How does one "choose" a Belief System?

[Mendalla]

Would you call this view of the universe "pantheism"? It often seems to me that atheism and pantheism are flip sides of the same coin.

Panentheism is quite different, as you have pointed out.

I call it pantheism because I hold a reverence for that divine universe; it is what I worship. In my experience, those who identify as "atheist" tend more to a kind of scientific materialism or humanism and do not even use religious language for their experience of awe and wonder in the universe. But it is a fine line to be sure. Does being an atheist require lack of any belief in any kind of Divinity or is simply not believing in a personal God enough to be an atheist?

I personally do not identify as "atheist" but as "agnostic", which philosophically means I regard the existence of God, the afterlife, etc. as matters of faith not provable by reason or empirical methods. You can believe it, you can have faith in it, but you cannot "prove" it scientifically or even philosophically. I am also open to the possibility of their existence even though I do not currently believe/have faith, whereas I find that those who identify as "atheist" tend not to be so open-minded.

 

[Luce NDs]

The Messiah is in Kabbalah and elsewhere as distributive ... scary to the one -pathy traces ... pithy?

 

[Ritafee]

This is the political mind that believes in one fundamental system ...

• A battle now rages worldwide. To merely witness it is to perish. The shrinking civilized world of correct and moral conscience is in a fight against those who believe that they can infect the mind of the whole planet with the same madness that drives them to climb over the backs of all others onwards to their own oblivion, as if this were a cherished goal.

The rest of us?

The Good Friday Massacre: World...We Are All Palestinians, Now! Brett Redmayne-Titley

 

[Pavlos Maros]

To be clear, you are saying there is a complete lack of any empirical evidence verifying your assertion that "No religious person can love their neighbour. Unless of course the neighbour is of the same church." It is simply a statement of opinion?

No, doesn't follow. A non sequitur.

This is how the conversation went.
Kimmio said "I personally accept that "faith" exists somewhere between reality and imagination and I'm okay with that because I think both are important - and whether I chose Christianity as a framework that works, or it chose me, again is a matter of faith, which exists between reality and imagination."
I replied with "First faith has zero basis in reality so there cant be a between, sorry."
You join in with "This being verified by what empirical evidence? Or is it just something you want very much to be true?"
Whereas I replied with. "The complete lack of any. "

And now you reply with a non sequitur a little dishonest of you.

 

[paradox3]

Does being an atheist require lack of any belief in any kind of Divinity or is simply not believing in a personal God enough to be an atheist?

There are different versions of atheism with varying definitions. But I have always understood atheism to mean lack of belief in any kind of divinity.

These days people often say they are non-theists if they reject the classical supernatural view of God. The old man in the sky if you will. Acting as puppet master more or less.

Some will even say they are both panentheists and non-theists. I think this is a misuse of the term non-theist. A panentheist is a theist of a different sort as I see it.

 

[Mendalla]

Some will even say they are both panentheists and non-theists. I think this is a misuse of the term non-theist. A panentheist is a theist of a different sort as I see it.

Agreed. I think it is confusion between panentheist and pantheist.

Panentheist = "All is in God" which means "God" must be more than the "All" so that it can contain the "All". God has to be transcendent in some way and in most panentheist systems I've seen, that's included a personality of some form. E.g. Process talks about God "luring" existence. That requires intentionality which implies intellect and personality, not something impersonal.

Pantheist = "All is God" which means "God" and "All" are the same thing. There is no transcendence. This could be combined with non-theist since it would most certainly not be a transcendent personality as traditionally understood by the word "God".

 

[paradox3]

No, doesn't follow. A non sequitur.


I replied with "First faith has zero basis in reality so there cant be a between, sorry."
You join in with "This being verified by what empirical evidence? Or is it just something you want very much to be true?"

I think @GeoFee was asking for empirical evidence to support your statement in green. How exactly can you prove faith has zero basis in reality?

 

[Mendalla]

I think @GeoFee was asking for empirical evidence to support your statement in green. How exactly can you prove faith has zero basis in reality?

I thought George was referring to this statement, "No religious person can love their neighbour. Unless of course the neighbour is of the same church.", which is in fact disprovable, unlike the existence of God or other object of faith.

 

[paradox3]

Pantheist = "All is God" which means "God" and "All" are the same thing. There is no transcendence. This could be combined with non-theist since it would most certainly not be a transcendent personality as traditionally understood by the word "God".

I would argue that pantheism is another type of theism. Albeit a non-traditional one. But as we have both been saying there is a fine line between this type of theism and atheism.

 

[paradox3]

I thought George was referring to this statement, "No religious person can love their neighbour. Unless of course the neighbour is of the same church.", which is in fact disprovable, unlike the existence of God or other object of faith.

Guess we will have to wait until he stops by and clarifies the matter.

 

[Mendalla]

I would argue that pantheism is another type of theism. Albeit a non-traditional one. But as we have both been saying there is a fine line between this type of theism and atheism.

I think the problem is that for someone like me, while I may worship the "All that is God" in the sense of celebrating it and making it a focus of my faith, it is not something I pray to or see as acting in a conscious manner. It is the source of my life and of all life through processes like evolution and such, but not in the sense of a conscious, planning, intentional Creator. So am I a theist if what I am worshipping is just the universe around me versus something that I interact with on a personal level (ie. by praying)? Some might say "yes", some might say "no" and both would probably be acting out of their own agendas, trying to count me as "on side". I could even argue (not saying I do, but I could) that "pantheist" may actually be a third way, on a plane with "theist" and "atheist" rather than a sub-type of theist.

 

[Jaebius]

To be clear, I am a theist.

 

[paradox3]

I could even argue (not saying I do, but I could) that "pantheist" may actually be a third way, on a plane with "theist" and "atheist" rather than a sub-type of theist.

Interesting thought. . .wish I could think of a good analogy.

 

[paradox3]

To be clear, I am a theist.

No kidding?

 

[Jaebius]

No kidding?

No kidding. I can't recall a time when I didn't believe in God.

 

[Luce NDs]

No kidding. I can't recall a time when I didn't believe in God.

Did you know that "đ" in Latin can represent "ch, dh, or th" in differing tongues as covered by the covenant of a great blanket order ... blinds m'n kind ... thus Dei is equivalent to thei and chei as chez expands? Chez Moi ... dheir meis ...

Tis all undercover or souer is as shore as can be ... Big Sur? Fits the Oedipus scheme ...

 

[Mendalla]

Interesting thought. . .wish I could think of a good analogy.

In the end, it comes back to my earlier remarks about how you define a "theist". If "theist" means believing in a transcendent, personal deity, then pantheism probably doesn't belong under it. If it means simply believing in some kind of deity, even a creative, life-giving universe that is nonetheless impersonal, then maybe it does.

 

[Luce NDs]

In the end, it comes back to my earlier remarks about how you define a "theist". If "theist" means believing in a transcendent, personal deity, then pantheism probably doesn't belong under it. If it means simply believing in some kind of deity, even a creative, life-giving universe that is nonetheless impersonal, then maybe it does.

Goes on in d mode as debode of compassion ... not extreme but medi OHM!

 

[Ritafee]

The core of Christianity is surely the key teachings of its foundation in Jesus ...

• Love your neighbor as yourself.
  
• Love your enemy.
• Spirit as opposed to the letter.
  
• Rebirth in the Spirit.

Worship of the dead letter, as opposed to the living Spirit, might well be viewed as just another form of golden-calf idolatry by Jesus of Nazareth, who never wrote down anything.

Human history shows that the human imagination is a wonderful thing when its goals are positive and a terrible thing when applied to malignant ends. Weapons of mass destruction do not grow on trees. They exist because we invented them.

• Fanny Silberman  - now dead -  who was an Auschwitz survivor had more reason than most to take a dim view of humanity. Nevertheless, she used to say, “There’s good and bad of everyone.”

So if you need to choose a belief system, choose a good one, and employ it positively.

Are you what you say you believe, or are you what you actually do?

Edited from THE HANDMAID’S TALE: THE SOURCES, a speech by Margaret Atwood

 

[Mendalla]

Are you what you say you believe, or are you what you actually do?

A very important question, actually. All the theological mumbo-jumbo is well and good when one tries to define one's self through one's beliefs (and has its place in doing so) but in the everyday world, is it not the actions that matter? If a monotheist, pantheist, atheist, and panentheist all end up doing the same actions and caring for each other in the same way, does the underlying belief actually matter as much as that action? If a Christian cares for their humanist neighbour and the reverse is equally true, are they really different enough to be worth fighting over?