The Solution? - Scientific Pantheism 6 - Sexy Dawkins Pan

[EmilioCasavegas]

I was a pantheist before I knew there was a label for it.

[xephyr1000]

I'm a Scientific Pantheist. To me there is no entity "god". I tend to also avoid even the metaphorical use of the word "god", but I agree fairy closely to the manifesto of the World Pantheist Movement (WPM). As for consciousness, I use this saying, "In as much as I am conscious the universe is conscious, and through me the universe becomes aware of itself" I like Dawkins calling it "Sexed-Up Atheism." Namaste.

[bencubed]

@xephyr1000 ..

While I agree with almost all of the princliples asserted here, I feel compelled to question the process of any body wishing to create an umbrella movement that embraces them as their specific identity.

This strikes me as no different than any other religion that inevitably sees itself as The Way, The Truth and The Light by virtue of articulating a set of values already known and appreciated by large numbers.

The Bible may be the best example of this form of plagiarizing.

[xephyr1000]

@bencubed Not really.. Its not a "religion" in the sense that anything or anyone is worshipped. There's no "church" to join. There's no rituals to practice. There's no doctrines. There's no threats of punishment for not accepting Pantheism. As for dividing, well that's actually as far from possible as it can be. I sees everyone as part of the "whole"... there is no division. There's no requirement for anyone else to view things the way we do. There's no proselytizing either.

[bencubed]

@xephyr1000 ..

The fact that Pastor Nitro uses the terminology Wide Wordl Ministry obviously confirms the sentiments I express concern for. Is this not just one more individual trying to create a new cult with aspirations of bandwagon momentum, the very stuff we know fails miserably and further divides humanity ?

[xephyr1000]

@bencubed As for the term "World Wide Ministry"... I'm not sure he meant that as some form of evangelistic outreach. There is no "outreach" in Pantheism because it does not seek to convert anyone. People come to a choice of Pantheism on their own, usually because it's how they feel about nature and reality anyhow, and Pantheism best expresses it. Atheism answers only one "negative" idea (no belief in gods). Pantheism allows us to add to that with positive attributes about nature and others.

[bencubed]

@xephyr1000 ...

He may have meant it as a joke, but I doubt it.

Atheism need not be perceived as a negative as you suggest, .. no more than absence in superstituous belief could.

Most of us find meaning for our lives through the usual meeting of our necessities of life, as well as satisfying interpersonal relationships.

Concepts about the greater cosmic universe fall very much into the realm of philosophy and have more of an academic meaning than pragmatic effect on individual happiness ..

[xephyr1000]

@bencubed OK... Have you looked at the page for World Pantheism? Read what it is pantheists actually believe?

Just curious.

pantheism. net/manifest .htm

[bencubed]

@xephyr1000 ..

Don't get me wrong ... I agree with almost all the stated principles & beliefs.

The rub for me is a body taking ownership of them all in the guise of a single name/label. This is just too much like religion.

Honestly, how many Christians are convinced that only they can 'love' by virtue of their indoctrinated membership?

Scary, but true.

[xephyr1000]

@bencubed OK... as a former Christian myself, I'm still a bit confused how you might perceive pantheism as anything like a "religion" and, especially anything like Christianity. But I accept that you do and that's cool with me. Just know that no pantheists will ever come knocking on your door telling you how to think or what to believe, and most certainly won't be demanding it to be taught in school or as a basis of legislation. ;)

Pax

[bencubed]

@xephyr1000 .. My point is that the listing of a set of beliefs as integral to calling oneself a pantheist is comparable to any religion which does the same. The merit of the beliefs is incidental.

-

At the same time and after watching a few pantheist testimonials, I see many references to God and what seems to be a re-defining of the word. I really don't understand how the term 'God' can be dissociated from qualities of will, character and human-like intelligence , ... which is theism.

[TheTempleofNature]

@bencubed There are some schools of Hinduism that posit a non-personal God called Brahman. Look into the pantheistic Advaita philosophy.

[AirForceGirl05]

I'm a pantheist and I think Dawkins is sexy. I want to have his child.

[doutonight]

Found this while searching for "Richard Dawkins sexy". Quite a romantic video, though I can't say I completely agree. Good stuff, though. You may continue.

[metal87power]

Pantheism IS NOT based on common sense and atheism IS NOT based on scientific method. Do not say bullshits, if there is something you don't know, just ask (read some good book or something). Speech is silver and silent is gold.

[xephyr1000]

@windham666 I call myself a Pantheist for the very reasons you have laid out.

[arkee71]

i disagree with the statement that pantheism doesent require faith..it does require faith in the eternal..which of course cannot be justified until we have lived forever..knowledge is justified true belief...since we cant prove we are eternal..we employ faith..granted a faith based on solid reason ..but faith nonetheless

[prophetofpeace2010]

Thank you for your videos! Great and uplifting and refreshing take on reality!

[Juefawn]

Excellent explanation.

[Hyardacil]

I think this is your best video in this series.

Thank you.

[sleepywolff]

One step closer to a peaceful world!

[brbubba]

What you are describing is naturalistic pantheism. Classical pantheism does not necessarily exclude belief in the supernatural realm.

And if you are pantheist you cannot be atheist by definition. Redefining the word God is fine, but you cannot use one definition of God for pantheism and one for atheism. I still don't understand why so many nat. pantheists cling to the atheism term if only to distance themselves from traditional theology.

[windham666]

bubba my impression is that not so many self proclaimed modern pantheists (naturalistic is a fine word) "cling to the atheism term," period. most don't use the word god at all. why? to avoid confusion. yet modern pantheism is very atheistic, from the theist perspective. it denies the existence of a creator god separate from the universe. respect the universe itself as numinous. bring the mystic part of people to bear on the physical universe and not a (made up), separate, supernatural one.

[arkee71]

@brbubba well websters defines god as..."supreme reality"...that would not fit the traditional meaning of "god"(meaning supernatural)...so by this fact alone it forces a pantheist to believe in "god"...and be an athiest simultaneously...this is what happens when your try to define something as complex as human belief

[CherryTeresaDotCom]

Great video. Thanks for posting.

[onerichie]

If you say Pantheism is unecessary because it is no different from Atheism, then you must conceed that Atheism is equally unecessary as it is no different from Pantheism. They are just different ways of saying the same thing

[philnoll]

Onerichie, the only difference is that naturalist pantheism has a more specific set of beliefs. Also biblical and classical pantheism differ from atheism on a fundamental level. I think the distinction is useful.

[intelliGENeration]

Most Atheists however ARE pantheists that are not in the know that their thinking actually IS Pantheistic.

As a matter of fact... ALL people are Pantheists.

The reason why they don't ACT like it, is because they are far apart from connecting the dots. Ignorance and other daily distractions, keep them busy from thinking.

[faarsight]

What I mean is, you have polytheism which is belief in many Gods and then you have monotheism which means belief in one God and then my understanding was that pantheism was the belief in ALL Gods. Why else would the Romans have built the pantheon as a temple to "all the Gods"?

[windham666]

okay listen up you are confused. scientific pantheism is a rejection of a belief in any separate gods, apart from the universe. the universe is the creator. the physical, numinous universe. we are a part of it. we are made of the same atoms as stars. from the same energy. so, live with that understanding. I cannot stand new age nutmeg. I have a problem with any idea carried too far, to the point of unscientific power crystals and woo woo crap, i assure you of that. this is very materialistic.

[drandersw]

Pantheism is so completely meaningless.

It is interesting to study consciousness and understand among other things why some have this need to believe in the supernatural or magical.

I think of it as an intellectual weakness.

It would be much better if people could expend their mental energy on something useful.

[windham666]

if you have concluded that pantheism is about "studying the supernatural or magical", then you need to wash out your ears. you have understand nothing about it. not a thing.

[drandersw]

I have read about pantheism and find it pointless.

If you don't believe in anything at all without a reason then why put a name on it other than rational or reasonable and if god is everything then we already have a word for it. The word is everything.

Maybe there is a lack of realization of what consciousness is or something about a good feeling of spirituality that lies behind this religion. I don't know.

If it is completely void of stupid presumptions then how can it be religion? Is it?

[windham666]

do you think your consciousness comes from nature? if that consciousness is what you enjoy, why not spend some time and effort contemplating and appreciating it's creator? this is about the human spirit as a function of nature, not spirituality. in no sense does it rely on the supposition of supernatural causes.

[drandersw]

I find no reason to feel thankful to the matter for giving me existence but then again, I am thankful for being alive. It seems to me that pantheism satisfies some need of people to submit to something almighty or something.

I agree that matter is not real in some sense.

Just like a tornado is a process, not a thing, so is consciousness a process, not a thing. Now, perhaps the vibrations of tiny little strings or membranes at the heart of matter should be seen as a process as well.

[drandersw]

I like to think of music as the most wonderful example of a noun that isn't a thing. I can enjoy music like crazy. I also enjoy science like crazy.

I think of matter as a symphony.

[drandersw]

It seems to me that pantheism is just a modern version of the same good old resignation of intellectual thought over wonders and questions that we are unable to find answers to.

We have now answered lots of amazing questions where ancient people didn't even know the question.

I just believe in science. It is exciting and wonderful to live in this time. Way better than past times. Hopefully not as good as future times.

[windham666]

the basic point of the modern pantheism is not to resign intellectual thought to the almighty; it is to allow ourselves, especially scientists, to appreciate life, to be more aware of being alive in this universe on this planet now. It harnesses that special childish wonderment to motivate care for the environment and scientific inquiry into the processes you describe. Michio Kaku has lots to say on this which you might enjoy.

[drandersw]

I do enjoy that guy. I will find out more. :-) Sounds interesting.

[drandersw]

I like the fact that pantheism is not an anti-word.

Maybe in the future we will have pantheists and apantheists if this catches on. I want to win the battle of the a. Those who believe in something absurd for no reason should be the ones who are anti-something.

[windham666]

drandersw, you might want to check out panpsychism d0t netttt

Classical Definitions:

Pantheism: All is God.

Panpsychism: The theory that all matter is in some way sentient or conscious.

maybe you're a panpsychist or panpsychopath?!

[drandersw]

Oh no, did I come across as that?

[drandersw]

Since I have studied consciousness quite a bit, I am far from being one of those idiots who base random beliefs on complete lack of understanding about consciousness. I do believe that further progress in this field can persuade more to abandon religion but just like you I have realized that religion flourishes despite all our scientific and technological progress and that other mechanisms are at play. I believe that much of the need that religion satisfies is as false as the doctrine though.

[faarsight]

Actually while it may literally be translated as all-god the word pantheism is usually used for someone who believes in many Gods, i.e. like polytheism. For example, the pantheon in Rome was dedicated to all the Gods.

[faarsight]

Anyway, why drag religion into the modern world? Religion is a heritage of superstitions that we need to get rid of (not necessarily because all religion is bad, rather since it is not true).

We can still care for Nature/altruistic and what not, it is a question of moral, we do not need religion for that! Sweden is the most atheistic country in the world and we is one of the few countries that might actually benefit from Global warming, yet we are the country that has done the most against it

[faarsight]

To me it seems like you are just substituting old superstitions for a new sort of light variant.

[windham666]

what is a) religious or b) superstitious about reverence for the natural world? I think you are all wet. your appropriate bias against religion needs to be turned down, to see the divinity of the planet. it really is our lord savior and creator, so we should treat it that way.

[faarsight]

That is my exact issue with this idea. I revere the planet, but I would not compare it to God or divinity. I think that this creates false connotations with religious doctrine.

[windham666]

is it creating false connotations with religious doctine (I think i understand what you mean) or is it providing a scientific, naturalistic outlet for our mystic yearning for answers to big questions? surely you do not deny the existence of the yearning. that energy needs to be harnessed in a modern way. that energy does not just go away when duality is rejected.

[faarsight]

I disagree with you, I think that once you are aware of that yearning it becomes inconsequential. You have to learn to accept that we can never know everything and take joy in finding out as much as possible. In short, I think that while it is not a problem to revere the earth I think that it is a problem to worship it. People already do acquire outlets for such "energy" by for example being a fan of some tv-series or looking up at the sky or reading books or meditating.

[windham666]

faarsight i appreciate your comments and thoughts, but man what you are doing is disagreeing with yourself. because of the bad aftertaste and stain religion left on you? i think you are a scientific pantheist, in denial, yes - but pantheist to the core.  there is no difference between worship and reverence. we revere and worship it because it is numinous. when we look up at the sky or read and think about it or meditate on it, we are pan beings. being pan. so are you, it seems to me.

[faarsight]

I think that you sound waaay to much like some new age nutmeg. I don't mean to insult you it is just the language I'm referring to. If you want to define me (without really knowing what I think about things) as pan then your definition of pan must be very wide (since it means all I suppose that's a given...). The problem is that theist implies that you believe in a God, i.e. a conscious creator of all things. I do not. Also, I think that Pantheist is already taken and means believes in all Gods.

[faarsight]

I do not believe in any Gods so that definition sounds a little out of place....

[windham666]

i am glad you have spoken, for it is clear you do not understand scientific pantheism. there is no conscious creator. there is no creator, separate from creation ie the universe. Pantheism is not i repeat not a belief in all gods. That is the bahai, unitarian way. Pantheism is a rejection of duality, of a creator separate from the universe. It argues for unity, the universe itself as creator, worthy of at least our respect, at most our worship.

[faarsight]

How can an inanimate "object" be a creator, it seems like your choice of words still clings on to a minimum of personalisation of the process of creation. I think that pantheism is unnecessary because it seems no different from Atheism, doesn't really add anything to atheism and uses language and ideas from our religious traditions. Simply put I do not think that it would be a good thing to have a "church" of atheism. ? Or is that a straw man?

[faarsight]

In other words why have a doctrine or teaching? Atheism doesn't really need leaders in my opinion but just people thinking for themselves...

[windham666]

if it weren't for all the sky daddy preachers, people would think for themselves. leaders - not gurus - help spread the idea that they can.

[faarsight]

Hmmm.....

Leaders or people who knows the art of spreading a message? For example, would you call Richard Dawkins a leader? I would rather characterize him as a good rhetorician.

[windham666]

why does the word creator imply personhood? of course an inanimate object can be (and in fact is) our creator. if in fact the universe created us, why not say so?

[faarsight]

The verb "to create" implies an agent that creates. It is a common human error (i.e. an error of the mind which is an artefact of our evolutionary heritage) to attempt to find agents behind happenings in the universe. To me the word create implies a case of exactly that, i.e. that you think that an agent with a will and an intent caused the universe to exist.

[faarsight]

An example of this would be that if you hear a sound in the bushes you will immediately assume that something caused it, even though it could just have been the wind. This, of course, has an evolutionary advantage since it is better to jump at a nut falling from a tree than it is to be eaten by a tiger because you did not have prof that it was not the wind.

[faarsight]

I would argue that the universe did not create us, its existence allows for our existence and beyond that we do not know why the universe exists the way it does.

[xyxuz]

so..when we ask: why isn't "God" doing something to prevent evil in the world?, were actually asking: why arent "we" doing something? coz "God" is everything and "we" are a part of everything and a part of "God"?

[cyncmaster150]

Yeah

[infamous805187]

Christianity is a panthiest religion you idiot. So is judaism.

god created the world = electricity creates the world= molecules create you.

that doesn't seperate them from you.

[xyxuz]

the best support that christianity is pantheist would be the gospel of thomas, but the church called it heretical, mostly because it undermined their authority

[windham666]

hello homer. i think you do not understand the basic idea of unity in pantheism. no, not at all, you do not get it. please try again to understand the implications of unity v dualism.

[infamous805187]

Fully understand panthiesm, and encounter numerous academics, whom follow the abraham religions, who are also panthiest. I think dawkins is an idiot. The "Mysticism" of the ancient is contemporarily being more understood. i.e. electrostatics/magnetism, atoms...etc. just because you can see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Dawkins too often excludes quantum effects and is quite ethnocentric. especially considering the asian, and african genes being so dominant/most prevelant

[prophetofpeace2010]

@infamous805187 just because you can't see it is what you meant, I think.

[ChristianDavis629]

Woo!! I love it!!! Thank you, Windham666!

[cyncmaster150]

WOW there's people out there that share my beliefs!!!

I dont think God is a personified judge and avenger. To me, God consists of all things that exist everywhere (including people) and has no personality. Since we are all part of the God Complex and we are all capable of understanding then God must be infinitely understanding of anything anyone could do wrong. When we die, I think we continue to exist within the whole system, not separate but in union with everything, and everyone.

[cyncmaster150]

I typed that statement about my beliefs THREE YEARS ago, and I've been in search of a group of people that share my belief system ever since. I'm actually still in high school, I'd tell people my beliefs but I didn't know there was a word for it. It's good to know that I'm not the only one with an enhanced understanding of the universe. I'd only use the word "god" in my description in a (what you call god) kind of sense. This is great, I think I may even subscribe. :)

[windham666]

thanks much, nice to meet ya!

[kasuskasus]

Thank you for the video. I think there are some very good points to be found here.

[Elvisdogg]

The long view: eventually, the earth will be engulfed by the sun and the human genome will be toast.

The human genome is more important than nature (although nature is our life-support). Excessive focus on earth/nature, to the point of "reverence" may be unrealistic. I'd prefer a universe-view that includes ultra-long-term survival, for example transhuman experiments.

Otherwise, this pantheism stuff is very interesting and good. Build more planetariums! Thanks for making this.

[windham666]

elvis, that is a fine comment. and i suppose i have no problem reaching for the stars, so long as the prime directive remains sustainability on this here planet. we should at least try to last as long as it does. all it takes is a few minutes a day contemplating this world, and it will give us instructions.

[infamous805187]

consider this; there is no ethical backing behind your statement.

"The human genome is more important than nature"

other than specieism and/or egoism.

[infernalstinkmonkey]

Part 1: In the beginning the universe was formless and void, consisting only of ideas and potentiality. But in time the universe drawing upon its nature created many things. Replicating in the temporal material world what it has always had in the eternal world of ideas. When the nature of man was unleashed , the universe gained self-awareness and with it a drive to further realize the unlimited nature of its own potentiality.

[infernalstinkmonkey]

Part 2: And in time creating for itself attributes once only contained within myth and religion. Its been said that God created the universe, it may be more accurate to say, the universe will create God. Bringing itself from a state of unlimited potentiality to one of unlimited actuality.

[AuthenticPunkDance]

Your voice is awesome. :|

But putting that aside: excellent video.

[aZeroGodist]

So pantheism is more than just a philosophy of life, it's kind of like Buddhism, an enlightened natural philosophy. I started of well, what did they call the code for life in Star Trek?

So akin to Beyond2000 so the belief structure "Beyond-religion"

[RobsStudio]

This was a great series, I won't forget. I think I'm already like this but was not aware of Scientific Pantheism.

[windham666]

thanks for watching, and thinking. In the buffet of life this is getting close to what I am hungry for. I am working on my reaction to these ideas, in a summary video. I think all this means it is time to be a real environmentalist.

[tommyk77]

Atheism is not a philosophy. So you can be a pantheist and atheist. I don't like labels though

[windham666]

right on tommy i am glad to hear from you. perhaps this idea,scientific pantheism, is about adding philosophy to atheism, and reverence of the subject - nature - to science?

[BoozyBeggar]

I am all about revering science and it's findings. And pussy.

[ndyt]

nice but boaring

[tommyk77]

As in the pig?

[Rhonda9]

You did a fantastic job on these videos.

[DieselBodine]

Three cheers for all your hard work, windham. 8-)

[globs89]

it doesn't sound hardcore like the popular religions

this almost borders on becoming a hippie

[gekiryudojo]

I think I was a Pantheist

[gekiryudojo]

I've always thought this way but never had a name for it, so now I have, will it change me? no but but I will have a word that people can look up!,

[ChuckMeIntoHell]

I think I was a Pantheist before becoming an Atheist, but I didn't have a name for it at the time. I would say on some level I'm still a Pantheist.

[windham666]

howdy chuck. that's a twist, would be nice to hear more about it. these folks would have us believe the stream is flowing the other way. from A to P.

[ChuckMeIntoHell]

I'm sure that for many people it does, in fact I was an Atheist many years before I was what I would now consider a Pantheist, so I did actualy go in that direction. However, I've sort of gotten to a point that calling myself any sort of "Theist" is a little misleading when I don't beileve in the traditional Judeo-Christian verison of God.

[windham666]

i hear that. "Theist" is a little misleading when" ... we are not talking about supernatural events. I wonder what other term can be used for what they describe. Awesome amazing wonderful nature is probably good eenough.

[Clobberbob55]

Couldn't possibly organize my thoughts with the precision to sum them up, here. And, truth be told...at the moment some of them are too personal for public display.

[windham666]

no need to speak clobberbob, just take a moment and smile.

[joebot1]

WOW....talk about an awakening.

man...I think I just had an epiphany!!!!.

I think I am a closet pantheist. I haven't seen the other vids in the series, but you can bet your ass I shall be checking them out asap!!!!.

That you very much, it was most enlightening!!!.

[CrucieFiction]

I always find resentment in the use of the term, "militant atheist" when applied not to an atheist with a gun shooting down religionists, but rather to anyone who merely provide strong and intellectual verbal arguments in opposition to all of man's invented theistic inventions. "It is time to" reject all theisms.

Religion + Science does not compute!

[windham666]

I am certain that 100% of the scientists who lean toward pantheism agree that there is no room in science or the universe for theism. This is a central tenet. Yet they also recognize the need to harness the powerful feelings we have for the mysteries of science and the universe, by revering them. This need to add the "spirit" of religion to science is required if the planet is to be saved. They would tell you that just saying no to the childish wonder-feeling is not going to accomplish the goal.

[CrucieFiction]

In such venues as the Beyond Belief 1 & 2 conferences I've witnessed the oftentimes heated discussions between scientists that revolve around their grave concern for the growing anti-science & anti-intellectual attitudes among the religious, and their various ideas on what might be done about it. But this form of [non-supernatural] theism (godism) will never attract adherents of the 3 major religions because it is precisely the supernatural, not-of-this-universe, aspect that so (cont.)

[CrucieFiction]

...powerfully grips their imaginative minds and won't let them go. Yet, it's these religions where the great global problem actually lies, and where a "solution" must be sought. Thinking you can persuade adherents of any of the three to move to pantheism is like trying to convince a connoisseur of filet mignon that an artificially meat-flavored hunk of soy is just as good. It will never work! The only ones who may find pantheism attractive are agnostics/atheists (cont.)

[CrucieFiction]

...who either miss believing in some Abrahamic/supernatural god(s), or are otherwise attracted to it as a means that will serve their uncontrollable need/desire to entertain a mind-pleasing mysticism which necessarily and unfortunately reaches beyond the confines of the natural/known realm. It's a form of mental masturbation befitting only agnostics/atheists who need something more filling but less fattening than mainstream religion. (cont.)

[CrucieFiction]

...It will never be a substitute for the masses who are addicted to slavish worship and ancient stories of miracles and the "unbelieveable". Any [realistic & workable] solution will have to be a matter of convincing people to get off the teat of all theisms/godisms altogether by demonstrating that an escape of reality is not only unhealthy, but is completely unnecessary.

[CrucieFiction]

...Pantheism is merely a counterfeit of mainstream religions. Feelings of awe and grandeur DO NOT necessitate being wrapped in words such as 'god', 'divine', "personal relationship", and 'afterlife'. Even if new definitions are assigned to the words, they are based upon the former ones, and it is unavoidable that the former [dangerous] ones will always leach through.

[windham666]

holy cow crucie, these boxes are too little. I fear that nothing can effect the true believers. But zillions of people convert to one thing or another all the time. The most important of your comments to me is when you describe scientific pantheism as "a mind-pleasing mysticism which necessarily and unfortunately reaches beyond the confines of the natural/known realm." I take this as your fundamental objection. You see this as adding religion to science.

[windham666]

But if this premise is incorrect, if indeed this is NOT in any way a supernatural or theistic way of life, then why can it not be adopted by genuine realists? Assume for a moment this is NOT an escape FROM reality, but an escape TO reality. Where does that leave your thinking? If this modern pantheism provides a real world avenue for what is missing from science, (value, art, "spirit"), then why not convert to this? Its about appreciating the whole rather than the parts, yet never going beyond.

[windham666]

Science only has an explanation for a small part off the universe. And rationality is only a small part of a human. even the most scientific human has a desire for a blissful appreciation of the universe. That is all this is about - scientist who spends blissful time appreciating the unknown parts and relationships. Adding 100% all-natural organic filet mignon bliss to the person, not to their science.

[CrucieFiction]

"MILITANT" ATHEISTS???

/watch?v=Y5OEocRp2wA

[rozeboosje]

Applause. Great series.

[mungbeanman]

This isn't pantheism as I previously understood it. I thought that as a pantheist you would think that everything was god; matter, energy, physical processes etc., however I prefer this definition, and as you know, I am a pioneer in getting people to challenge commonly held definitions of things such as atheism. Problem is I can't seperate spirituality from the supernatural in my head. If I could I would be a pantheist myself because I have huge repsect for natuaral processes...(cont.)

[mungbeanman]

and science. I just don't consider myself a spiritual person at all.

Coincidentally, I have just read a little about Baruch Spinoza in Hitchen's God is Not Great just yesterday after watching your videos so far. Perhaps it is a sign...

Great stuff, well scripted and thought out, really getting me thinking about something that clearly I knew very little about up until now. The voice distortion is a little distracting but I'm getting used to it.

[TLM80209]

I disagree with Dawkins. I'm not a Sexed Up Atheist...I'm a Pantheist. Pantheism is not a spin-off of Atheism, although we have much common ground. As Pantheists do with many other free thinkers.

[RoderickUsher1849]

Windham, you would really enjoy the works of the literary transcendentalists, though you probably may have already indulged in them. Thoreau and Emerson! This is a great series; thank you for sharing with us.

[windham666]

yer right on target; i have one in this series about Pan Heros and Leaders, and the two of them top the list in the US, historically. you are one smart monkey mr usher!

[BizzyLizzy132]

Sounds extremely interesting.

[ambervisions]

Hey....thats me! LOL Very cooL! WONDERFUL VIDEO! I agree......time for no guru other than ourselves! THank you for including me in this wonderful video! Much love to you Pastor Nitro! Di:)