Fundamentalist Atheists

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm totally lacking a million dollars right now.

Indeed, wealth is something most people lack.

 

[Willamena]

ooops, I meant Davey Jones.

LOL!

Frubals.

 

[Revoltingest]

ooops, I meant Davey Jones.

Makes more sense. I vaguely recall him....a context I'd never use.

 

[Willamena]

It was actually a Mickey song, but that's splitting hairs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theism is not some sort of monolithic belief system, so there is no reason for a person who is strictly monotheistic to completely agree with a pantheist as to what a god is. These "theisms" are distinct from each other.

Distinction between theisms are drawn.

There are distinctions,
We can find the distinctions,
We can see the distinctions,
We can describe the distinctions,
And we can define the distinctions,

So the distinctions have been drawn.

There is no reason why a strict monotheist should agree with a strict pantheist. They are different types of theisms.

Now if you want to argue, that atheism is not a monolithic belief system either, then go ahead and draw the distinctions, find them, describe them and define them. Give us a definition of the various categories of atheism, tell us how many ways there are to not believe in deity.

Whether we're talking about theists or atheists, each person will have their own take on the word "god". It's a double standard to act as if this is a problem for one group but not the other.

 

[Uberpod]

Makes more sense. I vaguely recall him....a context I'd never use.

Clearly, you are a rabid antimonkite.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Whether we're talking about theists or atheists, each person will have their own take on the word "god". It's a double standard to act as if this is a problem for one group but not the other.

I can acknowledge that. But if there are various forms of atheist, then define the distinction, describe them for us so we can have an understanding of the various forms.

If a monotheist were to say God is A and a pantheist says God is B. We cannot conclude that A = B, because we understand and know the distinctions between A and B. They are just not the same thing. If there are such distinctions within atheism then they should be defined and no atheist should make any blanket statements as to what atheism is.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then you are an amillionaire.

All rocks and most babies are amillionaires.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can acknowledge that. But if there are various forms of atheist, then define the distinction, describe them for us so we can have an understanding of the various forms.

If a monotheist were to say God is A and a pantheist says God is B. We cannot conclude that A = B, because we understand and know the distinctions between A and B. They are just not the same thing. If there are such distinctions within atheism then they should be defined and no atheist should make any blanket statements as to what atheism is.

What on Earth are you going on about? Pantheism is a type of monotheism.

Edit: and if you really meant it when you said "I can acknowledge that", then the rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Pantheism is a type of monotheism.

Try telling that to those of the Vedic traditions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Try telling that to those of the Vedic traditions.

Again: what on Earth are you going on about?

Monotheism: the belief that there is exactly one god.
Pantheism: the belief that God is everything.

Unless there's some pantheist out there who believes there's more than one "everything", pantheists are monotheists.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Again: what on Earth are you going on about?

Monotheism: the belief that there is exactly one god.
Pantheism: the belief that God is everything.

Unless there's some pantheist out there who believes there's more than one "everything", pantheists are monotheists.

You just don't want to acknowledge the distinction between the two theisms. Pantheism =/= Monotheism

 

[Copernicus]

Whether we're talking about theists or atheists, each person will have their own take on the word "god". It's a double standard to act as if this is a problem for one group but not the other.

I think that this is the real question that surrounds all the definitions, because atheism and theism are both philosophical positions with respect to the concept of a "god". Atheists reject belief in such beings (or "lack" it or whatever) and theists accept belief in at least one such being.

We've talked about the meaning of the word "god" before, and that definitions only minimally reflect a distinguishing characteristic of one word sense associated with the meaning. Meaning itself is a much more complex web of associations. But I would add the caveat that you cannot always trust reported intuitions about what people think they mean by the word. It depends on how they actually use the word, which may differ significantly from their report on how they use it. Also, the social nature of language implies that people cannot just use words to mean anything they want them to mean, because the meaning necessarily has to be shared in order to use it in communication. So you can't just use a word like "banana" to mean anything--say, be synonymous with "fire hydrant"--unless you can get others to buy off on that usage at least temporarily. The word "god", just like any other word in English, has a fairly conventional meaning that can be investigated empirically and supported with citations of usage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You just don't want to acknowledge the distinction between the two theisms. Pantheism =/= Monotheism

I acknowledge the diversity within monotheism and recognize that many (most?) monotheists are not pantheists. None of this means that pantheism isn't a subset of monotheism.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I acknowledge the diversity within monotheism and recognize that many (most?) monotheists are not pantheists. None of this means that pantheism isn't a subset of monotheism.

God is one does not equal God is all.

In fact in pantheism God does not even have to be personal but merely the universe as seen as divine but not deity.

Pantheism can even be polytheistic, where all the gods are the sum total of the universe, distinct in identity but one in purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is one does not equal God is all.

In fact in pantheism God does not even have to be personal but merely the universe as seen as divine but not deity.

So some pantheists are atheists? Seems like you're taking a creative approach to the "theist" part of "pantheist".

Pantheism can even be polytheistic, where all the gods are the sum total of the universe, distinct in identity but one in purpose.

I stand corrected: apparently, pantheists are either monotheists OR polytheists.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So some pantheists are atheists?

According to Dawkins, yes.

Dawkins: Pantheism is "Sexed-up Atheism"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

According to Dawkins, yes.

Dawkins: Pantheism is "Sexed-up Atheism"

Richard Dawkins speaks for you now? Interesting.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Richard Dawkins speaks for you now? Interesting.

Did I say that he does? I am merely pointed out that he believes that pantheism can be atheistic. Why? Because it is distinct from monotheism. In fact he goes out of his way to point out that it is whole other different animal.

 

[Bunyip]

Did I say that he does? I am merely pointed out that he believes that pantheism can be atheistic. Why? Because it is distinct from monotheism. In fact he goes out of his way to point out that it is whole other different animal.

You are imagining a conflict that does not exist. Sure, Pantheism can be atheistic, it can have no meaningful difference to atheism except for terminology.
However that does not mean that pantheism is necessarily distinct from monotheism, pantheism is monotheistic.