Thread: Any other Pantheists here?

what is your definition of pantheism?

I consider myself a pantheist in the newer sense, Spinoza's sense I think, the belief that all that exists is god. (very generally)

the older sense of course would be belief in many gods, like the Greek/Roman pantheon.

My sense of pantheism is that all matter force spirit and idea is God. Not the antiquated sense of the Classical Period.

Pantheism is an empty statement; it's a tautology, and if you think otherwise then you're just blinded by superficial concepts.

All pantheism does is labels the universe 'God'. What does this achieve? You've just given the universe another name, and what's in a name? Nothing. It's no more useful than labelling the universe 'the blobbiverse' or 'the fish'. Or, on the other hand, declaring that all spoons are Gods, or my thumb as a God. The spoons are still just spoons, there's no additional insight you've gained or comfort about an afterlife or anything, you've just given spoons another name.

Except words are supposed to have meanings. Fish are supposed to be aquatic animals and so labelling the universe as 'fish' is just going to confuse people, in the same way that God is supposed to be a conscious omnipotent being and so labelling the universe 'God' is just going to confuse people, most likely yourself.

What exactly is it that pantheists believe in that atheists don't? Nothing. Pantheism is a superfluous term for atheism, end of.

Einstein was a pantheist.

You still don't get it, everything is connected, everything is one. There is no God separate from you or me. We're all part of the same thing inside, not outside or as it seems or what it looks like. God is the thing that connects the universe and flows through every living, breathing thing. So really, we ARE god. This is the truth behind all religion and it is proof through lucid dreams.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

-Einstein

There's nothing superficial about this.

I guess I have the same basic views as a Pantheist. I see everything that exists as one entity that has been undergoing a dynamic process of cause-and-effect since its inception (be it Big Bang or whatever, its irrelevant). There is no conceptual time as such, only change that the universe undergoes constantly. This change is completely linear/causal, so everything's predetermined. I wouldn't call it God, but I can see why people do. It is very grandiose.

Originally Posted by Xei

Pantheism is an empty statement; it's a tautology, and if you think otherwise then you're just blinded by superficial concepts.

All pantheism does is labels the universe 'God'. What does this achieve? You've just given the universe another name, and what's in a name? Nothing. It's no more useful than labelling the universe 'the blobbiverse' or 'the fish'. Or, on the other hand, declaring that all spoons are Gods, or my thumb as a God. The spoons are still just spoons, there's no additional insight you've gained or comfort about an afterlife or anything, you've just given spoons another name.

Except words are supposed to have meanings. Fish are supposed to be aquatic animals and so labelling the universe as 'fish' is just going to confuse people, in the same way that God is supposed to be a conscious omnipotent being and so labelling the universe 'God' is just going to confuse people, most likely yourself.

What exactly is it that pantheists believe in that atheists don't? Nothing. Pantheism is a superfluous term for atheism, end of.

What's the big fucking deal then? Someone has a different name for it. So whether someone is blind and superficial is a matter of basic semantics? Amazing how dogmatically preachy people can get at the mere mention of the G-word.

What's the big fucking deal then? Someone has a different name for it. So whether someone is blind and superficial is a matter of basic semantics? Amazing how dogmatically preachy people can get at the mere mention of the G-word.

Calm down?

If you've got such an issue with people expressing their opinions you're in the wrong place.

Do you actually have a comment to make? My post explained why the 'G-word' shouldn't be used, just like any other word shouldn't be used to mean something it doesn't.

Einstein was a pantheist.

You still don't get it, everything is connected, everything is one. There is no God separate from you or me. We're all part of the same thing inside, not outside or as it seems or what it looks like. God is the thing that connects the universe and flows through every living, breathing thing. So really, we ARE god. This is the truth behind all religion and it is proof through lucid dreams.

You don't seem to have taken anything from my post.

Okay. We are God. The universe is God. We are part of the universe. What new information have we learned from this?

I don't consider myself a pantheist but nothing you are saying is news to me.

Originally Posted by Xei

Calm down?

If you've got such an issue with people expressing their opinions you're in the wrong place.

Do you actually have a comment to make? My post explained why the 'G-word' shouldn't be used, just like any other word shouldn't be used to mean something it doesn't.

The word "God" means vastly different things to different people. You just said yourself that its simply giving the universe a different name, and what's in a name? Nothing. So why is someone blind or superficial for having a different semantic explanation of things than you do?

I'm not attacking your opinion, just the unnecessary judgments and namecalling. If you bring that negativity into a topic as benign as "Any other Pantheists here?" expect to get a little back your way.

Originally Posted by HaRd_WiReD

Einstein was a pantheist.

Argument from authority much?

Well when I define myself as Pantheist I'm simply acknowledging that my actions will effect you and myself in turn. It's not renaming the universe, it's more of associating yourself with the universe as a single entity, not a vast expanse of infinite particles of matter, but a uni-verse.

Yes it does seem like a way to rename the universe but when combined with a religion or personal beliefs it's much much more.

I was hoping only to learn who else here was Pantheist as I rarely encounter individuals such as myself in daily life. Didn't mean to start an argument!

Originally Posted by Xei

Pantheism is an empty statement; it's a tautology, and if you think otherwise then you're just blinded by superficial concepts.

All pantheism does is labels the universe 'God'. What does this achieve? You've just given the universe another name, and what's in a name? Nothing. It's no more useful than...[etc]

I feel that. I recently read in a book called Doubt: A History that the ancient skeptics (at least some of them?) were pantheists (in this sense, not the pantheon sense) and said something like, "everything being divine is a lot like nothing being divine."

I'm thinking it has something to do with reverence, but as Einstein's quote shows (to me at least) you can revere the universe and all its parts without calling it "god."

I agree with you, but at the same time I can't help but feel there is something more to it. I must admit though I'm no scholar and haven't yet gone to college, I just have a deep interest in philosophy and the bigger questions, and read books (try to read real books, not like "Philosophy for Dummies" :|) here and there when my attention span allows...so at this point I just feel like a screeching chimpanzee throwing crap around.

at any rate, your post did make me think about it more, so thanks. hopefully I can figure out how to explain why I feel pantheism is significant.

If it makes someone think more, then it's worth the time

I have no objections to pantheism--insofar as the universe contains persons, it's perfectly accurate to personify it to some degree--but I don't personally find it useful to attach a sense of entity to the totality of being in order to identify with it and find it sacred.

Originally Posted by nerve

I'm thinking it has something to do with reverence, but as Einstein's quote shows (to me at least) you can revere the universe and all its parts without calling it "god."

I think you have it right there. Yes, you can revere our existence without putting a face on it, but many people find it helpful to their spiritual practice (even if it only consists of staring at the sky and smiling) both to consider eternity/unity as a friend/mentor/lover of sorts and also to connect the mystery they're addressing with the mystery addressed by other faiths.

Originally Posted by nerve

...so at this point I just feel like a screeching chimpanzee throwing crap around.

tee hee

Originally Posted by Xei

Pantheism is an empty statement; it's a tautology, and if you think otherwise then you're just blinded by superficial concepts.

All pantheism does is labels the universe 'God'. What does this achieve? You've just given the universe another name, and what's in a name? Nothing. It's no more useful than labelling the universe 'the blobbiverse' or 'the fish'. Or, on the other hand, declaring that all spoons are Gods, or my thumb as a God. The spoons are still just spoons, there's no additional insight you've gained or comfort about an afterlife or anything, you've just given spoons another name.

Except words are supposed to have meanings. Fish are supposed to be aquatic animals and so labelling the universe as 'fish' is just going to confuse people, in the same way that God is supposed to be a conscious omnipotent being and so labelling the universe 'God' is just going to confuse people, most likely yourself.

What exactly is it that pantheists believe in that atheists don't? Nothing. Pantheism is a superfluous term for atheism, end of.

A deeper study of pantheism might prove to you that it is not the same as just another name. Pantheism assumes that the universe acts as a cohesive whole, instead of being a chaotic sum of unrelated parts. It is also a statement about any other beliefs involving god or gods, because it allows for the existence of ideal entities that may not be God, but can be just as real and fit into the greater hierarchy of all things super-human.

I personally identify with the term panentheism, because it recognizes that their is an aspect of all things that is not contained within the thing itself. "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and all that.

I too am a pantheist, well, the labelers would label me so.

Xei: It's not a name, for me at least. God is the only way pantheists can communicate the idea to others. I don'hold the term "God" as others do in my belief. I see it as the thing to be revered. Everything, to me, is god, every blade of grass, EVERYTHING. Actually it should be said like this God is everything, instead of the other way around, as you're not taking the universe and turning it into a single being, but taking the universe and placing it in the position of creator, sum of reverance, and that which is great and should be considered so. It's really a hard thing to explain right now for me.

God isn't just a word or a name- it expresses meaning to the individual who believes in said God

If someone believes the universe is God - then they are also saying they believe the universe is sacred, meaningful, important, and the beauty of how interconnected everything is.

Originally Posted by Xei

Pantheism is an empty statement; it's a tautology, and if you think otherwise then you're just blinded by superficial concepts.

All pantheism does is labels the universe 'God'. What does this achieve? You've just given the universe another name, and what's in a name? Nothing. It's no more useful than labelling the universe 'the blobbiverse' or 'the fish'. Or, on the other hand, declaring that all spoons are Gods, or my thumb as a God. The spoons are still just spoons, there's no additional insight you've gained or comfort about an afterlife or anything, you've just given spoons another name.

Except words are supposed to have meanings. Fish are supposed to be aquatic animals and so labelling the universe as 'fish' is just going to confuse people, in the same way that God is supposed to be a conscious omnipotent being and so labelling the universe 'God' is just going to confuse people, most likely yourself.

What exactly is it that pantheists believe in that atheists don't? Nothing. Pantheism is a superfluous term for atheism, end of.

Pantheism is a shift in perspective that sheds light on traditional concepts of God. Calling the universe god is the beginning of understand how the impersonal "universe" is congruent with the personal "god."--the conscious omnipotent being you described. You are right in that it will confuse most people , but for those who have the insight to begin to understand how the impersonal and personal are congruent, it is an important insight to make.

I was Pantheist also once, but not exactly one now, because I make a distinction between the universe as experienced in duality (matter non matter, form and emptiness, light dark etc.) and god who is oneness. I.e., I recognize more than just the material universe, but an essence behind it that is the "real" thing.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

My sense of pantheism is that all matter force spirit and idea is God. Not the antiquated sense of the Classical Period.

By that defenition I am certainly a Pantheist.

God is far too much of a mire for me to concern myself with.

I'd rather not.

well, aren't you special.

and...male?

And what would being male have to do with such a situation?

theism suggests a supreme being, which just seems anthropocentric to me.

i like pan as a prefix, though

Well taking a direct definition of the name won't do any good, that happens way too often in every subject. Connotation is more reliable!

oh yeah man, i know - i've also considered myself to be a pantheist in a similar was as you do, but i prefer not to even try to classify myself

I'd prefer not to classify myself but if someone asks what I believe it's easier to say "Pantheist" than to take two hours explaining my view It's close enough anyways.