Isn’t pantheism the same thing as atheism?

[Seax]

At any rate..I agree that some convoluted way of thinking is what pantheism genuinely entails..but, pantheism in practice - in my experience and in this thread.  It's just atheism.  Our friend pantheist friend in this thread..an atheist - for example.

I am not an atheist.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not what you told us. Were you lying?

OMG, so surprising, absolutely no one saw it coming. It's never happened before on these boards.......

[Seax]

That's not what you told us.  Were you lying?

OMG, so surprising, absolutely no one saw it coming.  It's never happened before on these boards.......

Subtly & nuance really aren't your strong point, are they?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really, no..to be honest - but I'm a pretty straightforward guy. When some nutbar tells us that he doesn't believe in a personal god with a shitlist


......i think...me neither.

[vulcanlogician]

I've actually always enjoyed The Grand Nudger's grasp of nuance and subtlety. He asks the right questions.

He does get in a mode where he is too dismissive, sometimes. So he ain't perfect. But I do wonder if he's on to something concerning Seax's level of honesty.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm very dismissive, it's true. It's a flaw, but an honest flaw.

[Belacqua]

I've actually always enjoyed The Grand Nudger's grasp of nuance and subtlety. He asks the right questions.

He does get in a mode where he is too dismissive, sometimes. So he ain't perfect. But I do wonder if he's on to something concerning Seax's level of honesty.

His very first post on this forum says that atheism is incoherent, and declares what the will of God is.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-62465-p...pid2026226

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be difficult to get that one more wrong than you have. Seax doesnt believe in gods, but don't take my word for it..ask him.

[Ferrocyanide]

Also, before science came along, no one (or should I give some leeway here?) claimed that those were allegories. If I am wrong, they are free to show me a church claimed that those were allegories. I want to see an original print, coming from a top guy at a church.

When did science "come along"? When Aristotle went to do research at the Kolpos Kalloni on Lesbos? That would be before the Christian church was founded. 

Jesus spoke in parables, which he explained in private as allegory. He was kind of an important guy in the church. Paul interpreted Old Testament stories as allegory. He is also considered a "top guy."

Augustine wrote a whole book on not taking the book of Genesis literally. This was about 400 AD.

I would say that modern science has it’s roots somewhere in the 1700s.

What’s the name of that Augustine of Hippo book?

Apparently, according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
“Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety".[197] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children.”

Did Augustine of Hippo read the tanakh? There is nothing wrong with slavery according to that book.

--Ferrocyanide

---

The Pagan Greeks saw lust, hunger, pride, ect. as natural healthy impulses which could get out of hand, and believed that good lay in healthy exercise of them; between the extremes of wantonness and total denial. Moderation and selfcontrol; enjoying food without overeating, sex without becoming a letcher, wine without overdrinking, feeling anger without becoming a slave to rage; this was the Pagan ideal. 

It might be a tad too simple to attribute this to all the pagan Greeks. Greek culture lasted a long time, after all, and wasn't monolithic. But what you say is certainly true of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, which was extremely influential. Plato advocates something similar -- called sophrosyne -- but never quite defines it. It's when your rational soul keeps the appetitive and sensible souls in balance.

The Christian view is that these impulses are inherently sinful and wicked, and that while moderating them is fine and well, avoiding them completely is even better. The Christian God is thus opposed to nature, and Christianity sees nature as base, if not outright evil. 

No doubt there are Christians that agree with this description. But there are a lot of important ones who don't. 

Dante, for example (following Thomas Aquinas), explicitly models his moral thought on Aristotle. He would agree with everything you attribute here about the pagan Greeks. Dante might cite some special exceptions -- some kind of ascetic saint, for example -- but for the vast majority the natural appetites are made by God and therefore good. He even sees lust as the least bad of all the sins, because it is the most intense love. And sexual desire only becomes sinful lust when you overdo it -- when it causes you to lie or cheat or damage your health.

---

==The problem with that is, how do you measure overeating, lascivity and so on?
It is subjective.

Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it's too subjective to think about. 

Aristotle says right at the beginning of the Ethics that complete precision isn't possible in every case. In ethics, we just have to do our best.

Basically you know you've gone too far when you've harmed yourself. If you're obese or anorexic, you have a problem with appetite. If you get angry at little things that's bad, but if you don't get angry at things you should get angry at, that's also bad. We have no absolute way of knowing what's best in each case. You just have to work on it.

“Just because something isn't quantifiable doesn't mean it's too subjective to think about.


Aristotle says right at the beginning of the Ethics that complete precision isn't possible in every case. In ethics, we just have to do our best.


Basically you know you've gone too far when you've harmed yourself. If you're obese or anorexic, you have a problem with appetite. If you get angry at little things that's bad, but if you don't get angry at things you should get angry at, that's also bad. We have no absolute way of knowing what's best in each case. You just have to work on it.”


==If you have harmed yourself, then you are in fact measuring something.


If you are saying that some is obese or anorexic, then you are measuring body type and body weight. You are aiming for a certain weight range.
So if Aristotle, George, Mario or Bobo is telling is not to eat too much, he needs to provide us with a chart. If he doesn’t provide his chart, that means that he didn’t complete his work and someone else has to pick up the slack.
Who is suppose to decide what their ideal body weight should be? Should the obese person decide for himself or should Dr Aristotle, Dr George, Dr Mario and Dr Bobo do it?


About getting angry at little things. We are going to need a list of these little things. Again, who should prepare the list? The doctors? Yes, probably the doctors, or a group of doctors.
It’s not an impossible task if they set their minds to it.


“We have no absolute way of knowing what's best in each case. You just have to work on it.”


==Those 2 sentences sounded lazy.
The idea behind what Seax said is fine. It just needs further development. I was not trying to knock down his comment. I was only making the comment that needed to be made to reach the next step.


--Ferrocyanide

[Belacqua]

I would say that modern science has it’s roots somewhere in the 1700s.

Why is that? What changed?

Why would you discount the efforts of all the people before that who did successful and important science?