Pantheism & Atheism

[Bunyip]

Reality shouldn't challenge theology but between atheist and pantheism someone will be wrong on some assumption. They are close because atheism is faith based also. God can't be ruled out completely there is still the matter of what the ultimate source is. Are atheists taking a stab at ir?

Oh and cool painting.

Thanks, but how on earth would you imagine atheism demands faith? It is the absence of such faith. Atheism has no position on an 'ultimate source' by the way - that would be a question for theoretical physics.

 

[Baladas]

Thanks, but how on earth would you imagine atheism demands faith? It is the absence of such faith. Atheism has no position on an 'ultimate source' by the way - that would be a question for theoretical physics.

This depends on the definition of "faith".

faith

noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs

The first is definitely true for me, if not for all people to some extent. I trust in the scientific method and (typically) trust the consensus of the scientific community on issues.
I trust my senses. I trust my wife, I trust that solipsism is not true, etc.

In this way "faith" is better rendered "trust" though due to the tendency that many have for using it to refer to religion.

The second two?
Not a chance.

 

[Bunyip]

This depends on the definition of "faith".

faith

noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs

The first is definitely true for me, if not for all people to some extent. I trust in the scientific method and (typically) trust the consensus of the scientific community on issues.
I trust my senses. I trust my wife, I trust that solipsism is not true, etc.

In this way "faith" is better rendered "trust" though due to the tendency that many have for using it to refer to religion.

The second two?
Not a chance.

Yes, I am using the definition relevant to the context here, the second one. I assumed that was obvious.

 

[Baladas]

Yes, I am using the definition relevant to the context here, the second one. I assumed that was obvious.

Right. I am just too tired to be posting I suppose.
Sleeplessness makes me a bit...off.

I think that what I meant to get at was that perhaps this was the definition intended by idav.

Sorry about that.

 

[Bunyip]

Right. I am just too tired to be posting I suppose.
Sleeplessness makes me a bit...off.

I think that what I meant to get at was that perhaps this was the definition intended by idav.

Sorry about that.

Yes, I assumed Idav was using the word 'faith' in the religious context. Something atheism rejects.

 

[idav]

Yes, I assumed Idav was using the word 'faith' in the religious context. Something atheism rejects.

I thought I was atheist!

Sexed up atheism may make sense in their common ground but ultimately depends on believing in god nor not.

 

[Bunyip]

I thought I was atheist!

Sexed up atheism may make sense in their common ground but ultimately depends on believing in god nor not.

I would disagree, I think theism is a specific sort of God. I could call my car 'God', does that make me a theist?

 

[Ouroboros]

Remember, this is Pantheism DIR, not general debate.

 

[Bunyip]

Remember, this is Pantheism DIR, not general debate.

Yes, I stated that I identify as pantheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I stated that I identify as pantheist.

Ok.

 

[idav]

I would disagree, I think theism is a specific sort of God. I could call my car 'God', does that make me a theist?

Yes theism can be specific as is pantheism. Atheist vs Theist however doesn't have to be specific.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes theism can be specific as is pantheism. Atheist vs Theist however doesn't have to be specific.

Why not?

 

[idav]

Why not?

Well.thry can thry are just answers to different questions about gods. Really i never just say theism cause i think its to vague and then your saying it can even be taken to be specific like the personal gods. That is true too, anyway i try to be specific personally.

 

[Bunyip]

Well.thry can thry are just answers to different questions about gods. Really i never just say theism cause i think its to vague and then your saying it can even be taken to be specific like the personal gods. That is true too, anyway i try to be specific personally.

Well I am only connecting 'theism' to a belief in theistic deities - hardly controversial. Theism does refer to theistic (personal, interventionist) Gods.

 

[George-ananda]

A lot of people say that pantheism is "sex-ed up atheism" or that pantheists are practically atheists.

I am beginning to see two distinct (to me) types of pantheism. One is "sexed-up atheism" and one is not. They key difference to me is if they believe consciousness is a emergent physical property (the sexed-up atheism position) or if they believe consciousness is a non-physical thing beyond materialism and the creator/designer of the physical (the non-atheist position).

 

[Bunyip]

I am beginning to see two distinct (to me) types of pantheism. One is "sexed-up atheism" and one is not. They key difference to me is if they believe consciousness is a emergent physical property (the sexed-up atheism position) or if they believe consciousness is a non-physical thing beyond materialism and the creator/designer of the physical (the non-atheist position).

I don't think that the notion of consciousness being a 'non-physical thing beyond materialism' is at all relevant to pantheism. The origin of consciousness is not a part of what defines pantheism.

 

[idav]

I am beginning to see two distinct (to me) types of pantheism. One is "sexed-up atheism" and one is not. They key difference to me is if they believe consciousness is a emergent physical property (the sexed-up atheism position) or if they believe consciousness is a non-physical thing beyond materialism and the creator/designer of the physical (the non-atheist position).

Concisousness is covered by oneness.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't think that the notion of consciousness being a 'non-physical thing beyond materialism' is at all relevant to pantheism.

Really?...In Advaita pantheism it certainly is relevant. The notion that consciousness is an emergent property of the material is rejected. In Advaita, consciousness incarnates matter. How can that not be relevant?

 

[George-ananda]

Concisousness is covered by oneness.

But the two pantheisms I talked about differ on the source of that consciousness. A pretty fundamental difference. Is matter fundamental, or is consciousness fundamental?

Pantheism1: Consciousness is fundamental and the material is a product of consciousness.

Pantheism 2: Matter is fundamental and consciousness is a product of matter.

What is 'fundamental' in the consciousness you discuss above? Where does it come from?

 

[Bunyip]

Really?...In Advaita pantheism it certainly is relevant.

Sure, advaita is similar to pantheism, but not the topic here. Even if you add 'pantheism' to Advaita as you did.

The notion that consciousness is an emergent property of the material is rejected. In Advaita, consciousness incarnates matter. How can that not be relevant?

Because the topic is pantheism-atheism, not Advaita - which although similar is not the topic.

Pantheism in the western world does not assert a primacy of consciousness as you do. Pantheism does not claim that consciousness is primary.

I hate to point this out to you George, but you appear to misunderstand the basics of Advaita. Advaita essentially means 'not two'. You seem to interpret this as suggesting that consciousness is primary, and matter a product of consciousness - however according to Advaita there is no such duality. Matter IS consciousness, and visa versa.