What do you think of Pantheism?

[hel]

I like the idea (see http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm), but not when they try to package it as a religion. I think just the concept of God/religion is enough to corrupt anything good.

[trotsky]

1. Doesn't really speak to me.

Pantheism, to me, is sort of like glorified atheism. (Literally.) I don't feel the need to add any mysticism or hoobajooey™ to the universe to appreciate it.

(Hoobajooey is a registered trademark of trotsky atheistic enterprises, inc.)

[A HERETIC I AM]

3. Does Trotsky Atheistic Enterprises, Inc. have a prospectus?

This is a company i would like to learn more about!

BTW..."Hoobajooey" was MY idea, you just beat me to the registrars office. Same with "hullabaloo" and "horsehockey".

I think i need to get out more.

[trotsky]

4. I'll send you our latest annual report.

I think you'll be impressed with the... ah... er... research we've been doing on oppressing Christians and killing babies.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Is this you guys?

Oops, you said killing babies, didn't you?

[A HERETIC I AM]

7. The killing of babies by atheists is a cottage industry.....

overwhelmingly populated by enthusiasts skilled at their craft.

This is why they are respected so comprehensively.

The oppressiing of christians, however is more of an avocation.

example - daily scedule;

8:00 Am - wake up
8:05 - coffee
8:10 - kill a baby
8:15 - oppress a christian
8:16 - giggle
9:00 - stop giggling
9:20 to 12:15 - baby death
12:16 to 1:00 - lunch
1:01 to 2:15 - more baby death
2:16 - oppress a flock of christians
2:17 to 3:00 laugh heartily
3:01 to 6:00 PM extended morning baby death session (With a stop at 4:00 for afternoon tea)
6:01 - dinner - Menu: roast baby butt in a lemon caper sauce
7:00 - Movie time - "The life and times of the Donner family"
8:30 - last baby for the day
8:31 - craft christian oppressing tools, evening bourbon and cigar session
10:30 - bed time....dream of christians running screaming holding babies

Now THATS a full day, lad!

[beam me up scottie]

8. What about the LIONS?

You forgot to feed them!!!

[A HERETIC I AM]

11. The Lions eat Wildebeasts.....

and they are all Pantheists.


so there you go

[beam me up scottie]

12. Oh, good, as long as somebody feeds them.

Not enough babies to go around.

[Modem Butterfly]

2. It's no more or less valid than any other theism

Bear in mind that most original human religions and belief systems were pantheistic in nature. This is just a new wrinkle on an ancient idea.

[fshrink]

5. Don't need any zorglub or a thousand of them. nt

[zippy890]

9. scientific pantheism more my style

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

But I agree with you about their efforts to 'package it as a religion'- turns me off.

I go to this site sometimes when I am feeling spiritual (yes I am an atheist and I do feel spiritual at times) and it has some nice philosophy.

plus the Carl Sagan quotations are good

[Phentex]

10. I can relate to it...

I don't think of it as a religion. But I do like some of the ideas.

[marions ghost]

13. Would it be better

to have a separate Pantheists group?

What do Atheists and Agnostics think? I'm trying to understand if Pantheism should just be in a category by itself or does it belong here.

[hel]

15. I was wondering what atheists think of it

I'm an atheist, and this pantheism thing frustrated me a little. Sorry if I posted this at the wrong place.

[marions ghost]

18. No problem--I think you posed a good question

I'd like to know what atheists think of it too.

I seem to find flaws in all "religions" and so can't imagine following one, and yet I do not seem to be in the camp of the true atheists, who I perceive as being anti-spirituality in any form.

How I see Atheism: Life is just a practical, make-the-best of it experience, and there's no point in attaching any other meanings to it. Certainly NEVER be mystical. Stick to Reality. Live by the Golden Rule and secular ideas of Ethics. A hard-core WYSIWIG Philosophy. This is how I see atheism--is this correct?

Respectfully, mg

[Zenlitened]

14. Why do they have "theism" in the name at all?

I only glanced over the page you linked, so there may be more to it that I'm missing. But based on what I saw, why drag the "god" angle into it at all?

:shrug:

[hel]

16. exactly.

Can't we organize without using the god and religion angle? Is this really a good way to educate other people? Makes no sense to me at all.

[marions ghost]

17. the "god" in the word pantheism

just means "spirit in all things"--to me it doesn't imply divine beings.

This scientific pantheism doesn't seem to subscribe to any gods of any sort, so I think it's just a convenient term.

[Zenlitened]

19. Meh. I think, without that angle, what they've described quite well is...

... secular humanism.

I truly don't feel a need to insert the god stuff. In fact, I see adding that layer to what otherwise matches secualr humanism strikes me as either A) a failure of nerve, or B) a sop to the religionists.

Doesn't do anything for me at all. :(

Edited to add: At the very least, it's a misuse of the word "theism." The very definition of the word is a belief in god or gods.

[marions ghost]

20. OK I dont really know

all the definitions of secular humanism.

Personally I don't relate to secular humanism as a total belief system or philosophy that one has a real choice about. It seems like a default option. Anyone who is not religious is secular. Anyone who believes in the human perspective being the main one is humanistic. I would not claim to be a secular humanist as a philosophy, because I don't prefer to emphasize the human. I feel closer to the description of Pantheist--ie. spirit not separate from matter. I see it as a scientific mysticism, like the alchemists perspective (although I don't do chemistry experiments in the basement...)

All I'm saying is the use of the term "Pantheism"-- if it is the only use of the root word theis involved, doesn't define the philosophy. Maybe it would be less misleading to have another name...but I see it as just a name, not a reference to any belief in divine beings.

So then, if you want to call it "secular humanism," is this closer to Atheist or closer to (Scientific) Pantheist?

I respect where everybody is coming from...not trying to argue.

[onager]

21. Not trying to argue either...

But I do prefer to emphasize the human. I'd say secular humanism is closer to atheist than pantheist.

When I hear "pantheist" I immediately think of multiple deities. And the phuckheads who only believe in one are causing enough trouble.

It almost seems like a retrograde step, even if you carefully try to limit it to something like "scientific mysticism." (I have to think about that phrase for a while, too. Science is generally the opposite of mysticism. It's true that Isaac Newton wrote more books about alchemy than he did about math OR the Buy-bull, but that was a long time ago.)

I say "retrograde" because of an interesting article recently about the evolution of religion. (Trying to find a link...)

Humanity started out with the worshipping of many gods. The number of gods gradually dwindled, until monotheism got in the saddle via Judaism, Xianity and Islam.

The article ended by noting that in general, the world is probably moving toward the next logical step after one god.

i.e., we all know what "1 minus 1" equals...;)

[marions ghost]

22. Collecting my thoughts on your points....

So you seem to say that "secular humanism" is more or less the ethical code of atheists and is not equated with Pantheism. But one poster here said Pantheism IS equated with secular humanism, and yet another poster says Pantheism is "glorified Atheism"--so I see there is no general agreement on this. Seems to me that Secular Humanism might be an ethical code anyone could live by, regardless of their theism. Does one need a belief system beyond Secular Humanism at all?

IMO everyone who manages to get by in this world has some sort of system of belief, and certainly Atheism/Secular Humanism is as good as any. It is still a belief to live by, tho defined more in terms of what it is not than what it is.

"Multiple deities" is technically "Polytheism." This is NOT my understanding of Pantheism. Pantheism is the philosophy that spirit or life force (or whatever you want to call it rather than God) exists in and is not separate from all things (this would be true in my understanding of Buddhism and Taoism also). However there are NO divine beings to be worshipped in Pantheism, certainly not multiple ones.

I don't know if I can buy that humanity is "evolving" based on number of deities worshipped. I see different belief systems as appealing to different personalities, especially these days where people are not dictated as to beliefs (we hope :-( ) Before you could stamp out all religion, you'd have to address the individual psychological need for it and IMO fill that need with something else. (Alternative religion/belief systems are growing in this country, not dwindling...and certainly monotheism seems healthy).

Perhaps "scientific mysticism" is just what appeals to my particular head, while "secular humanism" appeals to yours. Maybe the difference is that I have a need for something beyond an ethical system for living in the here and now. For one thing, I see death as a transformation of energy, not really death (as in no more, gone). This I conclude is a mystical belief, since it cannot be "proven" in the scientific sense (yet). I think we will come to understand the transformation of material forms better in the future, scientifically speaking. I'm not sure if I actually care whether this is an "evolved" viewpoint or not. It's just an avenue I'm exploring, (having pretty much absorbed what the major religions have to offer and being well aware of the pitfalls of adhering to any one of them). I don't necessarily think "scientific mysticism" would work for everyone as a mass belief, most likely not. It's a certain "head." I respect all ways of dealing with this mystery called Life.

As far as the Atheism/Pantheism debate -- I can see there's no consensus so far. Some Atheists (which I see as a clearly defined philosophy) seem to absorb Pantheism, others like yourself, do not...
2 be cont of course ;) it's all debatable, as far as I'm concerned