• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fundamentalist Atheists

CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Monotheism postulates a personal creator god...pantheism the opposite.
 
S

steeltoes

Junior member
CynthiaCypher said:
Are you kidding me? Monotheism postulates a personal creator god...pantheism the opposite.
Click to expand...




There seems to be two modes of pantheism:

"As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism. From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.


"Others hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical.; in other words: that the Universe (with all its divine extensions, planets, suns, galaxies, thrones and creatures) is what people and religions call "God"." wiki


It appears to me that calling everything God is redundant, IMHO. Unless of course this idea provides meaning and purpose, which brings us back to an all knowing God.
 
Last edited:
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
CynthiaCypher said:
Are you kidding me? Monotheism postulates a personal creator god...pantheism the opposite.
Click to expand...

No, not kidding you, Many Pantheists argue for a personal creator god.

Which is why you must accept the definitions people give of their own positions.

For example : I am an atheist because I do not believe in god/s due to the paucity of evidence. Now whatever definition of atheism you prefer has no effect on my position - you can not change a persons position by changing the definition of a term.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
CynthiaCypher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since when is Dawkins a theologian or religious studies scholar?
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
No, not kidding you, Many Pantheists argue for a personal creator god.

Which is why you must accept the definitions people give of their own positions.

For example : I am an atheist because I do not believe in god/s due to the paucity of evidence. Now whatever definition of atheism you prefer has no effect on my position - you can not change a persons position by changing the definition of a term.
Click to expand...

No they don't, those are you are confusing panentheism with pantheism
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
steeltoes said:
There seems to be two modes of pantheism:

"As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism. From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God. All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.


"Others hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical.; in other words: that the Universe (with all its divine extensions, planets, suns, galaxies, thrones and creatures) is what people and religions call "God"." wiki


It appears to me that calling everything God is redundant, IMHO. Unless of course this idea provides meaning and purpose, which brings us back to an all knowing God.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct and maybe calling everything god is redundant or maybe we should drop the word universe and replace it with god but that is a matter of opinion and taste. But anyways, as to whether pantheism = monotheism...no. "There is one god" =/= "God is all", one is saying that there is one entity that is divinity and the other holds that all entities are divine.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Sunstone said:
Some folks are downright imperialists when it comes to words. The only definition they'll accept is their own.
Click to expand...

A few of the postings before this point play the word 'ignorant' rather back and forth.

Would you agree?
There are people not informed....they are ignorant.
There are people who choose to ignore...they are profoundly ignorant.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
CynthiaCypher said:
No they don't, those are you are confusing panentheism with pantheism
Click to expand...

You seem fixated on applying labels rather than engaging in whatever positon a pesron may hold. What point is there to apply the labels? Few if any people fit them specifically, and most could as easily and accurately be defined by several other labels.

There are people who identify as Pantheist and yet believe in a personal creator god, labels do not tell the whole story.
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
What point is there to apply the labels? .
Click to expand...

What is the point of defining terms and coming to an arrangement? Well...coherence. So a common ground may be established and people can understand each other.

Coherence is important.

Do you understand that?
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
CynthiaCypher said:
What is the point of defining terms and coming to an arrangement? Well...coherence. So a common ground may be established and people can understand each other.

Coherence is important.

Do you understand that?
Click to expand...

In this context labels do not adequately describe people's positions, and thus do not serve to establish common ground, coherence or understanding.

Do you understand that?
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
In this context labels do not adequately describe people's positions, and thus do not serve to establish common ground, coherence or understanding.

Do you understand that?
Click to expand...

How can common ground be established unless you come to an semantic arrangement? Unless you come to an understanding of what people mean by their terms? In order for common ground to be established the terms must be defined and understood.

Capiche?
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
CynthiaCypher said:
How can common ground be established unless you come to an semantic arrangement? Unless you come to an understanding of what people mean by their terms? In order for common ground to be established the terms must be defined and understood.

Capiche?
Click to expand...

Well you can establish a common ground far more effectively by simply asking the person you are engaging with what their position is.

Understanding your opponants position is far more productive than is arguing pointlessly about definitions.

Capiche?
 
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
Well you can establish a common ground far more effectively by simply asking the person you are engaging with what their position is.

Understanding your opponants position is far more productive than is arguing pointlessly about definitions.

Capiche?
Click to expand...

Qui numquam fuerunt, Quod ita sit, qui numquam fuerunt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top