Spiritual Atheism

[garthoverman]

Moderators please note that I received permission from Dee Dee Warren to post in this forum, although it is still somewhat unresolved as to whether or not I meet the forum's requirements.

I am a pantheist.

Pantheism --> The belief that the natural universe in its entirety is identical to god, or can be regarded as divine, sublime, etc...

IMHO, it can also be regarded in reverse fashion --> the belief that classical concepts of God or gods are primitive, distorted models of the natural universe.

Take note that this is a naturalistic philosophy.

Dee Dee suggested I open this thread to explore non-theists' opinions on pantheism, or other forms of spiritual atheism like Buddhism. So here's some questions that I hope will stimulate discussion:

Is pantheism significantly divergent from atheism?

Is it merely word-play or language abuse?

Are they basically the same?

Is it possible to be spiritual yet not believe in a god or gods?

Do you think that Buddhists are as hopelessly deluded as Christians? :wink:

What else? Do you have questions for me?

Lastly, please do not feel confined to these questions but instead feel free to make any comment which you feel is pertinent.

Yours,
Garth

[Alien]

Hi Garth,


Moderators please note that I received permission from Dee Dee Warren to post in this forum, although it is still somewhat unresolved as to whether or not I meet the forum's requirements.

This raises a general question about admissability, imo. Is a Buddhist a theist? Depends on the flavor of Buddhism, imo. What about a deist, if one came along? I expect it will be sorted out as we go along, and I equally expect that the moderators will go along with any reasonable request we make. After all, this is "our place", no?

My personal feeling is that anyone that doesn't believe in a self-aware, conscious god that is present here and now should qualify. I wonder if that applies to pantheism? Lets ask. :)


I am a pantheist.

Pantheism --> The belief that the natural universe in its entirety is identical to god, or can be regarded as divine, sublime, etc...

IMHO, it can also be regarded in reverse fashion --> the belief that classical concepts of God or gods are primitive, distorted models of the natural universe.

Take note that this is a naturalistic philosophy.

Dee Dee suggested I open this thread to explore non-theists' opinions on pantheism, or other forms of spiritual atheism like Buddhism. So here's some questions that I hope will stimulate discussion:

Is pantheism significantly divergent from atheism?

That depends. Does the pantheist "god" affect out lives in a "deliberate" way? Is it conscious of itself as an entity? Does it have a purpose? Does it prescribe a moral code? Does it reward or punish based on this code? Can you ask it for things?

(See, I don't know too much about pantheism, you'll have to help me out here.)


Is it merely word-play or language abuse?

Are they basically the same?

I'll answer when you tell me more. What distinguishes the pantheist "god-universe" from a simple naturalistic view of the universe?


Is it possible to be spiritual yet not believe in a god or gods?

Grrrr. I have never been able to get a clear definition of "spiritual" outside a religious context. What do you mean by it?


Do you think that Buddhists are as hopelessly deluded as Christians?

Both are based on incorrect premises, imo. I prefer Buddhist ideas for what that's worth.Some flavors of Buddhism (like Zen) seem to be pretty much "mental push-ups" and devoid of the mumbo-jumbo that infests the typical religion. As meditation techniques do work to calm the mind, etc etc, then I would say this type of Buddhism is significantly less deluded than Christianity.

Here's one of my favorite stories, attributed to the Buddha.

The Buddha was walking on a river bank, when he was approached by a man with a question. He wanted to know if prayer was a valid way of accomplishing desired ends. The Buddha asked him, "If you wanted to cross this river, how would you go about it?" The man replied, "Well, if it is shallow enough anywhere near here, I could wade across. Or,I happen to know there is a ferryman not far away that will take me across for a small sum". The Buddha nodded. "What then would you think of a man that sat down and prayed that the other bank would come to him?" he asked. "I would consider him to be be very foolish!" was the reply. The Buddha made no further comment.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 09:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125725#post125725)
Alien:

Hi Garth
Hi there, Alien. :smile:


This raises a general question about admissability, imo. Is a Buddhist a theist? Depends on the flavor of Buddhism, imo. What about a deist, if one came along? I expect it will be sorted out as we go along, and I equally expect that the moderators will go along with any reasonable request we make. After all, this is "our place", no?
I hope so!


That depends. Does the pantheist "god" affect out lives in a "deliberate" way?
Sort of. I am an element of the universe, and as such I am an element of the pantheist god. If I deliberately hit you, then at least an element of the pantheist god has affected you deliberately. But you must realize that you are as much an element of this god as I.


Is it conscious of itself as an entity?
Ahh... now THIS is the most fascinating question, IMHO. Part of my belief is that the universe is conscious, including all matter and energy. Now, this applies to elementary particles as well as to planetary systems and galaxies. In the most amazing way, the cells in your body are themselves individually aware or their own identity, and your identity is the capstone in the collective gestalt of consciousnesses interacting within your body. The thing is, this is my belief as a pantheist. This is not necessarily the belief of all pantheists.


Does it have a purpose?
Its purpose is your purpose.


Does it prescribe a moral code?
None that an individual him/herself does not first presuppose. IOW, morality is relative.



Does it reward or punish based on this code?
You only reward or punish yourself based on your own self-percpetion and self-evaluation.


Can you ask it for things?
You can. It may or may not answer depending on what you want to believe is an answer. Basically, I would say that it wouldn't answer in the ways that Christians describe their God answering.



I'll answer when you tell me more. What distinguishes the pantheist "god-universe" from a simple naturalistic view of the universe?
Basically nothing, IMHO.


Grrrr. I have never been able to get a clear definition of "spiritual" outside a religious context. What do you mean by it?
I think it is a deep feeling of inherent one-ness with the universe. A deep feeling of meaning and purpose despite the lack of divine directives or commandments.


Both are based on incorrect premises, imo. I prefer Buddhist ideas for what that's worth.Some flavors of Buddhism (like Zen) seem to be pretty much "mental push-ups" and devoid of the mumbo-jumbo that infests the typical religion. As meditation techniques do work to calm the mind, etc etc, then I would say this type of Buddhism is significantly less deluded than Christianity.
I'd agree.


Here's one of my favorite stories, attributed to the Buddha.

The Buddha was walking on a river bank, when he was approached by a man with a question. He wanted to know if prayer was a valid way of accomplishing desired ends. The Buddha asked him, "If you wanted to cross this river, how would you go about it?" The man replied, "Well, if it is shallow enough anywhere near here, I could wade across. Or,I happen to know there is a ferryman not far away that will take me across for a small sum". The Buddha nodded. "What then would you think of a man that sat down and prayed that the other bank would come to him?" he asked. "I would consider him to be be very foolish!" was the reply. The Buddha made no further comment.
I enjoyed that thoroughly. :smile:

Yours,
Garth

[Alien]

Is it conscious of itself as an entity?
Ahh... now THIS is the most fascinating question, IMHO. Part of my belief is that the universe is conscious, including all matter and energy. Now, this applies to elementary particles as well as to planetary systems and galaxies. In the most amazing way, the cells in your body are themselves individually aware or their own identity, and your identity is the capstone in the collective gestalt of consciousnesses interacting within your body. The thing is, this is my belief as a pantheist. This is not necessarily the belief of all pantheists.

OK ....



What distinguishes the pantheist "god-universe" from a simple naturalistic view of the universe?
Basically nothing, IMHO.

In which case I am forced to ask why you feel this is true?

You asked "Is it merely word-play or language abuse? Are they basically the same?" I'm tending towards a "yes" to this, but I'm still listening. :smile:

Another question: Is there any concept of an "afterlife"?

[LGM]

Today @ 01:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125603#post125603)
garthoverman:

I am a pantheist.

Pantheism --> The belief that the natural universe in its entirety is identical to god, or can be regarded as divine, sublime, etc...

Hey Garth,

I too have pantheist leanings, although I have yet to get my official membership card. :wink: After my deconversion from Christianity I made a brief stop at Deism, especially after reading Paine, but I realized that my true beliefs are closer to pantheism.

I hestitate to call the universe "God" because this just tends to confuse theists and atheists alike, I prefer to say I have a deep and humble awe and reverance for it's power, scope, and beauty.
On the one hand I am humbled by my tiny little existence, on the other hand I realize my incredible, unique role (on this planet anyway) to ponder it abstractly.



IMHO, it can also be regarded in reverse fashion --> the belief that classical concepts of God or gods are primitive, distorted models of the natural universe.

Take note that this is a naturalistic philosophy.

I would agree. I have also refered to my beliefs as "natural theology"

Is pantheism significantly divergent from atheism?
Well it all goes back to the definition of "theism" and since pantheism can't hide from the embedded word, it is a "theology".
But it really is just a "weasel theology" in that there is no "God" that is external to or works outside the laws of the universe, but that is just my definition and understanding. And while its concepts are ancient, its obviously not as organized or grounded in a specific doctrine like organized religion.


Is it merely word-play or language abuse?
I guess pan-universe doesn't sound as good as pantheism.

Are they basically the same?
since we can't get anyone to agree what atheism is I dare not say... :lol:

Is it possible to be spiritual yet not believe in a god or gods?
Again if you define "spiritual" as the emotions you feel while looking at nightsky from an island in the middle of Lake George. I would say yes. :teeth:

Do you think that Buddhists are as hopelessly deluded as Christians? :wink:

depending on the person and the situation, we may be all hopelessly deluded... :hrm:

It would have been interesting to see where we would be as a species if scientific pantheism was the dominant world religion. If all the time and money and effort that has been wasted in the study of the tribal, revealed religions had been put towards the search for knowledge and understanding and the ideal that we "are all God's children" and the sacred scriptures have been written in a timeless universal language available for all to discover. And that our brains and position in the earth's ecosystem requires of us a disciplined stewardship of each other and this planet. A stewardship we have largely ignored do to our selfishness and egos.

OK...time to step down off that soapbox...

Good topic.

-peace and understanding
LGM

[rocket]

Yesterday @ 06:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125603#post125603)
garthoverman:

HEATHERN!!! GET BEHIND ME PANTHIEST!!!...I'm kidding...

Moderators please note that I received permission from Dee Dee Warren to post in this forum, although it is still somewhat unresolved as to whether or not I meet the forum's requirements.

I am a pantheist.

Pantheism --> The belief that the natural universe in its entirety is identical to god, or can be regarded as divine, sublime, etc...

IMHO, it can also be regarded in reverse fashion --> the belief that classical concepts of God or gods are primitive, distorted models of the natural universe.

Take note that this is a naturalistic philosophy.

Dee Dee suggested I open this thread to explore non-theists' opinions on pantheism, or other forms of spiritual atheism like Buddhism. So here's some questions that I hope will stimulate discussion:

Is pantheism significantly divergent from atheism?

I struggle with this. I don't beleive an Atheist in the purist of form would agree to compare anything to a God, since God's existance is not proven.

Is it merely word-play or language abuse?

The former.

Are they basically the same?

It would depend on the extent you practice. An Atheist that cannot negotiate in the simplest of terms would be an extremist as in any other religion.

Is it possible to be spiritual yet not believe in a god or gods?

I am.

Do you think that Buddhists are as hopelessly deluded as Christians? :wink:

I think both are as deluded as they allow themselves to be, I know that both are in a constant internal struggle over the truth of what they believe (everybody always is)...to deny that means you have sent your spirituality beyond the point of return and the denial can never be reconciled even though it is there (you can never reconcile it anyway so whats he difference).
What else? Do you have questions for me?

Lastly, please do not feel confined to these questions but instead feel free to make any comment which you feel is pertinent.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125923#post125923)
Alien:


Garth:
Ahh... now THIS is the most fascinating question, IMHO. Part of my belief is that the universe is conscious, including all matter and energy. Now, this applies to elementary particles as well as to planetary systems and galaxies. In the most amazing way, the cells in your body are themselves individually aware or their own identity, and your identity is the capstone in the collective gestalt of consciousnesses interacting within your body. The thing is, this is my belief as a pantheist. This is not necessarily the belief of all pantheists.

OK ....



Alien:
What distinguishes the pantheist "god-universe" from a simple naturalistic view of the universe?
Garth:
Basically nothing, IMHO.
Alien:
In which case I am forced to ask why you feel this is true?
Well, it is an extrapolation from what I've read regarding quantum theory and theories of consciousness. It seems to make the most sense to me in combining what we know of quantum reality with fundemental epistemology. The behavior of such large arrangements of ever-dancing elementarty particles is only explicable in terms of conscious direction. Your will flows through the matter that composes the muscles in your fingers whilst you type -- it is alive with your individual intentionality and awareness. Yet fundamentally, the matter in your finger-muscles is no different than the matter in the sole of your shoe, or in the rock that sits on the side of the road. Our bodies are but complex piles of stardust, yet we are alive with awareness. To me, that can only mean that stardust has consciousness.


You asked "Is it merely word-play or language abuse? Are they basically the same?" I'm tending towards a "yes" to this, but I'm still listening. :smile:
I understand. Most of the time, when I debate Christians, I argue from an atheistic POV. It just so happens that I think consciousness is the fundamental substance of the universe. I think that primitively humans understood this, and they tried to model it in religious symbolism, and the distortions that have descended with those dogmas are hampering and insufficient at explaining natural phenomena. Even Jesus said "Ye are gods." In fact, I think a lot of what Jesus spoke about is best understood through a pantheistic lens. Love God (the universe) with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. Got that one covered. Love your neighbor as yourself. Y'know why? Because you are god, and your neighbor is too! We're all in this together, right?


Another question: Is there any concept of an "afterlife"?
I do believe that reincarnation is a fact, yes. HOWEVER, I do not subscribe to any notions of dharma or karma or sin or crime and punishment. Basically I believe that each person creates their own reality according their personal beliefs, goals, and expectations. IOW, various incarnations are only as heavenly or hellish as you make them, and never are you eternally fated.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Today @ 01:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125929#post125929)
LakeGeorgeMan:


Hey Garth,

I too have pantheist leanings, although I have yet to get my official membership card. :wink: After my deconversion from Christianity I made a brief stop at Deism, especially after reading Paine, but I realized that my true beliefs are closer to pantheism.
Well you're in luck because I'm the one-and-only official pantheist recruiter! :smile: Just send $50 to:Garth Overman
2589 Joke Street
Kidding, CA 01000 ... and you should receive your membership packet in 6-8 weeks. :cheers:


I hestitate to call the universe "God" because this just tends to confuse theists and atheists alike, I prefer to say I have a deep and humble awe and reverance for it's power, scope, and beauty.
I know what you mean. Generally, I don't talk about pantheism very much when debating Christians and the like because -- as you said -- it confuses them. They tend to try to dress it up with their typical anthropomorphic concepts.


On the one hand I am humbled by my tiny little existence, on the other hand I realize my incredible, unique role (on this planet anyway) to ponder it abstractly.
I think that typical theists struggle to find meaning in their lives when trying to comprehend their relative size and significance in relation to the vastness of the universe as a whole. On the contrary, I am inspired by the vast expanses of the universe, realizing my own unassailable identity and individuality within it.



I would agree. I have also refered to my beliefs as "natural theology"
This is an important point that I try to make clear. I am firmly supportive of scientific endeavors and methodological naturalism. I think that the universe behaves regularly on an objective basis, however given my experience with psychadelics I understand the source of mysticism. The problem arises when persons who've had mystical experiences try to compartmentalize them into pre-arranged dogmas or pass them off as scientific fact. I mean, I acknowledge the existence of mysticism, but I think I understand its place a bit better than typical theists. As far as I have personally experienced, it is a very personal, very private, very creative and spontaneous venture that can be very successfully utilized to enrich ones own personal existence. It is just very important to understand that experiences like those are not, repeat not objective fact.


Is pantheism significantly divergent from atheism?
Well it all goes back to the definition of "theism" and since pantheism can't hide from the embedded word, it is a "theology".
But it really is just a "weasel theology" in that there is no "God" that is external to or works outside the laws of the universe, but that is just my definition and understanding. And while its concepts are ancient, its obviously not as organized or grounded in a specific doctrine like organized religion.
All very true. Basically, I wear the label only to be honest about what I believe. I believe that the universe is volitional because I am voltional, and you are, and my dog is, and the fish and bears and oaks and ferns and mushrooms and protozoa. All of these act with intentionality, and that intent is purposeful. The universe endows itself with purpose by manifesting itself into entire galaxies of significance. In one sense, you could call it "intelligent design," but the design is the designer and the designer is the design. The intelligence is your own.


Is it merely word-play or language abuse?
I guess pan-universe doesn't sound as good as pantheism.
Yeah but among some circles of atheists, the stigma of the "-theism" is like wearing a scarlett letter.


Are they basically the same?
since we can't get anyone to agree what atheism is I dare not say... :lol:
Yeah, no kidding. :smile:


Is it possible to be spiritual yet not believe in a god or gods?
Again if you define "spiritual" as the emotions you feel while looking at nightsky from an island in the middle of Lake George. I would say yes. :teeth:
And that is it precisely. Its a subjective recognition of personal significance, satisfaction, security, and awe that comes from contemplating one's own place in the universe. There more fulfillment out there than most people recognize.


Do you think that Buddhists are as hopelessly deluded as Christians? :wink:

depending on the person and the situation, we may be all hopelessly deluded... :hrm:
There is no spoon.


It would have been interesting to see where we would be as a species if scientific pantheism was the dominant world religion. If all the time and money and effort that has been wasted in the study of the tribal, revealed religions had been put towards the search for knowledge and understanding and the ideal that we "are all God's children" and the sacred scriptures have been written in a timeless universal language available for all to discover. And that our brains and position in the earth's ecosystem requires of us a disciplined stewardship of each other and this planet. A stewardship we have largely ignored do to our selfishness and egos.
Certainly! Much of the disrespect we exhibit for our planet stems from the idea that we are edowed first among all the animals and plants from some personal creator-god, when instead we must realize that we are as dependant upon them as they are on us.

Thanks for your responses.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Is pantheism significantly divergent from atheism?
I struggle with this. I don't beleive an Atheist in the purist of form would agree to compare anything to a God, since God's existance is not proven.
But if the universe is god, its existence has been proven. You just don't agree to call it "god," and I don't fault anyone for that. Call it whatever you want, just be happy with it.


Is it merely word-play or language abuse?

The former.
How do you mean?


Are they basically the same?

It would depend on the extent you practice. An Atheist that cannot negotiate in the simplest of terms would be an extremist as in any other religion.
I agree. I meditate with real ambitiousness, and I'm pretty experienced in lucid dreaming. I don't build shines or alters or crucify anybody though...


Is it possible to be spiritual yet not believe in a god or gods?

I am.
Good! So am I! :cheers:


Do you think that Buddhists are as hopelessly deluded as Christians?

I think both are as deluded as they allow themselves to be, I know that both are in a constant internal struggle over the truth of what they believe (everybody always is)...to deny that means you have sent your spirituality beyond the point of return and the denial can never be reconciled even though it is there (you can never reconcile it anyway so whats he difference).
I agree. There are certianly some in every bunch.

Yours,
Garth

[Passant]

What about a deist, if one came along?

Yea, What about us?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126289#post126289)
Passant:



Yea, What about us?

Deists? Oh... you guys got a couple o' screws loose... :dufus:

(j/k)

I don't really understand Deism. As far as I've read, its the belief that a creator made everything exist and set up the "rules" and everything, and simply lets the universe run on its own like some sort of perpetual motion machine. Is that correct so far?

What I don't understand is what Deism has to say about afterlife or lack thereof, or whether or not there is an absolute moral authority that transcends the universe, or whether or not we are required to acknowledge the existence of the creator, etc... Y'know the typical stuff that is generally associated with deities.

Not understanding your beliefs gives me some good insight into what it might be like to other people trying to understand my beliefs. Thanks for the opportunity to learn a little bit. :smile:

Yours,
Garth

[Alien]

Garth, thanks for answering the questions and thanks to LGM too for another slant on it.

LGM:

It would have been interesting to see where we would be as a species if scientific pantheism was the dominant world religion. If all the time and money and effort that has been wasted in the study of the tribal, revealed religions had been put towards the search for knowledge and understanding and the ideal that we "are all God's children" and the sacred scriptures have been written in a timeless universal language available for all to discover. And that our brains and position in the earth's ecosystem requires of us a disciplined stewardship of each other and this planet. A stewardship we have largely ignored do to our selfishness and egos.

What an attractive thought! It requires rising "above" certain natural instincts, though. The slim hope I have is based on the fact that cooperation is also a survival mechanism, so its not all pie in the sky. Maybe if we just fed that aspect of our natures for a change?

Forgive my poor geographical knowledge, but where is Lake George? It looks very beautiful from the picture.

Isn't this thread a pleasant break from all the arguing? Thanks, Dee Dee!

[Didaktylos]

... theism (as a general term) is a world-view that encompasses the following:

That there exists numinous power that is conscious of its own existence

That this existence is separate from the physical universe as perceived by human consciousness

That this power is aware of and concerned with the thoughts & actions of specific human beings

That this power has the capability to effect changes in the course of events to affect specific human beings

A-theism (as a general term) would be any world-view that does not include all of the aformentioned. Pantheism as described by garthoverman would appear to reject the second of my points.

I make no apology for stressing "human" in my list there - I sometimes think that thesm should be more properly styled "humanocentrism".

[garthoverman]

Obeisances, Didaktylos, and thank you for your contribution to our thread. Out of boredom this morning, I decided to chime in with a teensy-weensy nitpick. Please.... don't mind me. :smile:


Today @ 12:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127593#post127593)
Didaktylos:

... theism (as a general term) is a world-view that encompasses the following:

That there exists numinous power that is conscious of its own existence

That this existence is separate from the physical universe as perceived by human consciousness

That this power is aware of and concerned with the thoughts & actions of specific human beings

That this power has the capability to effect changes in the course of events to affect specific human beings

A-theism (as a general term) would be any world-view that does not include all of the aformentioned. Pantheism as described by garthoverman would appear to reject the second of my points.
I think that the third one is just a little inaccurate (and therefore I would reject it). I would say "this power" is not so much concerned with the thoughts and actions of specific human beings as much as it is concerned with the thoughts and actions of everything simultaneously.



I make no apology for stressing "human" in my list there - I sometimes think that thesm should be more properly styled "humanocentrism".
Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Bascially I think that as humans became more and more aware of the universe through their evolution, the first thing they could do in attempt to understand it is to project upon it that which they understood of themselves. Thus the workings of the universe took on exaggerated anthropomorphic characteristics in the minds of men. This was the birth of classical Gods. Never did they think that "this power" would also have animal characteristics, and plant characteristics, and mineral characteristics, and cosmic chracteristics. Man was the center of his own world, and so his God would also be man-like. My beliefs discard those types of fairy tales in favor of a direct encounter with god as Nature.

Yours,
Garth

[Alien]

Didaktylos:

A-theism (as a general term) would be any world-view that does not include all of the aformentioned. Pantheism as described by garthoverman would appear to reject the second of my points.

I have a problem with this, because it would imply that a a believer in (say) Zeus was an atheist. Your list of god-attributes is pretty good for the Judeo-Christian monothistic god, though would you include creation? I think though, that atheism has to lack belief in the whole range of beings that have been described as "gods".


garthoverman:
Oh, I agree whole-heartedly. Bascially I think that as humans became more and more aware of the universe through their evolution, the first thing they could do in attempt to understand it is to project upon it that which they understood of themselves. Thus the workings of the universe took on exaggerated anthropomorphic characteristics in the minds of men. This was the birth of classical Gods. Never did they think that "this power" would also have animal characteristics, and plant characteristics, and mineral characteristics, and cosmic chracteristics. Man was the center of his own world, and so his God would also be man-like. My beliefs discard those types of fairy tales in favor of a direct encounter with god as Nature.

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of god does prop up the concept that humans are the only thing that matters in the universe. This seems to be a predictable response to the idea that we are a small insignificant part of the universe - invent an all-powerful being that is interested primarily in us. Primitive nature religions often saw humans as part of nature, though. What I like about pantheism, as expressed by you and LGM, is that we can recognise that we are simply part of the universe, but still feel important because we are part of it.

[AtheistArchon]

- You guys ought to check out Jim Huber's website:

http://www.jhuger.com/index.mv

- "The mystic atheist". Some quite good stuff. His essay on Pascal's Wager is top notch.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 07:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127976#post127976)
Alien:

The Judeo-Christian-Muslim concept of god does prop up the concept that humans are the only thing that matters in the universe. This seems to be a predictable response to the idea that we are a small insignificant part of the universe - invent an all-powerful being that is interested primarily in us. Primitive nature religions often saw humans as part of nature, though. What I like about pantheism, as expressed by you and LGM, is that we can recognise that we are simply part of the universe, but still feel important because we are part of it.
Precisely. Basically, as a pantheist, if I were to express my beliefs in classical theistic terms, then I could say that the universe is its own Creator. This means that we are part of the Creator -- and that we are creators. Collectively we all contribute en masse in the constant creation and re-creation of the universe. This idea instills withing me a very deep sense of reverence for the entire world around me and for my own place within it.

Below I excerpted a passage that inspires me, and the last lines of the passage are those that I put in my signature. I thought I'd share it because it touches on how we can feel significant even within such a vast and expansive universe. Take it for what you will -- its source is rather dubious to most critically minded skeptics. Enjoy!


You must make this information your own. Then, for you, it becomes psychologically valid and real. And, using it, you can indeed alter the nature of your reality. But you must be willing to be kindly to yourself. You must believe that when you send out pleas they are indeed answered, no matter how impersonal the universe may seem at times. You must realize that your personal self grows as naturally out of that universe as, in other terms, any star does, or any flower, or any oak leaf. You are a part of that system.

And when you send out a plea, you do indeed set the universe in motion, so that the plea is answered. And so do you also send help to others, often even when you are not aware of it, as a flower sends out help to someone simply because it is beautiful…. You can stand up and say, "I am myself, and I am good, and I refuse to accept the beliefs of others with which I do not agree." Then you … make your own direction. You must make that choice. The choice is always yours. Cow before beliefs that you no longer accept, cow before the past - or assert your individuality and being in the present, the full divinity of your being, which includes a conscious mind - and refuse to be cowed by the so-called past - and you begin anew!

I could tell you, you are full of grace. Your planet is full of grace. When you understand that, you will not need to pretend to destroy yourself, or your planet. You can live lovingly with yourself, and with your planet! There are directions that your consciousness can take, and I am trying to tell you what those directions are. And if you take those directions, then indeed, in your terms - in your terms - there is a birth of a new kind of species - a species that understands its blessed creaturehood, and a species that understands its biological spirituality; a species that consciously creates a reality of which it can indeed be proud; a species that does not despoil its planet, but considers that planet sacred; a species that consciously and purposefully creates the kind of world that a sane god would create; a species that creates a god that is themselves; a god who has no need for a heaven or a hell!

Forget your ideas of present and past. Forget the occult nonsense that you have learned, and look at your present with the wondering eyes of a new self. Amid the mad scramble, you do make your own reality. I admit that this sounds too simple, but you will not be caught in an earthquake if you do not want to be, and no one dies who has not decided to do so. You make your own reality or you do not. And if you do not, then you are everywhere a victim, and the universe must be an accidental mechanism appearing with no reason. So that the miraculous picture you have seen of your body came accidently into creation, and out of some cosmic accident attained its miraculous complexity. And that body was formed so beautifully for no reason except to be a victim. That is the only other alternative to forming your own reality. You cannot have a universe in between. You have a universe formed with a reason, or a universe formed without a reason. And in a universe of reason, there are no victims. Everything has a reason or nothing has a reason. So, choose your side. ~Seth

Yours,
Garth

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 03:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128098#post128098)
AtheistArchon:

- You guys ought to check out Jim Huber's website:

http://www.jhuger.com/index.mv

- "The mystic atheist". Some quite good stuff. His essay on Pascal's Wager is top notch.

Yeah, good stuff, thanks.

[Didaktylos]

(Alien)
I have a problem with this, because it would imply that a a believer in (say) Zeus was an atheist. Your list of god-attributes is pretty good for the Judeo-Christian monothistic god, though would you include creation? I think though, that atheism has to lack belief in the whole range of beings that have been described as "gods".

:doh:

I'd been trying to leave it vague as possible so that it would be irrelevant how many individual numinous entities there might be in any given theistic system - my bad, sorry.

The point I was trying to get across was that generic theism required acceptance of all of those points - rejection of any single one would imply generic "lower case" a-theism ("atheism" as opposed to "Atheism") and would encompass Pantheism, Deism, Agnosticism, Weak Atheism, Strong Atheism (and whatever other conceptual name might be thought up).


(Alien)
...This seems to be a predictable response to the idea that we are a small insignificant part of the universe - invent an all-powerful being that is interested primarily in us.

That is exactly what I was alluding to.

[Lagomorpha]

Here´s the issue in a nutshell.
To have a religion,you need rituals.You can have a religion without deities,but you cannot have a religion without rituals.
Thomas H. Huxley said it well.What did he exactly say? Cannot recall that,but it´s something to the direction of "complete religion can exist in the complete absence of theology".Right on the nail,must you not think?

I´ve talked to a few pantheists,and they cannot really pin down the essence of their ?alleged? religion.

I´m all for it,if it exists.