Maybe it is an american thing? I keep hearing about that, but it is an ill suit for what he actually writes, so much so that I have a hard time remembering that the criticism exists despite hearing it constantly.
-
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!
Pantheism and Deism - Richard Dawkins' comment
- Thread starter Deidre
- Start date
Maybe it is an american thing? I keep hearing about that, but it is an ill suit for what he actually writes, so much so that I have a hard time remembering that the criticism exists despite hearing it constantly.
That's why I inserted ''groupies''
Deadtroopers
Member
And you know; that is exactly what I did - without having seen your replyI know, I live in that city
Have a nice evening! If you eat lots of crisps, it'll soak up the beer, so you can drink more...
In my view, yes. Absolutely.
.Deadtroopers
Member
I know, I live in that city
Manchester or Preston? I couldn't see your avatar properly without going up to the screen... Wait you are not actually an avatar of Ganesh are you
? I am part way into Wendy Donniger's Hindus at the mo. Skimmed a few threads. Was astonished at the furious arguments that go on. Isn't Vishnu Shiva who is Brahmin who/that is Atman? But then you probably are similarly confused if you ever come across the squabbling over how to understand the Trinity in Constantinople 1500 years ago. Even I can understand why a religion with 40,000 gods might have forty thousand sects but how a religion can have 1/3 gods can have forty thousand sects that you can't put a cigarette paper between creed wise... you don't have to be mad to live in post-Christendom but it helps!Deadtroopers
Member
Usually, for and against the man both, I find he is taken out of context or wilfully misunderstood. His Twitter is another matter; what he is trying to express can't be done in the word count most of the time.
Manchester or Preston? I couldn't see your avatar properly without going up to the screen... Wait you are not actually an avatar of Ganesh are you
Manchester!
I am, of course, an avatar of Ganesha
Ah, there's a lot of detail to go over in the world's most diverse religion
We try to keep the fury down.
Manchester or Preston? I couldn't see your avatar properly without going up to the screen... Wait you are not actually an avatar of Ganesh are you
Manchester!
I am, of course, an avatar of Ganesha
Ah, there's a lot of detail to go over in the world's most diverse religion
We try to keep the fury down.
Deadtroopers
Member
Well how do neighbour. If you do beer and crisps you are cordially invited to a Hostility of your choice; or barring that, restaurantManchester!
I am, of course, an avatar of Ganesha
Ah, there's a lot of detail to go over in the world's most diverse religion
We try to keep the fury down.
. I warn you though; after I visit the chef has an annoying habit of upping sticks the following week and the place goes from national award winner to ordinary at best or the beer goes flat; so choose a place you can afford to lose for a few months.
Well how do neighbour. If you do beer and crisps you are cordially invited to a Hostility of your choice; or barring that, restaurant
Not really a beer and crisp man, I'll be honest. But we could go and shut down a few places
Well how do neighbour. If you do beer and crisps you are cordially invited to a Hostility of your choice; or barring that, restaurant
Not really a beer and crisp man, I'll be honest. But we could go and shut down a few places
Deadtroopers
Member
Fine by me, just give us a shout when your ready. The evenings on me by the wayNot really a beer and crisp man, I'll be honest. But we could go and shut down a few places
.
Fine by me, just give us a shout when your ready. The evenings on me by the way
In Wales right now, but back in Manchester in April
Deadtroopers
Member
I'll catch you then, but probably run across you in another thread before.In Wales right now, but back in Manchester in April
TTFN
Unification
Well-Known Member
We are all being and creating. Behind the ideas, concepts, definitions, theologies, science, religions, doctrines, etc. there is one objective spiritual truth and one objective physical truth. . It's everything that we all have in common. Everything we experience comes from within.
I personally dislike being classified under a title or particular defined belief or social class. I see all as divine, and humans as divine. I just am and exist. Being in the now, embracing this conscious experience with love, peace, and oneness. Reaping what is sewn. Whether it's love or hate, peace or suffering, light or darkness, we all are vehicles continuing creation. If we choose a more abundant and joyous life, sow with love and peace. Having a still, open mind. Experiencing higher conscious within. We are our own worst enemies. From the least of us to the greatest of us, everything that we have in common collectively is truth.
But dantists believe that that were once pants, but aren't anymore...
The trouserists basically differ on semantics.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
They can be a little flipp-floppy on it thought, even though they're well grounded.
They're only skirting the question.
Vishvavajra
Active Member
I'm not sure Deism is really theistic in any meaningful sense. In practical terms it's equivalent to atheism, in the same way that the ancient Epicureans were regarded as atheistic despite their belief that the gods existed in a material sense (but wholly apart from and oblivious to us).
I guess Dawkins sees anything that posits a god as theism, but in my view it really needs some more practical aspect. There are non-theistic views of God, after all (e.g. the ideas of Paul Tillich).
Deism strikes me as a product of its time—a time when both the belief in an interventionist deity and ontological atheism both seemed untenable. Then as people became more comfortable with the idea of a universe that was either self-caused or wholly uncaused, deism quickly went from being mainstream to being mostly a historical footnote.
Pantheism seems to be a matter of semantics, really, and even less properly theistic, despite the name. It's just one way of conceptualizing the cosmos.
I guess Dawkins sees anything that posits a god as theism, but in my view it really needs some more practical aspect. There are non-theistic views of God, after all (e.g. the ideas of Paul Tillich).
Deism strikes me as a product of its time—a time when both the belief in an interventionist deity and ontological atheism both seemed untenable. Then as people became more comfortable with the idea of a universe that was either self-caused or wholly uncaused, deism quickly went from being mainstream to being mostly a historical footnote.
Pantheism seems to be a matter of semantics, really, and even less properly theistic, despite the name. It's just one way of conceptualizing the cosmos.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
This has always been my impression as well, but it's noteworthy I think that apparently there is some desire to resurrect "deism" with an emphasis not so much on accepting arguments that there must be a creator, but on the idea of a natural theology. That is, using the term "theism" to refer to revealed religions and "deism" to refer to a belief in a Divinity approached through natural means only, apart from any revelation. There is also an emphasis on a "rational" approach, but not necessarily rejecting the idea (for example) of divine intervention. Deism.com seems to make this argument. It's not clear to me that the reasoned approach is going to arrive at an understanding of God rather than atheism, or that the term deism is really necessary as opposed to just theism emphasizing "natural theology", but it's an interesting pivot.