Isn’t pantheism the same thing as atheism?

[vulcanlogician]

When someone's argument includes several stanzas from some rarified 19th century poet, you gotta ask yourself: where is he coming from?

So here's the deal:

Bel thinks the members of this forum strawman Christianity. I disagree with him here. I've expressed this to him numerous times. To me, there is this socio-cultural force that calls itself Christianity, and commonly dips its feet into the waters of ignorance. Many atheists here, myself included, feel the need to resist this socio-cultural Christianity. In other words, mainstream Christianity is something most of us here are opposed to. When we say "Christianity," we mean mainstream Christianity.

Bel wants to view Christianity a little more charitably. And if anything, it leads to some interesting discussions. But I also like where he's coming from to some degree. Rather than constantly railing on the ignorant spoutings of creationists, why not dig a little deeper and examine some of the more refined ideas Christians have had. After a while, it's boring criticizing mainstream religion. So this second kind of conversation is a welcome reprieve.

The thing I disagree with Bel on, and I think you do as well, Ferro, is Bel thinks there is only one conversation going on. There isn't. There are two. Many (if not most) of the criticisms lobbed at mainstream Christianity here are apt. It's worthwhile to state these criticisms, and that's the project of many atheists on these forums. Bel doesn't quite "get" what our beef is with Christianity.

But he's right about one thing: our usual criticisms of Christianity aren't good criticisms of Bel's more charitable concepts... like an non-anthropomorphic God. It's interesting to take a break from criticizing mainstream religion and discuss things with Bel. But I, personally, separate the two conversations. They are entirely different enterprizes.

I think Belacqua is interesting. He doesn't come off as arrogant to me. I kinda see a separation between educated Christians and noneducated ones. It's not trying to treat uneducated people's opinions as irrelevant. It's seeing that most people aren't interested at critically examining their beliefs. It's a fact of life about the world. People wanna make money, go to cookouts, help their friend move, go out for some beers, etc.. It doesn't make their opinions "not relevant." But it does mean many folks don't see the value in critically examining ideas and beliefs. They have their beliefs that they just kind of "acquired" through life experience, and those are the beliefs they'll defend. Educated people *tend* not to be in that camp. But I'm sure even many educated folks may also be like that (*cough* business majors *cough*). Uneducated people who just happen to be thoughtful (or tend to reflect a lot) are probably more inclined to critically examine beliefs.

Anyway, long story short: Bel shouldn't have used the word "educated." If he was being precise, he'd have said "Christians who critically examine their own beliefs." I can see using the word "educated" for shorthand, but it wasn't the best word to use. I didn't catch any "arrogant" vibes from that personally.

As for the rest of what you said, concerning classical Christianity and there not being "one" theology. I agree with you, and disagree with Belacqua.