Wouldn't "Pantheism" be productive to the goals of atheism?
Posted on: October 17, 2007 - 5:46am
Offline
Wouldn't "Pantheism" be productive to the goals of atheism?
... Wouldn't "Pantheism" be productive to the goals of atheism? ... and also Progresive Buddihsm ? Shouldn't atheists re-define GOD , instead of rejecting that word G-O-D ?, so coined by the sick fundys ? How should atheists best get the message out of , NO MASTER, no creator ? Should "God" be abandoned by We Atheists or re-defined ? What's the plan man ? I am confussed ?
- Login to post comments
Why do you think anything cognative needs to run the universe. Pathiesm is just as ambigious and hokie, just a new myth with no substance.
"Atheist" not "god" is what needs to be redefined back to its original simplistic meaning. It needs to be taken away from the theists who use it to discribe us as immoral and evil. WE have already abandon god, but we need to take a "atheist" and continually tell people what it means, "without god or gods".
Do we need allies in theism? Sure. But I think it is rediculous for atheists to use a word "god" that has no meaning to us.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think any atheist who drops by Pantheism.net will have difficulty in finding much with which to take issue. My only issue has been with those few members who refuse to give up their use of the "g" word. The impression I've always gotten is that those people impress me as very weak deists who are simply not ready to give up on some concept of a universal super consciousness. As far as I can tell, they make up a small percentage of those who wear the Pantheist label.
As far as I'm concerned, the day we could redefine God has long since passed.
Susan
Here's the real question, I AM. Who put the Bop in the Bopshoowop shoo wop? Who put the Ram in the Ram alam a dingdong? Who was that man? I'd like to shake his hand.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
I don't think that pantheistic explanations are harmful, unlike the explanations of Christians and the like, but they're just unnecessary.
If God = the universe, then why say "god"?
According to CptPineapple (correct me if I'm wrong), it's primarily because they can't get around the "why" question of the universe.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
This question, if read carefully, presupposes that "nothing" is the natural state of things and that the existence of "something" is therefore interesting.
There doesn't have to be a "why". That's where the two groups will divide.
If I'm mistaken on this, I welcome correction.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Yep.
One can only wonder.
Atheism doesn't have any goals.