Isn’t pantheism the same thing as atheism?

[Belacqua]

"The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm

[vulcanlogician]

“That just tells you that seax believed in a personal god, not that pantheism proposes one, or that the universe is a person.”

==Well, then, I’m not sure then.
Let’s make a list of possibilities.

1. A god that has a brain, that thinks, maybe he has feelings, that is not frozen and time passes forward for him.
2. #1 and also the god has other components that are non brains, sort of how a human has a brain but also a few arms and a few legs. Perhaps the laws of physics also a component of the pantheist god.
3. God is the universe which is a brainless entity.

Were you talking about #2?

If a pantheist tells me that their god is #3, then this looks like renaming. They are removing the sticker that says apple from the apple and they are sticking the sticker that says banana on it.

Many pantheists will tell you number 3. There is a spectrum that exists: atheistic pantheism- theistic pantheism- panentheism- theism. I only feel inclined to defend "atheistic pantheism" (or #3 on your list). Earlier in the thread I provided a more comprehensive defense of the idea.

Here I will repeat what I think is a good justification for pantheism that I once heard in a lecture:

Do pantheists who deny that God is anything more than the natural world have any reply to the suggestion that they are really atheists? Perhaps they do. They may say that in referring to the system of nature as a whole, as God, they fitly express a reverence and awe and gratitude that it deserves as a thing of wondrous beauty, the source of our life and all that we enjoy. Some of them might add that in heightened awareness of nature that they experience a transcendence of petty self-centered concerns which they regard as typical of religious mysticism at its best.

My bold. These kind of pantheists qualify as #3 on your list. But if you told one of them they are mislabeling the universe, they'd probably respond "Okay. I see your point." They wouldn't go around insisting that everyone call the universe God. Their pantheism is more a disposition than a claim about nature. Think about how theists feel gratitude towards God. The pantheist feels the same sort of gratitude and awe and reverence toward reality (the material universe). The thing about the material universe is: it actually exists.

Of his experience of the woods surrounding Walden Pond, Thoreau wrote:

Once, a few weeks after I came to the woods, for an hour I doubted whether the near neighborhood of man was not essential to a serene and healthy life. To be alone was somewhat unpleasant. But in the midst of a gentle rain, while these thoughts prevailed, I was suddenly sensible of such sweet and beneficent society in Nature, in the very pattering of the drops, and in every sight and sound around my house, an infinite and unaccountable friendliness all at once, like an atmosphere, sustaining me, as made the fancied advantages of human neighborhood insignificant, and I have never thought of them since. Every little pine-needle expanded and swelled with sympathy and befriended me. I was so distinctly made aware of the presence of something kindred to me, that I thought no place could ever be strange to me again.

[Fake Messiah]

"The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm

According to Belacqua's "logic" Ken Ham is also not a naive theologian because he also says that Bible should be read metaphorically and figuratively

Now, flat earthers will frequently bring up poetic passages, such as verses from Psalms or Job, and say those verses teach a flat earth because phrases like “ends of the earth” or references to a setting sun appear. But those passages are poetry—by definition poetry is filled with literary devices such as metaphors, similes, and figures of speech. 

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-h...lat-earth/

[The Grand Nudger]

"The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable."

-and personal, and intervening.  If this is such a problem that christians™ feel compelled to argue against it or memory hole it, well, welcome to the club.  I don't believe in personal intervening gods either. There's a term that describes a person who doesn't believe in that sort of stuff. Atheist.

[Mister Agenda]

"The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable."

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01558c.htm

Thanks for introducing me to the word 'anthropomorphites'.

[Ferrocyanide]

In Christianity, people are said to be like God in some ways, but this doesn't mean that God has a body, has emotions, changes his mind, barks out orders, or possesses lots of other human traits. 

When the Bible says "God hears" something, this doesn't mean that he has ears and hears the sounds in the same way a person does. Naive people may read it that way, but not educated people. 

The Bible is to be interpreted, and the non-naive interpretation is known to a minority of people, both Christian and atheist. Literalist sola scriptura Christianity has never been the position of people educated in theology.

But why can’t the jewish god have ears and hear the same way that people do?
The Bible claims that the jewish god is omnipotent.
So, we can conclude that the jewish god can shapeshift and take on many configurations.
Having human ears is not out of the question.

Interpret just means “no, this line does not mean X, it means Y.”
That’s fine and dandy, but meaning of the word omnipotent is static.

Note: I am not saying that the jewish god has human ears. I am saying that there are 2 guys: One guy believes that the jewish god has human ears right now and the other guy believes he does not have human ears right now. You both can argue all you want but neither of you are correct unless you can bring some evidence.

The bottom line is that evidence is what matters most.
Having human ears is not out of the question.
You have provided 0 evidence that right now, the jewish god does not have human ears.

[Belacqua]

meaning of the word omnipotent is static.

That's true.

It means that because he is pure act, all potencies in the universe are actualized and aimed toward him.

Some people thinks it means he can do anything, but that's not right. He can't make a four-sided triangle, for example.

[Brian37]

Allo all,
I call myself an atheism since it is clear that certain gods do not exist, most notably the jewish god (The tanakh claims that this universe/Earth is 6000 y old, that the Earth is fabricated before the Sun, that the Earth is fabricated on day 1, etc.
The various domains of science say no and I go with the science.)

I also call myself an ignotist. The word god has no particular meaning. No sample has been observed. The word god means many things to many people.

Back to pantheism:
Some people call it Spinoza’s god. Based on what I read, it looks like they are labeling the “sum total of the universe” as the god.

So, they are calling the universe a god?
It look like they accept that the universe is a brainless thing, just like me.

So, what is the difference between a pantheist and me?

I do recall that Seax wrote that
“the universe having fundamental purpose and meaning”

but how can a brainless entity have purpose and meaning just out of the blue?
A brain is required to build something, for example a watch, a VHS player, a telegraph, a walkie-talkie, a sheet of glass, indium foil, a diode made of lead sulfide.
Even if the device is simple, such as a sheet of glass, the brain has a use for it in its everyday life.

Albert Einstein has said that he believes in Spinoza’s god but I think back then, it was harder to come out of the closet.
At least he was clear enough when he said that he doesn’t accept the anthropomorphic god that is the jewish god.
(I only mention the above since it comes up often in conversations.)

--Ferrocyanide

Any "ism" regardless of position is just human bullshit excuse for labels and tribalism.

"Human" is the only correct label for our species. All 7 billion of us ride the same molten core rock. And the sun and universe does not give a fig about our species.

I only hold the "position" of "atheist" because I don't see any evidence that their is a super cognition that started all this.

[Belacqua]

Any "ism" regardless of position is just human bullshit excuse for labels and tribalism.

Well, I think Impressionism is kind of nice. 

But what you say may be true of metaphysical positions, if we use them to pass judgment on others. 

I only hold the "position" of "atheist" because I don't see any evidence that their is a super cognition that started all this.

Recently I heard someone say that atheism is just human bullshit excuse for labels and tribalism.

[Ferrocyanide]

meaning of the word omnipotent is static.

That's true.

It means that because he is pure act, all potencies in the universe are actualized and aimed toward him.

Some people thinks it means he can do anything, but that's not right. He can't make a four-sided triangle, for example.

I go by the definition of the word in the dictionary.

This is from Merriam-Webster
omnipotent=
1a. having absolute power over all
1b.relatively unlimited in power
1c. having or regarded as having great power or importance
2. having virtually unlimited authority or influence

I would say that the jewish god has absolute power over reality.
If you want to call a 4 sided shape a triangle, you could.
If you want to have a 4 sided shape that also has 3 sides, then you have a logical problem. No one can be omnipotent enough to change the rules of logic.
The 1b makes some sense with respect to logic.

It’s the same with mathematics. No one is omnipotent enough to make the number 5 disappear. Again, this is a matter of logic.