Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
And that's not much of a difference, hence why it's reasonably to call it "sexed-up atheism".
-
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!
Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?
- Thread starter steeltoes
- Start date
And that's not much of a difference, hence why it's reasonably to call it "sexed-up atheism".
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
To convert theists to a different religion like atheism
No. It is primarily concerned with the nature of God. Not how many there are. It's primary concerns are is God wholly transcendent, or is God wholly immanent? You're confusing monotheism with polytheism. Besides, I did not say monotheism. I said theism.
Is atheism about a religious experience of God?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Atheism - There is the universe, and that's it.
Pantheism - There is the universe, and that's it (and the universe is all connected as one being).
Last edited:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
1) I think you misread the question. It's asking theists why they debate with non-believers, not the other way around.
2)
to your tired "atheism=religion" nonsense.
It is, in the sense that it claims that it either does not exist or has not been personally found.
I inadvertently mixed up the order. Yes, pantheism is concerned with the nature of God. It takes as given that God is singular, and is therefore a type of monotheism.
Magic Man's post - the one you referred to in your post - said "monotheism".
That aside, contrasting theism with polytheism is tricky because the word "theism" is used in two senses.
It's like the word "hockey" that way: "hockey" can refer either to all forms of hockey or to ice hockey specifically as distinct from, say, field hockey or street hockey.
"Theism" is like this, too: it can refer to either "traditional" theism or to all god-beliefs. This isn't really a paradox; it's just one word being used to describe two different concepts.
Is 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. (From Wiki) Pantheism embraces God, atheism rejects God.
Again however, you did not address my main point that atheism is dualistic, and pantheism is monistic. That is not the same. Atheism in this regard is closer to theism which is dualistic, than pantheism which is monistic. Please address this point.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
My mistake
2)
Atheism is a religion. It has figure heads, Dennet, Dawkins, and Harris.
It has established norms, belief in science.
Lack of believe in the supernatural(atheism just means no belief in a god).
To mock and tease religion(I do this part myself).
To use cliche and repetitive quotes like "atheism is not a religion" or "God of the gaps".
I am specifically referring to New Atheism though although most atheists are "New Atheists". You seem to be one of them. Congratulations for figuring out you are religious
Also to have a religion you must have ethics, metaphysics, and orthodoxy. I shall sum it up to you briefly: Abortion, Big Bang, and science. I rest my case
Why would you say that atheism is dualistic?
I mean, I suppose there might be some atheists who believe in a "spirit realm" or the like, but materialist atheists reject dualism.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Nothing wrong with being religious. My issue is fanaticism and provable claims. Atheist as far as I am concerned is most likely the only "true religion"
So it is a statement of belief based on a lack of personal experience?
Indeed. But there are lots wrong with misrepresenting atheism as a religion!
I expected better from you by now. I really did.
My issue is fanaticism and provable claims. Atheist as far as I am concerned is most likely the only "true religion"
Excuse me?
Whatever you understand a "religion" as being, odds are that I have never met it.
That is a common reason, albeit probably not the only one.
The people who most often insist that we must believe usually make statements about reality that we can personally testify to be untrue.
Pbbbbbbbt!
I don't read those boneheads.
The real figureheads are Douglas Adams, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov & Tom Wolf.
Last edited:
But stating a quantity is not speaking of its nature as being either transcendent or immanent. But to call pantheism a type of monotheism is a bit of a stretch that doesn't really fit well. Monotheism is defined by contrast to polytheism, and both of those are theistic in perspective, not pantheistic. Monotheism has no meaning in pantheism.
I'd like to see where I ever used the word monotheism. I rarely use the term, and certainly not in this thread until you brought it up.
But they both view God or gods as transcendent, aside from interventions into the world they are above. This is distinctly not the same as pantheism.
Except that pantheism is like cosmology compared to different types forms of hockey.
Again, because these are mutually exclusive (God cannot be both wholly transcendent and wholly immanent at the same time), to say they are both simultaneously is in fact a paradox - like saying light is a wave, and it is a particle. Which is it? Both. But not in any way we can understand that rationally. Both theism and pantheism are rational views of God. Panentheism is a paradoxical view, and therefore as I've said previously closer to what true nonduality is, which embraces both - dualism and monism, theism and pantheism.
BTW, don't try to understand a paradox.