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?

[Zzyzx]

.
Everyone is free to tell whatever stories they wish about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities -- and/or to retell, embellish, modify stories told by others.

All are also entitled to disbelieve such stories. However, 'I don't believe your tales' often upsets those who are heavily emotionally invested in their chosen beliefs -- exhibited by expressions of resentment or retaliation.

Perhaps there is comfort in being a member of a believer group and feeling 'saved' while 'infidels' are condemned ('after you die').

Non-Believers can 'make do' with demonstrably correct information about the real world (demonstrated by advances in communication, transportation, space exploration, food production and distribution, etc). Does this constitute 'pantheism' in the vernacular of secularism"

[marco]

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?

A king is a person but it's not true to say a person is a king. Pantheism is akin to atheism in moving beyond a judgmental God. Atheists also decline to accept God. But obviously atheists and pantheists differ in what they propound: one declines to accept all divinities while the other places divinity in all things. Simllarity does not mean equality.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to marco]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Pantheism is akin to atheism in moving beyond a judgmental God.
one declines to accept all divinities while the other places divinity in all things.

Pantheism is akin to atheism. There seems to be little debate on that. So the question that remains is what is divine or what does it mean to be divine.

Divine is defined as:relating to, or proceeding directly from God

Now everything that we see and are definitely in atheistic and pantheistic theology proceed directly from the universe. To put it in Carl Sagan terms:

We Are Made of Star Stuff. “The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars.

Or one of Carl Sagan's famous quotes.

The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.

So atheist would have to believe that they proceed from the universe now do they have to believe that the universe is God.

Definition of God: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship.

Current theories of origins cannot even fabricate a way for man to even really exist in a rational sense. All theories end in man being random information in some sort of Bosman Brain, on the face of an event horizon in a black hole or some computer generated program from some super race of beings.

So to believe that this earth is full of rational freewill entities one would have to believe that the universe would have more than natural attributes. Because the laws of physics only gives us 2.5 options. (I just cannot do the super race option sorry)

So atheist have to believe that the universe did something that is totally outside the laws of physics that we observe in the universe today.

Do atheist worship the universe?

Def. Of worship: to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power. I have already shown that atheist have to believe that universe has supernatural power. They have to believe that the universe did something that our laws of nature cannot account for. Producing a rational universe from nothing.

Now do the worship the Universe

Dawkins:

“I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator. What science has now achieved is an emancipation from that impulse to attribute these things to a creator.

I do not believe science has done this but even if I give Dawkins just pretend for a moment that science has accomplished what Dawkins says it has. It still does not erase the worship that he and other atheist scientist have of the wonder of the universe and the "reverence and awe" for the universe.

If it looks like a pantheist, swims like a pantheist, and quacks like a pantheist, then it probably is a pantheist.

[Zzyzx]

.

So atheist would have to believe that they proceed from the universe now do they have to believe that the universe is God.

Correction: An Atheist (or Non-Theist, Non-Believer) is entitled to have no opinion regarding the origin of the universe or beginning of life.

Attempting to coerce all to take a position on such matters is an invalid stretch of the 'you do it to' straw-man 'justification' often employed by Apologists who claim to KNOW after reading ancient mythology and listening to sermons.

[Bust Nak]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Well it doesn't looks like a duck, swims like a duck, not quacks like a duck, yet there you are insisting on calling it a duck.

Pantheism is akin to atheism. There seems to be little debate on that.

Because it's plainly absurd. There is no debate.

So to believe that this earth is full of rational freewill entities one would have to believe that the universe would have more than natural attributes.

That does not follow, even if one was to grant you that theories of origins cannot explain our existence a rational sense. "I don't know how" is still the preferred answer over "it must be magic."

It still does not erase the worship that he and other atheist scientist have of the wonder of the universe and the "reverence and awe" for the universe.

Note the key word "almost feel a desire to worship something..."

[Zzyzx]

.

"I don't know how" is still the preferred answer over "it must be magic."

Exactly.

Phony 'knowledge' impedes the advancement of actual knowledge. Continued investigation and study are the keys to learning about the universe we inhabit.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 44 by Zzyzx]

Correction: An Atheist (or Non-Theist, Non-Believer) is entitled to have no opinion regarding the origin of the universe or beginning of life.

But that is an inconsistent statement. Atheist believe that God did not create the universe. Therefore they do believe something about the origin of the universe. There are only two options (really only one) but for argument sake we will say two. Either universe was made by natural means or it was made by an entity. Atheist do not believe in entities outside of the universe so that means that they have to believe that the universe was made by natural means.

It really does not matter what an atheist may express his opinion as. His belief that there is no such thing as God forces the atheist in a naturalistic belief system or theology.

[benchwarmer]

... Either universe was made by natural means or it was made by an entity ...

It's funny how the tune changes when we talk about the Biblical God:

Either God was made by natural means or God was made by an entity. Right? It must be according to your logic. Since Christians claim only 1 god, I guess your god occurred naturally then? If that happened, then why couldn't the universe do the same thing?

Looking forward to the tap dancing.

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by benchwarmer]

It's funny how the tune changes when we talk about the Biblical God:

Either God was made by natural means or God was made by an entity. Right? It must be according to your logic. Since Christians claim only 1 god, I guess your god occurred naturally then? If that happened, then why couldn't the universe do the same thing?

It doesn't matter which GOD is being talked about in regard to that argument.
As a Panentheist , the universe is regarded as impermanent whereas that which created the universe is regarded as always ever having existed.
One has a beginning and will have an end, the other has always existed.
One is the played and the other is the player.


Timelessness vs infinite regress argument

Therein are links to more posts where I have successfully debunked the infinite regression argument.

Having made the above comments, this of course does not mean that I think Atheism is Pantheism. See post#2 (and #10) re that.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 48 by benchwarmer]

It's funny how the tune changes when we talk about the Biblical God:

Either God was made by natural means or God was made by an entity. Right? It must be according to your logic. Since Christians claim only 1 god, I guess your god occurred naturally then? If that happened, then why couldn't the universe do the same thing?

It doesn't matter which GOD is being talked about in regard to that argument.
As a Panentheist , the universe is regarded as impermanent whereas that which created the universe is regarded as always ever having existed.
One has a beginning and will have an end, the other has always existed.
One is the played and the other is the player.


Timelessness vs infinite regress argument

Therein are links to more posts where I have successfully debunked the infinite regression argument.

Having made the above comments, this of course does not mean that I think Atheism is Pantheism. See post#2 (and #10) re that.

Yes, these are beliefs, but are not consistent with the logic given by ESG. Why can't the energy which makes up the current universe be regarded as having always existed in some form or other?

At least we have observable evidence regarding our universe and the energy it is made up of. Gods? Not so much. A literary device clung to by apologists to fill the gaps of knowledge.