Atheism is pantheism

[EarthScienceguy]

Since atheist believe that "nature found a way" (to put it in Jurassic Park terms) to produce life against all odds. Belief that nature created life is pantheism. So, doesn't that make all atheist pantheist?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 5 by wiploc]

It may be possible that some atheist believes this, but most of us don't. In any case, it is no part of the concept of atheism, which consists entirely of not having a belief in gods.

Are you trying to say that atheist do not ask the question "who am I" and "where did I come from."

If you do not believe that God made the universe and life, then by default you have to believe that nature made everything. Many people do not understand their own religion. But saying you are an atheist means you have to believe that nature produced a miracle in creating this universe.

That would make all atheist pantheist.

I beg you to stop having so much wrong in your posts.
You are doing nothing more than attempting to level the playing field. Your use of term faith informs us of this.

To be specific, atheists are atheists because they don't place faith in a god concept.

Faith is a religious thing. I believe the world would be better off if people stopped applying a mechanism that is required to believe a falsehood in order to justify their wants and desires. Faith is what allows a Muslim to believe in Allah, a Christian to believe in their god and faith is also what allows a flat earther to believe that the earth is flat.
Via faith, I can believe in Big Foot, Nessy and any other claim that does not have evidence to support it.

And I'm not even an atheist.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[Tcg]

Are you trying to say that atheist do not ask the question "who am I" and "where did I come from."

Those are two questions. I don't ask them because I know who I am and I know where I came from.



Tcg

[Tcg]

Einstein, considered a pantheist by many : "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"

which sounds closer to not just atheism, but anti-theism?

There is no reason to wonder about Einstein. He expressed his views clearly:

• Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... t_Einstein

He also addresses the absurd claim from the OP. Given that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza, he was NOT an atheist.



Tcg

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 6 by wiploc]

It is a fact that I have not grown to a point where I can touch the moon. You think that fact implies a faith that I will touch the moon? That's absurd, patently false.

What in the world are you trying to say? Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.

You wrote this:

Science has not advanced to a point where it can explain the origin of life or the universe. This is a statement of faith that it will happen.

I'm just parodying that. When we say something has not been achieved, that doesn't imply faith that it will be achieved.

I say we haven't reached the speed of light. That doesn't mean I have faith that we will reach the speed of light.

I say I haven't gotten tall enough to touch the moon. That doesn't mean I have faith that I will get tall enough to reach the moon.

You claim that atheists say science hasn't advanced to where it can explain the origin of the universe, and for some reason you claim that this means we have faith that one day science will explain that origin. But it doesn't mean that. You just made that up.

[dio9]

Since atheist believe that "nature found a way" (to put it in Jurassic Park terms) to produce life against all odds. Belief that nature created life is pantheism. So, doesn't that make all atheist pantheist?

yes I agree atheists must be pantheists. And that's not a bad thing. Many people experience transcendent reality through nature. I have always been a believer , may I ask do atheists experience transcendence or insight in or through nature?

[Tcg]

yes I agree atheists must be pantheists.

Pantheists possess belief in a god, therefore they are theists. Atheists lack belief in god/gods. Your agreement with a flawed conclusion doesn't change the fact that atheists are not theists.



Tcg

[Divine Insight]

Science has not advanced to a point where it can explain the origin of life or the universe.

So what?

Just because something hasn't yet been fully explained doesn't mean we need to jump to ridiculous superstitious conclusions.

In fact, this kind of argument that you are attempting to present is nothing short of absolute absurdity.

Theists have not advanced to a point where they can explain how any proposed magical Gods could exist either. So theists don't have a leg up on science by a long shot. Just because you can't say how something came to be is no justification to start claiming that some invisible boogieman God did it. That's just ridiculous.

Your argument has no ground to stand on whatsoever. Multiply whatever scientists don't know by about a thousand and you're getting close to what theists don't know.

To claim that some form of theology must be true simply because science can't explain everything is an extremely bad argument. In fact, it's not even an argument at all. It's just outright absurd.

Proposing that some unexplained magical God "did it" is no explanation at all. So theists have no explanation for anything. In order to come up with an explanation for anything at all theists must first explain how their proposed God came to be. They clearly can't do that. So they are dead in the water. They have absolutely nothing to offer other than totally wild unexplained guesses.

Proclaiming that an unexplained God explains how the universe came to be is the most ridiculous proposal ever suggested.

[benchwarmer]

Since atheist believe that "nature found a way" (to put it in Jurassic Park terms) to produce life against all odds. Belief that nature created life is pantheism. So, doesn't that make all atheist pantheist?

Wow, not only a lack of knowledge about science, but now about simple definitions?

An A-theist means not a theist. Perhaps you noticed a pantheist is a theist? I suggest some basic research with a dictionary.

Why do some theists continually just make stuff up and then try and prop up whatever argument they are making with this made up stuff? This is called a straw man.

As an agnostic atheist, I have no trouble simply saying "I don't know" how life was first created. I have just debunked your entire 'argument'. QED

[alexxcJRO]

Since atheist believe that "nature found a way" (to put it in Jurassic Park terms) to produce life against all odds. Belief that nature created life is pantheism. So, doesn't that make all atheist pantheist?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic, accuracy born out of desperation and impotency.

Firstly,

Sir according to definitions, simple logic and testimony of atheists: an atheist cannot be a pantheist: a person who believes in God for he/she lacks the thing he/she needs: the belief in God.
It’s like saying a bachelor is married. That is just plainly stupid.

Secondly,
The belief that “God did not create life� does not necessarily means one believes “nature found a way�. One can believe aliens got involved in the creation of life on Earth through experimentation or brought life here from other parts of the universe.

So first non-sequitur.

Also naturalism does not equals “a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God�.

Saying "belief in naturalism" is pantheism is just another non-sequitur.

[Mithrae]

There is no reason to wonder about Einstein. He expressed his views clearly:
. . . . .

He also addresses the absurd claim from the OP. Given that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza, he was NOT an atheist.

Pantheists possess belief in a god, therefore they are theists. Atheists lack belief in god/gods. Your agreement with a flawed conclusion doesn't change the fact that atheists are not theists.

You're right on both counts. Unfortunately there are also some popular atheists who engage in the same disappointing game as the OP, trying to redefine other people's beliefs in such a way as to claim them for one 'side' or the other:

• “Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism…. Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor.â€�
  
  ~ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion