Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
You are confusing the philosophical notion of God and the religious notion of God, just like most atheists do. By God I mean a philosophically necessary ultimate cause that provided a source for everything that's contingent.
I wasn't confused, I just wasn't clear that you were speaking of a philosophical idea instead of a religious view of God. It doesn't make much sense that you're using a philosophical definition of God to assert what the realities of pantheism would look like when pantheism doesn't even believe in your philosophical view of God.
Please provide the name of your god.
rmfr
I looked up the definition of god, ya know, the commonly held definition of the word god, that we all agree to, a necessary component to allow high level communication is agreeing on definitions of words?
Did not find: "necessary ultimate cause that provided a source for everything that's contingent" in those definitions anywhere and I looked a quite a few major english dictionaries.
What you are describing is not god. Congratulations you are still an atheist. You can stop all this weird rationalizing and say you believe something started it all, you don't have evidence for it, but you believe that. That is fine. I to have a guess at why we are here and what started it all, it is also completely unevidenced, just one theory I have of several, that I formed while listening to other peoples completely unsupported theory/opinion of what started it all, meaning of life etc.
These thoughts most certainly do not fit the commonly held definition of the word "god." And this theory that I have, I do not plan or base my life as it occurs in the real world around that in anyway, I put it where it belongs, a thought, an idea, an answer to a question that I know may not be in any way true/reality at all.
You can also call it "god" if you want, but expect to cause confusion, expect people to be hostile to you twisting the definition of a keyword and not explaining: "oh hey, I believe in god, but I have my own special definition of god, so really I am talking about something else but decided to name it 'god." And since I am changing definitions of keywords at will, you cannot possibly hold me accountable to those definitions!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Also, it seems that you gave the wrong definition for your own belief system. You said you were panentheist instead of pantheist, correct? Definition of panentheist: "the belief or doctrine that God is greater than the universe and includes and interpenetrates it"
If that's an accurate description of your belief, that makes far more sense than what you said above about how God could create the universe even if God and the universe were the exact same thing. It's still nonsensical from the perspective of reality, but at least slightly more logical.
When did I say that?? I subscribe to classical theism. I'm not the OP.
Oooh. That's totally on me and was sloppy. Thanks for the correction.
JazzTheist another Breezy sock puppet?
rmfr
Wow, this is a really extraordinary claim. Provide evidence please.
It ended with a question mark, implying it was a question not a claim.
Perfect evidence of proof. Misread it EXACTLY like Breezy would do.
rmfr
I am not Breezy, period. The burden of proof isn't on me.
But the behavior is similar, thus leading to the impression.
If it quacks like a duck ...............
Every single atheist on this site behave similarly—they all dismiss anything non-physical and yet are mad at the physical world. Which makes me hypothesize that they’re all the same person.
@jazzthiest
The burden of proof is on you to prove we are the same person.
It is easy to dismiss the supernatural, no objective evidence it is real.
If you have objective evidence the supernatural is real, then present it. Otherwise all you have is subjective evidence from your mind.
I have to apply xenoview's razor to your claims of the supernatural.
I'm sorry but your ''razors'' aren't applicable here and now. The controversial presupposition of these razors is that the supernatural should and can be measured via the physical. What's more, I'm not talking about a God who *intervened* with the natural world at some point (which by definition WOULD fall into the physical realm and thus subject to your razors); I'm talking about the source of existence itself.
@ JazzTheist
Then apply only Hitchens's Razor: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. My Razor would also apply: NO EVIDENCE = NO EXISTENCE.
Either provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or admit the super natural does NOT exist.
rmfr
@JazzTheist
If we were all the same person, I would be seriously impressed at this person. That many distinctly different writing styles, different opinions, and the overall collective knowledge? Plus how fast this "single person" would have to be able to write, all while not making any errors in different writing styles that someone could detect?
I actually do hope you say that in jest. If you seriously consider this as a real possibility I fear for your safety in day to day stuff like driving a car. (Would fear for everyone else sharing that road with you too.)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
It was just a PARODY--not a real consideration of possibility. I was accused of being a sock without evidence, for goodness sake!
JazzTheist: "Every single atheist on this site behave similarly—they all dismiss anything non-physical and yet are mad at the physical world. Which makes me hypothesize that they’re all the same person."
Specifically, the bold text.
Do you have OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to prove this lie?
rmfr
That whole text was a PARODY--to demonstrate how I was accused of being a sock.
But I digress--are you demanding that I prove that you are mad at the world? Well, I guess an MRI machine would do the job; unfortunately I don't have such a thing at home.
@ JazzTheist
And another lie. If what you say is true, then why was it not directed directly at that fact?
This is another method for determining a Religious Absolutist: When debunked, they will tell a lie to redirect the subject.
rmfr
Very interesting. I'm bit of a naturalistic pantheist myself, but I view it as little more than "glorified atheism" - in that I do not maintain that anything beyond the universe exists, and that the "God" doesn't have personality, that the universe as a whole constitutes the one undying, eternal, final cause unto itself. And that inasmuch as it is imbued with personality, that personality is us and other living beings that emerge in it - we too natural beings.
This naturalistic pantheist viewpoint wouldn't qualify as theism in my opinion, and would fall into the purview of atheism. V.I Lenin, among others, has drawn this conclusion. Here he speaks in relation to the Spinozist framework:
"Spinozism was not only a form of materialism, but also of atheism, since it rejected ideas of god as a supernatural being who had created the world and rules it."
As far as I can consider pantheism, it appears to be just atheism with some extra aesthetic flavour.
Pages