A Question From Atheists

[The Grand Nudger]

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. 

Look, I'm not going to waste any time arguing with you over there being differences between hinduism and what is taken to be spinozan pantheism, had there been no differences, we'd call spinoza a hindu...and we know that he wasn't.  Many religions share many things..and most religions share at least some things with non-religion.  The same is true of gods, of concepts of the divine.

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.

Again, counting hits and ignoring misses.  If you wish to contend that in either judeo-christian or hindu beleif sets there are elements of pantheism (and vv)..fine...but to describe them as therefore, pantheistic is..I think, an imprecise use of precise language.  The judeo-christian belief set is monotheistic, and the hindu belief set is pan-en-theistic.  

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: 

Oh good god, now we're on to subjective opinions?  Okay, so what, I supported and explained my subjective opinion...and I expect that you would be able to support and exoplain your subjective opinion in a similar wayu.  -We- are not merely reasserting our positions...I am responding to your continued reassertian in the face of my elaboration and arguments.

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

all of the above is an appeal to the mob,  to authority, and to tradition.  Each one it;s own logical misstep.  No one disputes that there were such mobs, such alleged authorities, and such traditions.  Their existence does not establish their accuracy.  

and  also
4. God of the pantheist is referred to as "God" in dictionaries and encyclopedias.

-and we've seen many ways, just in thread, that the pantheist god is not like the others in the set of gods.  That it has been placed in the category, does not demonstrate that it;s placement was accurate.  

These are more than enough to consider "god as the universe itself" as a valid definition.

I already agreed that there was nothing preventing anyone from considering whatever they want to be a god.  But appeals to popularity, and authority, and tradition..in the face of contradictory populations, authorities, and traditions..and in as much as you have formed your [position almost entirely out of logical fallacies precludes any possibility that your position as stated can be valid, let alone 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.

Because language in common use is not constrained by the same rules that logic is constrained by.  We cannot establish the accuracy of some position by reference to how many people believe it, or that people believe it at all, logically.

If millions of people started referring to whales by the term dragon, millions of people would be grade A idiots not engaging in logical discourse, only creative euphimism. If one person..yourself specifically, then refers to their euphimisms as proof of it;s own accuracy, one has gone beyind being a grade a idiot.....and into the realm oif intentional obfuscation.  You are not trying to engage in the discussion..you are trying to avoid it.  You are not establishing -why- anyone should accept the euphimism or it's accuracy.  

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.

-and there we have it.  Your god is -not- just "the universe".....it;s the universe -plus- your fee-fees in contemplating it.  I see nothing divine or sacred in the universe.  I only see the universe.  We aren't even having the same discussion..and you don't even seem to understand your own beliefs that well.

The spinozan universe, btw, "god" if you insist, does not contain us as free beings.  It's explicitly deterministic.  Predictably, we find our woo...ofc what you meant was "my woo is not woo, my magic is not magic"....just as you meant "god is my god"..not "the universe is my god".  You have given it attributes from that other category of gods..the one which you maintain you do not believe in.