Are you?

[Hypatia_Jo]

I am a Pantheist. Are you?

Before you answer that make sure you know what one is.

I'm sure you recognise the names Michael Shermer (Skeptic magazine & Honorary Advisor to WPM), Carl Sagan, A. Einstein, Spinoza, Stephen Hawking, Sitting Bull, M. Gorbachev, H.D. Thoreau, Plato, Lao Tzu, Plotinus, Schelling, Hegel, Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich, Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987).

I've been a member of the WPM for a year now and have had a hard time understanding why they call themselves Pantheists, so I did a little study on the term. The book recognized as containing the most complete attempt at explaining and defending pantheism from a philosophical perspective is Spinoza's Ethics. In 1720 John Toland wrote the Pantheisticon: or The Form of Celebrating the Socratic-Society in Latin. He (possibly) coined the term "pantheist" and used it as a synonym for "Spinozist."

Check these sites to know the FACTS. Is Pantheism and Theism the same? No.

“There are probably more (grass-root) Pantheists than there are protestants, or Theists in general…” - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/#PaT


WPM Home: http://www.pantheism.net/
WPM FAQ: http://members.aol.com/heraklit1/faqs.htm

[chapka]

I am a Pantheist. Are you?

No.

I appreciate that I don't understand everything in the universe. I'm just not convinced that "reverence" is the appropriate response to that appreciation. And frankly I don't see a holistic view of the known universe as useful for everyday purposes.

The atoms in my chair are uncountable. I do not know where my chair was in the past or where it will be in the future. And without my chair, I would fall down and hurt my ass. But none of that makes me think that my chair is worthy of "reverence." It's a comfortable chair, and I like it, but applying that kind of language to it is just silly. I see the rest of the universe pretty much the same way.

[phrog]

I too wanted to just say no. I couldn't quite put my thumb on the why's and werefrors but it seems like chapka has done so pretty well. I too feel that if my chair wre to vanish, it would somehow hurt chapka's ass. :D

[Stiletto One]

No, I am not a pantheist.

I have plenty of aesthetic appreciation for the extremely functionally elegant universe we live in, but I see no reason to attach metaphysical meanings to it. *shrug*

[NoWay]

I am not a Pantheist.

I see Pantheism as Atheism all dressed up in quasi-religious clothing with no place to go. I don't really see the need for the added complexity. :confused:

[Revolutionary]

Not at all.

I am not really interested in the universe. I am certainly not interested in using mystical names for the universe.

[sentinel00]

I thought pantheist just meant that you believe Zamfir is the god of the pan flute.

[fairyhedgehog]

It looks rather muddled to me.

It is interesting that I am attracted to paganism, which is similar but includes belief in the supernatural, far more than I am to pantheism. Maybe it is because paganism is frankly supernatural whereas pantheism tries to smuggle the supernatural in the back door while denying that it is there.

But either way, I am an atheist. Also a consciousnessist. (I believe in not causing suffering and I think that you need some consciousness in order to suffer.) But not a pantheist!

[Hypatia_Jo]

I've been registered with the WPM a year and never attended a church or any kind of worship. I simply shared their perspective on nature and how awesome it is without getting all weirded out by obey-your-master talk and dogma. I have Atheist forum buddy's that have suggested going to a UU church to get that sense of community since I live in a Baptist hotbed community. I can't seem to bring myself to go since sermons give me the willy's. What I DO see in the WPM is an attempt to connect with theists and bring them closer to rationality. I wonder if it would become a hit in a spirituality forum. I think there are a lot of people who consider themselves spiritual in an emotional sense but wouldn't mind shrugging off the supernatural cloak. And as an Atheist myself, that's one step closer to a sane and tolerable world to live in.

[Unbeatable]

From what I've gleaned from that FAQ, I'm more of a panantitheist.

[Jobar]

Jobar's Pantheism (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2485785#post2485785)

Welcome, Hypatia Jo.

Jobar, atheist/pantheist for nearly thirty years, at your service. :)

Let me add another name to your list of pantheists, one which few know about- Robert Green Ingersoll. (Read my last post on page 1 of the linked thread, for more about that.)

[Streamwinner]

Well, I think I am and didn't know it. But I resent being categoriezed, so I say NO, even though members of that category and myself will share lots of commonalities.

[post tenebras lux]

Suppose a pantheist gets tapeworm: does s/he try to get rid (i.e. kill) the tapeworm or does s/he lie back with the deepest reverence and regard the tapeworm with awe, reverence, love, feelings of belonging and a recognition of tremendous power, beauty and mystery? :huh:

Basically, if humans weren't the top predator on this planet, pantheism wouldn't have lasted a week: ah here comes a large carnivore - let's join together and gain a deep sense of peace and belonging and wonder in the midst of nature.

[Artemus]

I am a Pantheist. Are you?

Nope.



Before you answer that make sure you know what one is.

From the web page, it is based on the claim that we have some ill-defined "spirituality of nature" need. Same old mumbo-jumbo with a brand new title.


I'm sure you recognise the names Michael Shermer (Skeptic magazine & Honorary Advisor to WPM), Carl Sagan, A. Einstein, Spinoza, Stephen Hawking, Sitting Bull, M. Gorbachev, H.D. Thoreau, Plato, Lao Tzu, Plotinus, Schelling, Hegel, Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich, Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987).


An appeal to authority that is no more convincing than saying that Newton was a christian.

[Hypatia_Jo]

Can you elaborate?

[Hypatia_Jo]

Yes. In so much that I endorse the effectiveness of such a group to deconvert the Jewish based faiths (Xtians, Muslims, Mormons). I think the average Atheist isn't concerned about deconverting but would agree that the world would be a safer and more comfortable place for everyone without the Jewish based faiths. Paganism has been successful in ways Atheists could only hope for so far. They are fashionable and effective. They are bridging the gap between the irrational and the rational, AND are designed to;

a)have respect for life on this planet, as we know of it right now, unlike the xtian focus on heaven and hell.
b) address the issues of man's inhumanity towards woman, by choosing a goddess as the supreme deity.
c)focus on smaller groups for ritual, avoiding the big group hysteria that a cathedral-sized community can engender
d)focussing "prayer" type mental exersizes on the self-will, rather than a Big Daddy.

So YES - I am an Atheist that endorses the WPM. I personally don't need it, but agree with what it can do for those who clearly do need religion or refuse to give it up. I have children that will adopt this world we live in. I care about what they will be left with when I am long gone and I care to recognise what works.

[Hypatia_Jo]

Ah! Thankyou for being here! I was begining to wonder if anyone understood my point or cared to. Not that I think everyone should think like me, but I was getting the impression that most Atheists pride themselves by positioning themselves based on what they DO NOT believe. And I understand that possition, but I am more concerned with addressing the agreed problem rather than just identifying it. I know there are MANY Atheists perplexed by the Jewish faith based problem and many who desparately want to be identified by what they DO believe more than just what they DO NOT. Am I on a mission to change the world? No. But I'd like to think I involve myself with things that matter during my short time here so my children and grandchildren have more freedoms and a safer world to partake in. And damn it, what's wrong with celebrating reality. Honestly, it's more of a celebration for deconverts for breaking free and finally recognising reality.

[Vortex]

TL to GRD

[Hypatia_Jo]

You didn't click the link I provided did you? If you did, I think you misunderstood their premise. I understand that it can SOUND like it oozes with nature-worship like Shinto but it's not and there is rational perspective applied. Reverence for nature doesn't mean we are subordinate in any way or should celebrate the indesireable aspects of nature. That's quite rediculous. Do you serioulsy think Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic magazine) would be an Honorary Advisor for the WPM if it had Shinto type belief? Come on.

[Hypatia_Jo]

I would think so if it had some kind of dogma attached in the back end like all the other brands of "mumbo-jumbo". Part of the creedo is "There is no need for mediation by priests, gurus or revealed scriptures." No supernatural applications.

And as I have shared with others, as an Atheist, I may not need a religion. But I do recognise the refusal of the masses to let religion go. I will endorse a religion that functions in our favor and facilitates deconversion from the harmful Jewish-based faiths, Xtian, Muslim, and Morman. You know, the Master/Servant faiths that endorse imposition, illtolerance, fear tactics, and social injustice. Not to mention war after war. For people who refuse to abandon religous lifestyle, I can see no better way to bring them closer to reality and reason. Do you?

Education? - Sure. That'd be GREAT! But look at the stats. Look where the US is educationally compared to the rest of the world. We are on the bottom of the list of countries that accept evolution. Beliefs hold us back, period.

[Hypatia_Jo]

I'm sorry, I don't know what TL to GRD stands for. Can you clearify for me?

[Hypatia_Jo]

Huh? Did I miss something?

[Thanatoast]

As I contemplate the universe we inhabit, at least the tiny portion I can observe and attempt to understand, I perceive innumerable instances of amazing order and spectacular beauty. On every scale, from the cosmic expanses to the realm of the elementary particles, I experience great amazement and awe.

However, in addition to this order and beauty, there also exists an abundance of chaos and ugliness. Galaxies collide and explode. Atomic nuclei blast apart. The immensely complex chemistry of all terrestrial life is subject to countless disruptions and errors. And need I mention all of the needless suffering and death that humanity must endure, from ourselves and our environment?


The dark side cannot be ignored. That is why I am not a pantheist.

[Unbeatable]

I'm sorry, I don't know what TL to GRD stands for. Can you clearify for me?

TL stands for "The Lounge", the forum in which you started this thread. GRD stands for "General Religious Discussions", the forum to which the moderator just moved this thread. Sometimes moderators here move threads if their subject matter seems to be more suited to another forum.

[Unbeatable]

Can you elaborate?

Central to pantheism (according to the FAQ, at least) is an attitude of deep reverence towards the universe. My attitude towards the universe is one of deep abhorrence.
Pantheism involves a "positive attitude to existence on earth in a human body". I have a negative attitude to it.
Pantheism regards the universe with "awe, reverence, love, feelings of belonging and a recognition of tremendous power, beauty and mystery". I regard it with horror, loathing, hatred, feelings of imprisonment and a recognition of tremendous power, ugliness, and incomprehensible chaos.
Pantheists love and feel gratitude "to nature and the universe, for giving us the privilege of conscious life." I feel resentment and bitterness towards nature and the universe for giving me the burden of conscious life.


BTW, I imagine there are probably many others who read IIDB who use the linear display mode. Therefore, it would be helpful if, when replying to people, you could use the "Quote" button instead of the "Post Reply" button. That way, the people you're responding to can always tell that you're replying to them.

[Astreja]

I read the Pantheist Credo (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm) and it confirms that I am not a pantheist although there are a few points of agreement.

1. I have no particular reverence for the universe.

2. I am unsure as to how or if everything is "interconnected."

3. Thoughtful use of natural resources is a good thing. However, as in point #1, I do not revere nature.

4. I don't see all individual humans as being "equal centers of awareness." I do, however, support universal human rights.

5. The "single type of substance... Creative..." may or may not be true. Unity of body and mind, in a physical sense only, appears to be somewhat true.

6. This point I do agree with wholeheartedly. My "afterlife" is to be recycled as part of the physical world.

7. Yes, reality is a good thing. No, I don't revere it. And religious sentiments tend to muddle things up profoundly when one is looking for answers.

8. Does every individual have access to "ultimate reality"? I don't know. Define "ultimate reality" first.

9. Separation of religion and state: Definitely.

[Tao of Pooh]

I'm considered by many to be completely & utterly pointess:D



Not to know is bad. Not to want to know is worse.

[DBT]

I am a Pantheist. Are you?
WPM Home: http://www.pantheism.net/


Hey, I used to browse through the forum on that site before it was cut, it was a bit slow, but there were a few interesting topics, and characters. Shame it closed.
BTW..I remember one fellow there was really complaining about his experiences with the IIDB. :)

[trendkill]

I am not a pantheist. I don't feel that everything in the world is worthy of the deepest reverence, and I'm not particularly impressed on an aesthetic level with the idea of universal unity at all.

[reddhedd]

Well, I consider myself a pantheist, using Jobar's description.
Bu that website, and your explanation, add too much magical thinknig for me.
I don't mean to say that you are a magical thinker (or not; I have no way of knowing), just that the bit where there's a goddess instead of a god...not for me.

[Hypatia_Jo]

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". - (Act II, Scene II). Shakespeare

I couldn't agree more.

[Hypatia_Jo]

No I'm not a magical thinker. I'm thinking you got the "goddess instead of a god" bit from the points I was making about general pagan beleifs. Not all pagans are theists. Natural and Scientific Pantheists are NOT diety believers.

Those were simply points comparing theistic pagan customs to the Xtian, Islam, and Mormon's.

[post tenebras lux]

Hi Hypatia Jo: as suggested earlier by another user, could you please, please, please, use the "QUOTE" function so that we have a clue as to whose post you're replying to and when. Many thanks in advance.

Have you, for example, replied to my post? If so, which of your posts is your reply to my post. Many thanks in advance. Luxie

[Alethias]

I took the liberty of splitting the 'pantiest' sub-topic to here (http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=184768).

Alethias, GRD Moderator

[Hypatia_Jo]

Hi Hypatia Jo: as suggested earlier by another user, could you please, please, please, use the "QUOTE" function so that we have a clue as to whose post you're replying to and when. Many thanks in advance.

Have you, for example, replied to my post? If so, which of your posts is your reply to my post. Many thanks in advance. Luxie
Sorry everyone. I am new to this forum. Another forum I frequent doesn't have the quote feature and all replies fall under the post it is replying to. Bear with me, I will check the "Quote message in reply?" box. Since it was in question form I thought it was just an option of prefernce.

[Hypatia_Jo]

Hi Hypatia Jo: as suggested earlier by another user, could you please, please, please, use the "QUOTE" function so that we have a clue as to whose post you're replying to and when. Many thanks in advance.

Have you, for example, replied to my post? If so, which of your posts is your reply to my post. Many thanks in advance. Luxie
Is there a way for me to correct my errors?

Jobar 10/26, "Jobar's Pantheism..." - I Reply 10/27, "Ah! Thankyou for being here!"
post tenebras lux 10/27, "Suppose a pantheist gets..." - I Reply 10/27, "You didn't click the link I..."
Thanatoast 10/27, "As I contemplate the universe..." I Reply 10/30, "There is nothing either..."
Artemus 10/27, "Nope. From the web page..." I Reply 10/27, "I would think so if it had..."
reddhedd 10/28, "Well, I consider myself a..." - I Reply 10/30, "No I'm not a magical thinker..."

Thank you, post tenebras lux, I'm not sure if this helps with what you are asking. I hope so. I'll do better, I promise. ;=)

[Hypatia_Jo]

Just something to add to my initial post. Not a reply to anyone. :)

“When Einstein said 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' he meant 'Could the universe have begun in more than one way?' 'God does not play dice' was Einstein's poetic way of doubting Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle. Einstein was famously irritated when theists misunderstood him to mean a personal God. But what did he expect? The hunger to misunderstand should have been palpable to him. 'Religious' physicists usually turn out to be so only in the Einsteinian sense: they are atheists of a poetic disposition. So am I. But, given the widespread yearning for that great misunderstanding, deliberately to confuse Einsteinian pantheism with supernatural religion is an act of intellectual high treason.” – Richard Dawkins

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

Dawkins has called pantheism "sexed-up atheism".

[john_v_h]

"Most people have a sense that there is something greater than the self or than the human race."

A telltale whiff of religious self-deprecation. Of course there is something greater than me or the human race. I only have to look up at the sky to see it every night. So what? That doesn't mean I need to fall to my knees and revere it (one step from worship!) like my simian ancestors. It means I need to understand it, how to use it to my benefit, how to protect it for my own good.

Spirits and spirituality are make-believe. Of course there is room for aesthetics, poetry, art, appreciation, imagination, wonder, etc. but I resent the notion that we are missing something unless we ape the awe of the faithful.

[Howard]

From what I've gleaned from that FAQ, I'm more of a panantitheist.I can't even say that.

[Hypatia_Jo]

[QUOTE=john_v_h;3880605]That doesn't mean I need to fall to my knees and revere it (one step from worship!) like my simian ancestors. It means I need to understand it, how to use it to my benefit, how to protect it for my own good.QUOTE]

I agree.

Revere is to regard with respect tinged with awe; venerate: The child revered her mother. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Revere

I wouldn't ever say I worship my mother. Respect is the point I would drive in place of the word revere, and I do agree with that.

[Thanatoast]

I wouldn't ever say I worship my mother. Respect is the point I would drive in place of the word revere, and I do agree with that.But should one respect or revere (or in Biblical terms, honor) a parent that is abusive or neglectful?

Should the universe be viewed in such a positive light by those who suffer from its mindless onslaughts; disease, natural disasters, early death, etc.?

[Hypatia_Jo]

I recall being taught in a private Lutheran elementary school that the requirement to fear God was the equivalent to respecting God. So to be taken in a positive light is an assumption. Revere/Respect/Fear. I don't believe it sounds one way or the other, but all inclusive. It is simply recognizing the impact nature has on its relative parts.

[Hypatia_Jo]

But should one respect or revere (or in Biblical terms, honor) a parent that is abusive or neglectful?

Should the universe be viewed in such a positive light by those who suffer from its mindless onslaughts; disease, natural disasters, early death, etc.?
I recall being taught in a private Lutheran elementary school that the requirement to fear God was the equivalent to respecting God. So to be taken in a positive light is an assumption. Revere/Respect/Fear. I don't believe it sounds one way or the other, but all inclusive. It is simply recognizing the impact nature has on its relative parts.

[Thanatoast]

I recall being taught in a private Lutheran elementary school that the requirement to fear God was the equivalent to respecting God. So to be taken in a positive light is an assumption. Revere/Respect/Fear. I don't believe it sounds one way or the other, but all inclusive. It is simply recognizing the impact nature has on its relative parts.I'm quite familiar with the "fear = respect = revere" word games that Christians like to play with regard to their god. But I don't think it's rational to view nature as a whole in such a way. Different components of the universe should be regarded differently based upon their characteristics. For instance, Steve Irwin probably respected stingrays, but didn't fear them enough.