A Question From Atheists

[The Grand Nudger]

You are right. I was not accurate. Pantheism itself is a broad term and refers to various beliefs. The pantheism of Spinoza matches my argument. Also various traditions of Hinduism which believe in a non-personal gods are compatible examples. Yes there are some examples of pantheistic beliefs that attache woo characteristics to the universe, but there are also beliefs that don't do that.

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...." Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God differs from the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.

He didn't believe that this "god" was an object worthy of worship, and he didn't believe that it was divine or holy.  He didn't believe that it was intentional or intercessionary/personal (the latter being the difference between deism and theism), all in all.......Spinoza clearly had no time for theism -of any kind-, in a time when theism held great authority.  He did have the distinction of being the first identifiable and important philosophical figure in western tradition to approach some of these subjects in the manner that he did..and after the fact (of both his life and work) the title of pantheist was laid on him.  I, and many others since, feel that this post mortem was in error...that spinoza was not a pantheist in any meaningful way, just a spinozas god was not a god in any meaningful way, but an atheist.  After all, if spinozas position was pantheism, and the position of others who seek to establish that the universe is like a god, in meaningful ways, and worthy of worship is pantheism..then again we have a categorical mismatch, as his is the only outlier of the subset x called pantheism. I think his critics had him dead to rights, but the situation on the ground wasn't exactly favorable for overt and self described "atheists".  He ended up suffering a brutal excommunication from the jewish community, ofc. His reputation never recovered, and his name was used as an -insult- to deride other thinkers with, in the scholarly community of the time - largely dominated by theists or deists, different brands of god believers.

His concept of god differed not only from the abrahamic god, but from other concepts of god or the divine..such as, for example, those contained in the vedas (which probably require a term other than pantheism to accurately describe them as well).  Simply lacking the attribute of being personal is not enough to establish that they are not god concepts, comments on divinity, or woo free... because many gods were not believed to be personal - this isn't a distinguishing characteristic in the overall field that makes something "not a god" and it;s certainly not the only woosterish quality of the whole set x, gods.

In fact, his concept of a god differed so much from those other concepts..that it's clear that spinoza and any brand of theist -or- atheist aren't even having the same conversation when they discuss "god". Sound familiar? IMHO, spinozas "god" was just a clever way of demonstrating to people that what they had attributed to gods was not, in fact, correct or accurate. That it was the universe that was "doing that shit", no gods required.

[Mister Agenda]

"

Holy shit! Now you're just being sneaky! lol

Not really, I was being honest. The god that I believe in is not magical, transcendental, etc. and I find not believing in any woo, as you put it, a good trait. My personal faith requires seeing the world and my self in a different way which differs from many people. But it does not require me to believe in things that are beyond, transcendental, magical, etc. Just like how a scientist might start seeing himself and the world as bags of particles and atoms which might be different to how people usually see themselves and their world.

Not believing in any woo is a pretty good definition of atheist, so you're an atheist thanks to the magic of using language ambiguity to define things into existence.

"The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument."

---

I may have missed this because I'm not going to bother reading through every page here, but please describe the god that you do believe in. I don't care about the god(s) that you don't believe in.

The gods towards which he or she is an atheist, eh?

[henryp]

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to understand the Atheist's point of view and I came across a question, I'd be grateful if you guys help me figure it out.

As you know there are many different gods in various cultures and religions which are significantly varied. The term "God" does not refer to a specific entity. So when you guys say "I don't believe in God" which god(s) are you referring to? What is the definition of that god which does not exist? There are certain gods that clearly do exist . Like the Pantheist's god which is the universe itself, so I assume you are referring to a "certain group of gods" I'd like to know what defines that certain group?  

Thanks for reading and sorry for any mistakes or inaccuracies in my use of the English language. 

Cheers.

Personally, all of them.

Reading the 'god' you're arguing for, I think you're just being metaphorical.

[Mister Agenda]

I wonder if there will ever be a theist visiting us, opening with 'I want to know what you think', who will ever actually ask us what we think without telling us what we think?

[nosferatu323]

His concept of god differed not only from the abrahamic god, but from other concepts of god or the divine..such as, for example, those contained in the vedas (which probably require a term other than pantheism to accurately describe them as well).  In fact, his concept of a god differed so much from those other concepts..that it's clear that spinoza and any brand of theist -or- atheist aren't even having the same conversation when they discuss "god".

I don't think this is true. The god Spinoza is talking about resembles closely the way god is identified in the Vedas. Furthermore there are branches in all Abrahamic religions that have very similar (if not the same) conceptions of god: Kabbalah tradition in Judaism and Sufism in Islam are more examples to support the argument the the god of Spinoza has been considered a god throughout other major religions.  As I mentioned again before, the way I see this matter is that you are simply reasserting your subjective opinion that god and the universe cannot fall into one category. This is not true. This is a fact that god and the universe have fallen into the same category throughout the human history. This is a fact and is not falsifiable. 

This is about the similarity of Spinozism and Vedanta extracted from the Wikipedia page on Spinoza.

... a western system of philosophy which occupies a foremost rank amongst the philosophies of all nations and ages, and which is so exact a representation of the ideas of the Vedanta, that we might have suspected its founder to have borrowed the fundamental principles of his system from the Hindus, did his biography not satisfy us that he was wholly unacquainted with their doctrines... We mean the philosophy of Spinoza, a man whose very life is a picture of that moral purity and intellectual indifference to the transitory charms of this world, which is the constant longing of the true Vedanta philosopher... comparing the fundamental ideas of both we should have no difficulty in proving that, had Spinoza been a Hindu, his system would in all probability mark a last phase of the Vedanta philosophy.

Not believing in any woo is a pretty good definition of atheist

I guess atheists can believe in woo as long as it is not a deity. Am I wrong?

Show us actual scientific proof that the god YOU believe in exists and then we will have something tangible to talk about

The existence of the god that I believe in is a tautology. It cannot be false, hence does not need any positive evidence of its own.

I wonder if there will ever be a theist visiting us, opening with 'I want to know what you think', who will ever actually ask us what we think without telling us what we think?

I'm sorry that you don't like the way it went. You see, I mentioned the idea of pantheism and I learned that you guys might not be quite familiar with the concept of god in pantheism which is drastically different from the western Judeo-Christian god. So I thought it's a good idea to try to explain pantheism and discuss that maybe the existence of god in pantheism cannot be negated in atheism. Anyways, I'll try to be more observant in my future post, thank you for bringing this up.

[FatAndFaithless]

The existence of the god that I believe in is a tautology. It cannot be false, hence does not need any positive evidence of its own.

That's not something to take pride it. That's a reason for us to reject your assertion.

I don't know how you can say something like "I don't need any evidence" and expect to be taken seriously.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think this is true. The god Spinoza is talking about resembles closely the way god is identified in the Vedas.

If you count the hits and ignore the misses, sure.  

Furthermore there are branches in all Abrahamic religions that have very similar (if not the same) conceptions of god: Kabbalah tradition in Judaism and Sufism in Islam are more examples to support the argument the the god of Spinoza has been considered a god throughout other major religions.

Judaim and islam, and all of their sects, are monotheistic religions..not pantheistic religions.  It seems as if you're trying to liken the two above (or some sect of the above) to pantheism, or to spinozas "god" - but I have to be reading that wrong.........

Rephrase?

As I mentioned again before, the way I see this matter is that you are simply reasserting your subjective opinion that god and the universe cannot fall into one category.

Not at all.  I explained why god and the universe do not fall in the same category in the way that i utilize the terms, which is a more precise employment of language and therefore more informative than any ambiguity or equivocation.  There are things that are true of all other things in the category of gods that are simply not true of the universe, and not even true of spinozas "god".  For example...divinity.  A common thread to god concepts worldwide, and throughout time.  A god that is not divine is not a god in the same sense that all of those other gods are gods.  Again..it's obvious that we aren't having the same conversation.

This is not true. This is a fact that god and the universe have fallen into the same category throughout the human history. This is a fact and is not falsifiable. 

That they have been placed in the same category does not imply or demonstrate that they were accurately or correctly placed in that category.  The biblical writers, for example...thought that whales were either fish...or dragons. No one, in case you misunderstand, is arguing that no one has ever believed this nonsense.....Nos.

If a person uses a term or terms ambiguosly and variably throughought an argument, particularly so in the case of those two terms being categorically distinguishable..one has commited the fallacy of equivocation even if one -has- accurately communicated their actual beliefs. Believing in something, or that someone, somewhere, somewhen -has- believed in something, does nothing to establish that beliefs accuracy or falsifiability. You, for example...have been presenting many beliefs you have about pantheism, atheists, proper use of logic, the nature of words...etc; none of which are unfalsifiable simply for your having believed in them, most of which seem almost entirely innaccurate.

---

The existence of the god that I believe in is a tautology. It cannot be false, hence does not need any positive evidence of its own.

When you say "god", do you really mean "the universe"? Some clarity would be great, on that.

[Ravenshire]

.6. We come across "The universe itself", no matter how much we try we can never conclude that "The universe itself" does not exist.

Just because we determine that the universe exists does not mean we have to accept an unsupported assertion that it is some kind of gawd. This is the flaw in your argument.

If someone wants me to believe the universe is some form of gawd, they need to provide evidence to support the claim.

[The Grand Nudger]

-Which actual pantheists actually do, btw...you may not accept that evidence, or think it's insufficient..but they do seek to provide it.  To show how the universe is, importantly, like god in ways that justify it's classification as-such...even if it is also unlike those other god concepts in equally important ways.  

Ultimately, this was the utility of spinozas god as well...in that it was proposed, cheifly, as a foundation for a position on ethics.  At the time, some foundation "like god" was thought to be required in order to -possess- a foundation for ethics.  Spinoza satisfied that requirement of the field and study of that time, but did so in such a manner as to show that one need only refer to the universe, to the natural world, in order to find the same support, or even better support, for some position that had been traditionally grounded in god.

This might be one of the reasons that so many people throughout history have described spinoza as a pantheist. -I fear that they may have missed a brilliant rhetorical device, though, for it's subversive brilliance.

[Astreja]

I think one important distinction that needs to be made at this point is that whatever distinction of "god" one decides to use, I do not worship it. Why call anything a god unless it's for the purpose of some sort of ritual observance?