing when you "create" by thinking?

 

[Erebus]

Do you, or can you ascribe to both terms simultaneously and why?

Sure you can, you can label yourself as whatever you please. Personally though, I think of the terms as being seperate and so I would not consider a pantheist to be an atheist. The reason for this is that I see atheism by it's simplest definition:

a·the·ist (

th

-

st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

A pantheist very much believes in a God, it's just not necessarily a supernatural one.

It boils down to personal choice in my opinion, I don't place much importance on labels, so it doesn't bother me if somebody considers themself to be a pantheistic atheist if that's what they really want.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Can you be more specific? What are you doing when you "create" by thinking?

Well, let's see......I could be discovering. I could be simply observing. I could be simply turning my head and seeing things from a brand new angle. But since I'm me, I prefer to think that I'm "creating" it. The ego stroke rejuvenates me.

 

[Breathe]

Here's something that I'd like to know, since I was asked it: If one considers pantheism to be, essentially, atheism, then what would that person see pandeism as? Would it be "more or less atheistic" than pantheism?

 

[doppelganger]

Well, let's see......I could be discovering. I could be simply observing. I could be simply turning my head and seeing things from a brand new angle. But since I'm me, I prefer to think that I'm "creating" it. The ego stroke rejuvenates me.

But the act of seeing "things," and thereby creating them through your observation means they are no longer non-things. David Bohm refers to this as "fragmentation." Creation by the activity of thought carving out useful pieces of sensory experience and attaching signifiers stored in memory to these perceived things.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But the act of seeing "things," and thereby creating them through your observation means they are no longer non-things. David Bohm refers to this as "fragmentation." Creation by the activity of thought carving out useful pieces of sensory experience and attaching signifiers stored in memory to these perceived things.

Oh yeah?

.

.

.

That's all I got.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

How does one imagine, perceive or sense a non-thing?

We've wrapped it in a symbol and a model that, contradictory, has characteristics. In the same way we can talk about the Tao, Chaos, and for some, God, we relate to it in a way that allows us to understand the non-understandable.

 

[brbubba]

But the act of seeing "things," and thereby creating them through your observation means they are no longer non-things. David Bohm refers to this as "fragmentation." Creation by the activity of thought carving out useful pieces of sensory experience and attaching signifiers stored in memory to these perceived things.

:yes:

Someone once made a blog post essentially saying the same thing, "abstracting your religion to the point it is practically indistinguishable from the normal workings of the universe is not enlightened, but a crock."

Now whether it was actually a crock, I might not go that far. The point being, if you are simply doing what he stated, is that really Pantheism and why aren't you an atheist with a morality? in other words, why go to length to differentiate your position as anything other than atheist?

I'm sticking with the perspective that a non traditional definition of God is not synonymous with no God. From a layman's perspective I think it would be more useful to describe that you believe in a non sentient God.

 

[Willamena]

I think it suffices to say that when you speak of nothing, you've made it something (else, you know... there'd be nothing to talk about).

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think it suffices to say that when you speak of nothing, you've made it something (else, you know... there'd be nothing to talk about).

Kind of like the weather.

 

[doppelganger]

I think it suffices to say that when you speak of nothing, you've made it something (else, you know... there'd be nothing to talk about).

Which is why the mystics don't speak of it . . . or at least when they do, they recall that the Tao that is spoken is not the Eternal Tao. It's so easy to forget that second part . . .