A Question From Atheists

[nosferatu323]

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.

Do you need evidence to know that white is white, black is black and 1 is 1?

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

This is not the case. I just provided the comment of scholars stating that Spinoza's ideas are exactly the same to the extent that one can assume he had borrowed his concepts directly from Hindus. 

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.........

Monotheism and pantheism are not mutually exclusive. Monotheism asserts "God is one" Pantheism asserts "All is God" these two assertions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Sufism is a branch if Islam and is Pantheistic AND Monotheistic. But I suggest not bringing Sufism up here. Spinozism and Vedanta are enough for our argument.

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.

Unfortunately we are reasserting our positions. I think this means we are in a dead-end. We just keep repeating the same thing again and again. And I don't have any answers but to repeat what I said, this is as far as I can go with language and logic to communicate in the present moment:
The statement that "god and the universe cannot fall into the same category" is merely a subjective opinion.
god has been identified as the universe throughout the human history by: 
1. millions of people - mostly in the east (Including Hindus, Sufi Muslims, etc.) 
2. Prominent western philosophers (from ancient greek to modern times) 
4. Prominent easter philosophers (I'm relatively well-versed in eastern philosophy and I can say with a degree of confidence that MOST eastern philosophers who have talked about god have identified it with the universe in a way or another)
3. Prominent mystics
and  also
4. God of the pantheist is referred to as "God" in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
These are more than enough to consider "god as the universe itself" as a valid definition.
If millions of people start using the term dragon to refer to a whale and various writers and scholars also refer to whales by the term dragons, a new definition of the word dragon will be added to dictionaries and encyclopedias and the collective knowledge will adjust itself to that new definition over time and anyone who refers to whales as dragons will have a valid and acceptable position.

Sacredness and holiness, those reasons to worship...yet another common characteristic of gods, but not of the universe or spinoza's "god".

There have been times when I've had experienced the universe as being extremely divine and holy I believe there are many human beings that experience universe with these qualities in various occasions. I worship the universe which means I deeply and genuinely admire it more than anything else including myself etc. I also see no problem in expressing my admiration in the form of religious rituals. In fact I sometimes participate in various religious rituals and I find them very effective in helping me "be connected" with my deity. I do not worship my deity out of fear or for reward or whatever. But worship does not need to be for such reasons. It can be out of mere admiration.

Then we are perfectly valid in dismissing it without evidence.

Game over - thanks for playing.

I think you got me wrong. I do not have any intention that you should believe in my god. I'm just trying to logically infer that there are certain gods which's existence cannot be negated. I mostly focused on "God as the universe itself" but there are many more definitions which have the same property. Let's not make it about my personal belief that somehow diverts us from the main point of this topic. It's perfectly fine if you dismiss it. I can dismiss white is white. I can dismiss 1=1. There is no problem in merely dismissing it. We are free human beings.