Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Pantheism

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Pantheism

 (Read 19971 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #60 - November 01, 2010, 09:25 PM
    What is 'God'
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #61 - November 01, 2010, 09:26 PM
    The Universe/Nature.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #62 - November 01, 2010, 09:28 PM
    how does classical atheism (as in 10/10 on the Dawkins scale of atheism) differ from pantheism
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #63 - November 01, 2010, 09:31 PM
    Firstly

    Quote from: Ishina on October 30, 2010, 06:41 PM
    There are too many different archetypes of pantheism to answer this question in a soundbyte.


    But I assume you are referring to my pantheism, in which case - prettiness.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #64 - November 01, 2010, 09:32 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on November 01, 2010, 09:28 PM
    how does classical atheism (as in 10/10 on the Dawkins scale of atheism) differ from pantheism


    Pantheism is a spiritual alternative for those who are too scientific to believe in deities but who want to connect with something greater than themselves. Physicists will tell you that all is connected. And what is greater than our physical universe?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #65 - November 01, 2010, 09:34 PM
    Seriously who gives a fuck? Pantheism/Deism are redundant positions as they don't get you anywhere (no houris for you prince, not even a black hole to stick your dick into)
    19:46   <zizo>: hugs could pimp u into sex

    Quote from: yeezevee
    well I am neither ex-Muslim nor absolute 100% Non-Muslim.. I am fucking Zebra

  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #66 - November 01, 2010, 09:35 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 01, 2010, 09:31 PM
    prettiness.

    i finally gotcha, apologies for the delay   Afro
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #67 - November 01, 2010, 09:36 PM
    Quote from: GodIsNotGreat on November 01, 2010, 09:34 PM
    Seriously who gives a fuck?


    I do.

    Quote
    Pantheism/Deism are redundant positions as they don't get you anywhere (no houris for you prince, not even a black hole to stick your dick into)


    I don't want either of those things.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #68 - November 01, 2010, 09:37 PM
    Quote from: IsLame on November 01, 2010, 09:35 PM
    i finally gotcha, apologies for the delay   Afro


    No worries, I have too much fun being difficult and pedantic to give straight answers. Tongue
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #69 - November 01, 2010, 09:43 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 01, 2010, 09:37 PM
    No worries, I have too much fun being difficult and pedantic to give straight answers. Tongue


    Things are not what they seem to be; nor are they otherwise.
    ~ The Lankavatara Sutra
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #70 - November 01, 2010, 09:49 PM
    What are they then?
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #71 - November 01, 2010, 10:19 PM
    .
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #72 - November 01, 2010, 10:21 PM
    Whatever you want them to be.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #73 - November 01, 2010, 10:21 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 01, 2010, 10:19 PM
    .


    POTM.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #74 - November 01, 2010, 10:23 PM
    Quote from: BlackDog on November 01, 2010, 10:21 PM
    Whatever you want them to be.


    If only.

    Quote from: BlackDog on November 01, 2010, 10:21 PM
    POTM.


    Been done before. Keep up.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #75 - November 01, 2010, 10:25 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 01, 2010, 10:23 PM
    If only.

    Been done before. Keep up.



    No.

    Things
                        are


    as I

                wish them to be

    .

    *radiates*
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #76 - November 02, 2010, 12:02 AM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 01, 2010, 09:37 PM
    No worries, I have too much fun being difficult and pedantic to give straight answers. Tongue

    No probs - I do it too sometimes.  Remember Bison?  Work it out yet, like you promised?
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #77 - November 02, 2010, 12:18 AM
    -_-

    You didnt uphold your end of the deal. And he's gone, so I kinda lost the chance.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #78 - November 02, 2010, 12:20 AM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 02, 2010, 12:18 AM
    You didnt uphold your end of the deal.

    Rubbish
    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #79 - November 02, 2010, 12:28 AM
    No, you didn't. You never said if you knew something he wanted to hide.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #80 - November 02, 2010, 12:48 AM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 01, 2010, 07:55 PM
    pussy


    dick

    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 01, 2010, 08:26 PM

    Ok well I will stop you at 'cannot be explained by y'. I fully believe it can be explained by nature.


    The best scientific veiw I could give regarding this would stem from the fact that quantum mechnics tells us that the universe is non-local. For example, a pair of entagled particles which were once in contact in the past may then be sperated to opposite ends of the universe but then still instantaneously communicate with and affect the behaviour of each other. So our common intuitive logic that space sperates and distinguishes one object from the other is radically challenged by quantum mechanics. therefore two things can be seperated by an enormous amount of space but yet not have a fully independent existence - a quantum connection can unite them making the properties of each depndent on the properties of the other.

    Since at the big bang everything emerged from one place (since all places we now think of as different were the same place way back at the beginning) then it could be argued that quantum mechnics entangles everything into one universal whole - everything is essentially connected to evrything else - scientifically.
    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #81 - November 02, 2010, 12:53 AM
    Ya, quantum entanglement is cool shiz.

    I wanna ask you something, what do you think of Bohmian mechanics?
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #82 - November 02, 2010, 01:06 AM
    I haven't studied it in detail but from what I remeber it involves an even more brazen element of non-locality i.e. the actual forces acting on a particle at one location depend instantaneously on conditions at distant locations. As far as I know his formulation makes predictions that agree fully with conventional QM  - so yeah it's also pretty cool stuff.

    ''we are morally and philisophically in the best position to win the league'' - Arsene Wenger
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #83 - November 02, 2010, 01:06 AM
    Quote from: serrated_colon on November 01, 2010, 04:41 PM
    Wouldn't giving this 'substance' the attribute of being transcendent, or transcendental rather resemble spinoza's god, or rather panentheism as opposed to pantheism(which as far as I understand it is EVERYTHING IN REALITY IS GOD etc etc).




    I know that Spinoza is often portrayed as a pantheist but in my own personal interpretation of Spinoza I would disagree with this view. Spinoza held that God can take an infinite number of forms but the only forms that are available to man are the two forms of physical and mental. This means that there are an infinite number of "modes" of god that are unavailable to mankind, that are beyond man's ability to know. What does it mean to be transcendent than to be beyond?

    Also, I don't know if Spinozan pantheism is the best articulation of what it means to be a pantheist or panentheist (the difference between the two is really negligable because man has no idea where "nature" ends). Prince Spinoza outlined a theory of monism above and AbuY has shown how this theory is pretty much agreed upon whether one takes a scientific or spiritual or metaphysical starting point. That all of reality is one unified whole is pretty straightforward. However, I don't think it's possible to leave it there and call that pantheism. For this unified whole to be more than just monism, it has to have something special about, something divine, something transcendent. After all, it is a theism. It must have some form of divinity.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #84 - November 02, 2010, 01:08 AM
    Quote from: Logical_Mind44 on November 01, 2010, 08:00 PM
    "transcendent" is a cool word to mask supernatural as a technical and respectable concept.


    There is nothing respectable about having a blind hatred towards anything that may include "supernatural". In fact, it is a very silly concept because the definition of what it means to be just merely "natural" is a circular idea.
    What we are concerned with is all of reality, not just that which scientists give us permission to talk about.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #85 - November 02, 2010, 01:10 AM
    Quote from: z10 on November 02, 2010, 01:06 AM
    I know that Spinoza is often portrayed as a pantheist but in my own personal interpretation of Spinoza I would disagree with this view. Spinoza held that God can take an infinite number of forms but the only forms that are available to man are the two forms of physical and mental. This means that there are an infinite number of "modes" of god that are unavailable to mankind, that are beyond man's ability to know. What does it mean to be transcendent than to be beyond?

    Also, I don't know if Spinozan pantheism is the best articulation of what it means to be a pantheist or panentheist (the difference between the two is really negligable because man has no idea where "nature" ends). Prince Spinoza outlined a theory of monism above and AbuY has shown how this theory is pretty much agreed upon whether one takes a scientific or spiritual or metaphysical starting point. That all of reality is one unified whole is pretty straightforward. However, I don't think it's possible to leave it there and call that pantheism. For this unified whole to be more than just monism, it has to have something special about, something divine, something transcendent. After all, it is a theism. It must have some form of divinity.


    If you remove the bold bit from that post I will rubber stamp it with my seal of approval.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #86 - November 02, 2010, 01:11 AM
    Quote from: IsLame on November 01, 2010, 04:53 PM

    To be overcome by something powerful, and because of this to go onto assume everything in the universe is made of fairydust - Hmmm?


    Personal experience is the measure of reality. Rational thought is just an abstraction, not reality itself. What you experience is true in and of itself, no matter what you think about it.

    If somebody has a powerful experience that is therefore, the best and perhaps only way to know something to be true.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #87 - November 02, 2010, 01:12 AM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on November 02, 2010, 01:10 AM
    If you remove the bold bit from that post I will rubber stamp it with my seal of approval.


    what do you think I mean by transcendent?
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #88 - November 02, 2010, 01:15 AM
    I haven't the foggiest.

    And yes, I agree that Spinoza's views could justifiable be labelled panentheist, from what I've read of him, it's unclear (to me) whether he was that or a pantheist.
  • Re: Pantheism
     Reply #89 - November 02, 2010, 01:18 AM
    Well, you said you experienced "something powerful", I would call that transcendental. It's just a word but I think it fits best there. There is no more or less to the word than the fact that it symbolises all that can't be rationally explained.
    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »