At the most basic, pantheism is simply the understanding that we are all connected. Not just to one another but to everything around, and within us. Even tho most pantheist are fairly spiritual, there is no Deity and in many cases no religion. Unlike many theistic beliefs, pantheism allows for a seamless blend of both science and spirituality where people live in harmony with one another and the world around them. Really quite simple
@coyoteself Indeed -- and so it is remarkable, and saddening, that there are people out there who make it their preoccupation to bash Pantheism because it goes against their theologically premised desires to blast science and destroy the harmony of the world.
You got me thinking. Is faith only reserved to religion? Does not the scienties have faith that he's experiment will work or deliver the proof to a particular thesis? I suppose is a kind of different faith because is bases on observable and rational data, but until the results come to pass, is not Science also walking by faith? Is there any tru difference between beleif, such as the afterlife and theories such parallel universes? It seems to me they both exist on some sort of faith.
@kailremsasar If the scientist had such faith, he wouldn't need to perform the experiment -- but as to things which can only be hypothesised, not proved, I have not known any scientist to assure us that parallel universes exist, but only to claim that there might or might not be, based on theoretical models.... conversely I've not met people of a theistic faith conceding that it might or might not be true (but as Pandeism is probability based, pandeists know it might not be)....
Also, PanTheism, beeing a 'theism" by defnition cannot be reason-based at all. Theism, unlike deism is neccaserily based on faith, on the diea of a personal, revealed god or gods; Pantheism also tends towards the dualism that is anthropocentric if not anthropomorphic{the first one yes, the second one- not nceccaserily, but sometimes} and of good vs evilm love vs hate, light vs dark, male vs female,{etc} and that the universe somehow loves or cares for us & love is universes core,etc.- irrational
Have you even discuss with a pantheist? Pantheism is reason-based. Theism is a belief in a deity, which you as well follow. Deism is a form of theism. Theism has no alignment at all, unless you put mono-, pan-, panen- or D-(for deism). Moreover, no, pantheism is not dualistic. First at all, the definition pan- means everything. How can a belief that everything(Nature or Universe) is God can be dualistic? That is contradiction.
PanTheism is defintionally a theism, it's right there in the word- PanTHEISM.
So-called scientific pantheism is NOT panTHEISM at all, it is more a form of PanDeism, visit my blog "the duelling deist" at blogspot and read the article I wrote on this issue.
Deism is NOT a form of theism anymore than it atheism. The temr theism is NOT in it. Theism is belief in personal and revealed god or gods, deism is belief in a non-personal god.\{whether dimple deism, pandeism or panendeism}. that's the huge distinction
@Iconoclastithon I say lets not argue amongst ourselves -- we all know that words can be malleable, and can mean different things to different people, and every pantheist I've yet met has been far more rational in their approach to spirituality than most any devout theist.... we may have some differing views and vocab but we can for sure work together to dispel the myths of formal theism....
Thing is PanDeism, Pantheism has traditionally been a non-rational belief system until Spinoza; many have argued that Spinozas view was a form of PanDEISM even as far back at the 1800's. Because it was, he arrived at the belief in a non-personal god{identified partly with nature}- which is Deism.
I'm making a clearer cut dictinction when I said what I said. It makes a lot more sense to admit Pantheism to be well...THEISM{pan}, and Deism as a seperate unique rational category.
Sci was saying that PanTheism was non-theiostic{which is absurd...panTHEISM} and that Deism is a form of theism{but it aint,}, deism is DEISM[all types; including PanDeism], theism is theism{all types including PanTheism}.
Words are somewhat malleable, but if deism as a philosophy is to be seen as rational, we must distinguish it from theism completely. If pantheism is to make internal sense...it should be called what the word suggests -a 'theism".
We unfortunately live in a species based on language, dictinctions and hair splitting are important for this, if language is to make sense
Have you even discuss with a pantheist? Pantheism is reason-based. Theism is a belief in a deity, which you as well follow. Deism is a form of theism. Theism has no alignment at all, unless you put mono-, pan-, panen- or D-(for deism). Moreover, no, pantheism is not dualistic. First at all, the definition pan- means everything. How can a belief that everything(Nature or Universe) is God can be dualistic? That is contradiction.
I'm a deist{, technically agnostic-deist; leaning pandeistic/panendeistic} and I have no "faith".
Other than that I agree that we should not let such smkears go unchallenged, but by the same token at least the terms are beocming known thereby and interested parties will then look em up on computer or something and learn about em.
Also, not all theists/deists/athyeists/etc make a stink when their views are a little misrepresented or even mocked, some do & some don't.
...I'll correct the misinformation and misunderstandings and mockeries, but make a big ass stink over it, meh.
BTW, Deisms are no more faith-based than Atheism. They are faith-based if STRONG Deism/Atheism, but if Agnostic-Deism/Atheism{what most deists are} then it is not based in "faith"{certainty in that which lacks and contradicts evidence & logic/reason} , but reason-based uncertainpagnostic} belief- "leanings"{varrying degrees}.
There are theists out there bent on pushing their cult at any price, including brazen misrepresentation of what alternatives stand for.... and if unanswered, that misrepresentation will get out and muddle the true message of the alternate view, and we will have to spend all our time merely correcting misconceptions instead of engaging in edification!!
I'm making a clearer cut dictinction when I said what I said. It makes a lot more sense to admit Pantheism to be well...THEISM{pan}, and Deism as a seperate unique rational category.
Sci was saying that PanTheism was non-theiostic{which is absurd...panTHEISM} and that Deism is a form of theism{but it aint,}, deism is DEISM[all types; including PanDeism], theism is theism{all types including PanTheism}.
At the most basic, pantheism is simply the understanding that we are all connected. Not just to one another but to everything around, and within us. Even tho most pantheist are fairly spiritual, there is no Deity and in many cases no religion. Unlike many theistic beliefs, pantheism allows for a seamless blend of both science and spirituality where people live in harmony with one another and the world around them. Really quite simple
coyoteself 2 weeks ago
@coyoteself Indeed -- and so it is remarkable, and saddening, that there are people out there who make it their preoccupation to bash Pantheism because it goes against their theologically premised desires to blast science and destroy the harmony of the world.
PanDeism 2 weeks ago
You got me thinking. Is faith only reserved to religion? Does not the scienties have faith that he's experiment will work or deliver the proof to a particular thesis? I suppose is a kind of different faith because is bases on observable and rational data, but until the results come to pass, is not Science also walking by faith? Is there any tru difference between beleif, such as the afterlife and theories such parallel universes? It seems to me they both exist on some sort of faith.
kailremsasar 1 year ago
@kailremsasar If the scientist had such faith, he wouldn't need to perform the experiment -- but as to things which can only be hypothesised, not proved, I have not known any scientist to assure us that parallel universes exist, but only to claim that there might or might not be, based on theoretical models.... conversely I've not met people of a theistic faith conceding that it might or might not be true (but as Pandeism is probability based, pandeists know it might not be)....
PanDeism 1 year ago
All religion that teaches faith, magical thinking, ignorance, etc (pretty much everything), is harmful and must be abolished.
GeneralHoohah 1 year ago
People can believe the way they want to believe, and anyone who has a problem with can go fuck themselves in the ass.
connerjd 1 year ago
>_>
So what? the word Pantheism has the word theism in it.
Does that make it a theist belief? I didn't think so.
Devin93H 1 year ago
Also, PanTheism, beeing a 'theism" by defnition cannot be reason-based at all. Theism, unlike deism is neccaserily based on faith, on the diea of a personal, revealed god or gods; Pantheism also tends towards the dualism that is anthropocentric if not anthropomorphic{the first one yes, the second one- not nceccaserily, but sometimes} and of good vs evilm love vs hate, light vs dark, male vs female,{etc} and that the universe somehow loves or cares for us & love is universes core,etc.- irrational
Iconoclastithon 2 years ago
There are some pantheists who take a very solidly reason-based approach to their definition.... and some that are highly metaphysical, it's true....
PanDeism 2 years ago
@Iconoclastithon
Have you even discuss with a pantheist? Pantheism is reason-based. Theism is a belief in a deity, which you as well follow. Deism is a form of theism. Theism has no alignment at all, unless you put mono-, pan-, panen- or D-(for deism). Moreover, no, pantheism is not dualistic. First at all, the definition pan- means everything. How can a belief that everything(Nature or Universe) is God can be dualistic? That is contradiction.
SciNonymous10 1 year ago
@SciNonymous10
PanTheism is defintionally a theism, it's right there in the word- PanTHEISM.
So-called scientific pantheism is NOT panTHEISM at all, it is more a form of PanDeism, visit my blog "the duelling deist" at blogspot and read the article I wrote on this issue.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
...CONT;
Deism is NOT a form of theism anymore than it atheism. The temr theism is NOT in it. Theism is belief in personal and revealed god or gods, deism is belief in a non-personal god.\{whether dimple deism, pandeism or panendeism}. that's the huge distinction
Sci-Pantheists are NOT "PanTHEISTS"
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon I say lets not argue amongst ourselves -- we all know that words can be malleable, and can mean different things to different people, and every pantheist I've yet met has been far more rational in their approach to spirituality than most any devout theist.... we may have some differing views and vocab but we can for sure work together to dispel the myths of formal theism....
PanDeism 1 year ago
@PanDeism
Thing is PanDeism, Pantheism has traditionally been a non-rational belief system until Spinoza; many have argued that Spinozas view was a form of PanDEISM even as far back at the 1800's. Because it was, he arrived at the belief in a non-personal god{identified partly with nature}- which is Deism.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
CONT...
I'm making a clearer cut dictinction when I said what I said. It makes a lot more sense to admit Pantheism to be well...THEISM{pan}, and Deism as a seperate unique rational category.
Sci was saying that PanTheism was non-theiostic{which is absurd...panTHEISM} and that Deism is a form of theism{but it aint,}, deism is DEISM[all types; including PanDeism], theism is theism{all types including PanTheism}.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
CONT...
Words are somewhat malleable, but if deism as a philosophy is to be seen as rational, we must distinguish it from theism completely. If pantheism is to make internal sense...it should be called what the word suggests -a 'theism".
We unfortunately live in a species based on language, dictinctions and hair splitting are important for this, if language is to make sense
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
@Iconoclastithon
Have you even discuss with a pantheist? Pantheism is reason-based. Theism is a belief in a deity, which you as well follow. Deism is a form of theism. Theism has no alignment at all, unless you put mono-, pan-, panen- or D-(for deism). Moreover, no, pantheism is not dualistic. First at all, the definition pan- means everything. How can a belief that everything(Nature or Universe) is God can be dualistic? That is contradiction.
SciNonymous10 1 year ago
I'm a deist{, technically agnostic-deist; leaning pandeistic/panendeistic} and I have no "faith".
Other than that I agree that we should not let such smkears go unchallenged, but by the same token at least the terms are beocming known thereby and interested parties will then look em up on computer or something and learn about em.
Also, not all theists/deists/athyeists/etc make a stink when their views are a little misrepresented or even mocked, some do & some don't.
I'll
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 2 years ago
...CONT;
...I'll correct the misinformation and misunderstandings and mockeries, but make a big ass stink over it, meh.
BTW, Deisms are no more faith-based than Atheism. They are faith-based if STRONG Deism/Atheism, but if Agnostic-Deism/Atheism{what most deists are} then it is not based in "faith"{certainty in that which lacks and contradicts evidence & logic/reason} , but reason-based uncertainpagnostic} belief- "leanings"{varrying degrees}.
^^^ My take on it.
Iconoclastithon 2 years ago
There are theists out there bent on pushing their cult at any price, including brazen misrepresentation of what alternatives stand for.... and if unanswered, that misrepresentation will get out and muddle the true message of the alternate view, and we will have to spend all our time merely correcting misconceptions instead of engaging in edification!!
PanDeism 2 years ago
@Iconoclastithon
CONT...
I'm making a clearer cut dictinction when I said what I said. It makes a lot more sense to admit Pantheism to be well...THEISM{pan}, and Deism as a seperate unique rational category.
Sci was saying that PanTheism was non-theiostic{which is absurd...panTHEISM} and that Deism is a form of theism{but it aint,}, deism is DEISM[all types; including PanDeism], theism is theism{all types including PanTheism}.
CONT...
Iconoclastithon 1 year ago
Comments appreciated from any who disagree....
PanDeism 2 years ago