A pantheistic argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

Why make that assumption though, it all starts there doesn't it?

Because:

Some people, in my experience, seem to think that if you change the label, you change the belief. For example, some people think they're not atheists even when they don't believe in a creator of the universe and god is defined that way. My point is it's not about the label, it's about what you actually believe. I can define god as "everything" and become a theist therefore and yet my atheistic beliefs haven't changed whatsoever because I was only ever atheist in the sense that I didn't believe in deities, it has nothing to do with believing in the universe. That was my point in this thread. I can be an atheist and a pantheist even though pantheism is a kind of theism and atheism contradicts theism because I'm an atheist in a different sense to the sense that I'm a theist.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know amigo, seems a bit fuzzy. There is a god there, is there not? You don't believe in this type of god, or that type of god, but most theists have believed in different types of gods and remained theists nevertheless.
( I like the criteria of a personal god for qualification as theism btw, but I know that some would disagree)

[Edwardo Piet]

Because it depends how god is defined. If god is the universe I'm a pantheistic theist. If god is a deity I'm an atheist. Hence my pantheistic atheism.

[The Grand Nudger]

You do realize that the words "god" and "deity" are synonyms yes? You seem to be hung up on how you define a god, but so long as you are calling it such, it is theism (in it's broadest sense). Others define their gods a different way but at no point does "a god" become "no god".

"If god is a deity" is nonsensical. You're clearly thinking of a particular -type- of deity that you do not believe in.

[catfish]

A couple questions for you.
Would you assume consciousness and intelligence to the universe?
If no, what would you consider individual thoughts? As part of the universe or separate?

[The Grand Nudger]

I -am- still wondering about that assumption btw Doubt. What you offered doesn't lend much weight to why you would make such an assumption (even though it does explain why you would engage in such an argument). Your motivations for the argument do not, to me, seem to justify the assumption that there is at least one god, and that god is the most influential thing (nor why influence has anything to do with a god).

For example, if I were to say:

Assume that there is one god, and that this god is the waffliest possible thing
My plate has more waffles than any other plate, it is in fact made of waffles with waffles piled on top
Therefore my plate is god.

What would you say?

[catfish]

You god isn't a god or else butter and syrup would not be needed? :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

They aren't, and it is in fact the buttery, syrupy nature of human inequity that masks his Wafflinesses self evident presence (but if you would just believe.....).

Before you even ask......I came about all of this knowledge after a revelation from the Holiest of Eggos that led me to a peice of toilet paper with some brown scribbling on it, it has been confirmed by experts to have come from my bathroom, and dated by archaeologists to the very morning I found it..
(my bathroom being the place I go every morning to take a shit - which causes the sun to rise - no need to thank me)

[Edwardo Piet]

You do realize that the words "god" and "deity" are synonyms yes?

Yes, but synonyms don't necessarily have identical meaning, they can have similar meaning. It was my understanding that merely one definition of god is "deity", maybe I was wrong there but it doesn't change my point. If god means the same thing as deity then I guess believing god is the universe would equate to believing god is a deity. I thought, you see, that "deity" is "god" in the sense of "supernatural being, especially a creator of the universe" - and if "deity" means that then it's not the same as "god" because some forms of pantheism define "god" as "the universe" and the universe is not a deity in the sense of a supernatural being.

You seem to be hung up on how you define a god, but so long as you are calling it such, it is theism (in it's broadest sense).

No, it's not about what label we choose it's about what we actually believe. If I call myself an atheist that wouldn't make me one if I believed in god. My point is that when I'm a pantheist I believe in the exact same thing as when I'm an atheist. My beliefs are identical. In both cases I am merely believing in the universe. The fact that I label the universe "god" in one case and don't in another makes no difference if I'm actually believing in the exact same thing. If there is no difference in the actual belief then they can't be different because the very definition of the difference between theism and atheism is completely dependent upon the difference in belief. If there is no difference in belief therefore, there is no difference. The label of "atheism" and "theism" is different if you name them that way, but what they actually are and what they actually refer to is no different if all the differences that their very definition is dependent upon is completely removed.

If someone defines Jesus Christ as "a chicken" and they believe in chickens that doesn't make them a christian if non-Christians also believe in chickens. If non-Christians also believe in chickens, if Jesus is a chicken and if Christians' belief in Christianity therefore depends on believing in that definition of Jesus being "a chicken" then how are Christians any more Christian than non-Christians, if the very definition of Christianity (and therefore also non-Christianity) both depend upon there being a difference of belief and/or non-belief between the two? It's not about the label, it's about the belief. If the belief is the same, it's the same thing. The label doesn't change what you believe exists. You're not an atheist because you choose to label yourself that way, you're an atheist because of what you don't or do believe. If all the atheists on these forums started defining "god" as "a carrot" it wouldn't actually change their atheism into theism simply because they believed in carrots and they were then defining god as "a carrot", because it wouldn't actually change their belief/non-belief (in both cases they are merely believing in carrots) and the very definition of atheism is about belief/non-belief. Atheists cannot change from atheists to theists without changing what they actually don't or do believe.

Theists, for the same reasons, are not theists because they choose to label themselves that way either, they're theists because of what they actually believe exists.

"If god is a deity" is nonsensical.

If every single definition of "god" is "deity" including the pantheistic definition of god being "the universe", then yes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, but synonyms don't necessarily have identical meaning, they can have similar meaning. It was my understanding that merely one definition of god is "deity", maybe I was wrong there but it doesn't change my point. If god means the same thing as deity then I guess believing god is the universe would equate to believing god is a deity. I thought, you see, that "deity" is "god" in the sense of "supernatural being, especially a creator of the universe" - and if "deity" means that then it's not the same as "god" because some forms of pantheism define "god" as "the universe" and the universe is not a deity in the sense of a supernatural being.

The word "deity" derives from the Latin "dea"-"goddess", and "deus"-"god"

A deity can be natural or supernatural.

Your explanation here is a longer way of saying "not that kind of deity..not that kind of god", nevertheless it is a diety or a god..and you have explicitly defined it as such. Again, people describe or define their gods in many, many ways. If describing a god differently than someone else does qualifies one as an atheist then we are all atheists.

No, it's not about what label we choose it's about what we actually believe.

Right, and if those beliefs contain at least one god..no matter what attributes you give it or how you describe it...

If I call myself an atheist that wouldn't make me one if I believed in god.

Right, but you do, correct? If you don't, then perhaps you just "believe" that the universe exists..and that leads me to ask you why you deigned to call it god in the first place?

My point is that when I'm a pantheist I believe in the exact same thing as when I'm an atheist.

Not if you're calling that thing a god.

My beliefs are identical.

I think your beliefs are confused.

In both cases I am merely believing in the universe.

Which is god.

The fact that I label the universe "god" in one case and don't in another makes no difference if I'm actually believing in the exact same thing.

I think that it would make a hell of alot of difference if we were interested in consistency.

If there is no difference in the actual belief then they can't be different because the very definition of the difference between theism and atheism is completely dependent upon the difference in belief.

In god....which you believe in, yes?

If there is no difference in belief therefore, there is no difference. The label of "atheism" and "theism" is different if you define them that way, but what they actually are and what they actually refer to is no different if all the differences that their very definition is dependent upon is completely removed.

You don't seemed to have removed god in the argument you offered.....

If someone defines Jesus Christ as "a chicken" that doesn't make them a christian if they can believe in chickens just like non-Christian can. If non-Christians also believe in chickens, if Jesus is a chicken and if Christians' belief in Christianity therefore depends on believing in that definition of Jesus being "a chicken" then how are Christians any more Christian than non-Christians, if the very definition of Christianity (and therefore also non-Christianity) both depend upon there being a difference of belief and/or non-belief between the two? It's not about the label, it's about the belief. If the belief is the same, it's the same thing. The label doesn't change what you believe exists. You're not an atheist because you choose to label yourself that way, you're an atheist because of what you believe. If all the atheists on this forum started defining "god" as a carrot it wouldn't actually change their atheism because it wouldn't actually change their belief/non-belief and the very definition of atheism is about belief/non-belief. Atheists cannot change from atheists to theists without changing what they actually don't or do believe.

If all the atheists started defining god as a carrot and professing belief in it they would be theists. They still wouldn't be christians, but they would definitively be theists........to suggest otherwise is to rob the two terms of any meaning whatsoever.

Atheism, no god.
Theism, at least one god.

Theists are not theists because they choose to label themselves that way, they're theists because of what they believe.

Correct, again, a belief in at least one god. a belief that you share (even though you describe your god differently than they describe theirs).

If every single definition of "god" is "deity" including the pantheistic definition of god being "the universe", then yes.

See the above, the very word is derived from the root which translates to "god". Perhaps you should save yourself the trouble and stop calling things gods if you don't think they are gods?