Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on October 11, 2015, 08:43:43 AM
-
Isn't Pantheism no more than just an ordering and categorising of philosophical ideas....for existence a God of War,,,,,,why not a cross departmental God of conflict for instance?
I think that asks the question who decides demarcation of jobs and the reason for it.
Monotheists suspect pantheists of mere philosophical categorising, atheists can smell it....and often like it which is why they give pantheists an easier ride.
But look at it this way....Thinking must inevitably turn away from Gods to the one or the one God and we see this in monotheism, platonic philosophy and in scientific theories of everything.
-
Isn't Pantheism no more than just an ordering and categorising of philosophical ideas....for existence a God of War,,,,,,why not a cross departmental God of conflict for instance?
I think that asks the question who decides demarcation of jobs and the reason for it.
Monotheists suspect pantheists of mere philosophical categorising, atheists can smell it....and often like it which is why they give pantheists an easier ride.
But look at it this way....Thinking must inevitably turn away from Gods to the one or the one God and we see this in monotheism, platonic philosophy and in scientific theories of everything.
Surely all religions are merely forms of philosophy.
-
Isn't Pantheism no more than just an ordering and categorising of philosophical ideas....for existence a God of War,,,,,,why not a cross departmental God of conflict for instance?
I think that asks the question who decides demarcation of jobs and the reason for it.
Monotheists suspect pantheists of mere philosophical categorising, atheists can smell it....and often like it which is why they give pantheists an easier ride.
But look at it this way....Thinking must inevitably turn away from Gods to the one or the one God and we see this in monotheism, platonic philosophy and in scientific theories of everything.
Surely all religions are merely forms of philosophy.
Nope. I think mythos forms a part of it as much as logos and therefore agree with Karen Armstrong.....Note I do not see mythos in the modern antitheist sense of myth as being ''wrong logos.''
-
Don't you mean polytheism?
-
Don't you mean polytheism?
Ha ha. I think you're right, I think he does.
-
Don't you mean polytheism?
Ha ha. I think you're right, I think he does.
Yes I am talking about Polytheism and I should maybe have used that term rather than the other meaning of Pantheism which is belief in a pantheon.
-
Don't you mean polytheism?
Ha ha. I think you're right, I think he does.
Yes I am talking about Polytheism and I should maybe have used that term rather than the other meaning of Pantheism which is belief in a pantheon.
Yes I think you should have, since nobody else uses it in the sense that you thought it meant and my (admittedly brief) research on the Internet found no reference to your meaning whatsoever.
You wouldn't want anybody to think you use long words you don't understand, would you?
Update: found one http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheism (scroll quite a long way down)
-
Will ANYONE here ever be able to prove ONE or Many gods anyway ?!?!?!!? ;) ::)
Nick
-
Pantheism means all is God ie the Universe, creation. A believer in pantheism is a pantheist.
A pantheon (all gods) refers to a distinct group of gods eg the Greek pantheon, and a believer in a pantheon is a polytheist.
-
Will ANYONE here ever be able to prove ONE or Many gods anyway ?!?!?!!? ;) ::)
Nick
Nope, but that won't stop them believing they exist.
-
Pantheism is just about the 'one becoming the many'. This has its scientific parallel in the String theory.
Along with this pantheism, polytheism can also exist if there is a hierarchy of creation. They are not mutually exclusive.
-
Some pantheists - or more usually panentheists - can be monotheists (Quakers for example) or polytheists, or not. But a pantheist does not mean a believer in a pantheon.
-
Isn't Pantheism no more than just an ordering and categorising of philosophical ideas....for existence a God of War,,,,,,why not a cross departmental God of conflict for instance?
Why not a god of love?
I think that asks the question who decides demarcation of jobs and the reason for it.
I think that sentence lacks a meaning, or certainly some punctuation.
Monotheists suspect pantheists of mere philosophical categorising, atheists can smell it....and often like it which is why they give pantheists an easier ride.
Some monotheists, possibly - atheists typically give pantheists/polytheists an easier ride because they don't run up against the problem of evil in quite so self-destructive a manner.
But look at it this way....Thinking must inevitably turn away from Gods to the one or the one God and we see this in monotheism, platonic philosophy and in scientific theories of everything.
The evidence of the long history of Hinduism, paganism and Shintoism (amongst others) and the rise of atheism suggests that this isn't, in fact, 'inevitable'.
O.
-
Don't you mean polytheism?
Ha ha. I think you're right, I think he does.
Yes I am talking about Polytheism and I should maybe have used that term rather than the other meaning of Pantheism which is belief in a pantheon.
So explain to me please how exactly polytheism is 'mere philosophy' but presumably in your view monotheism (or perhaps more specifically christianity) isn't 'mere' philosophy.
-
Will ANYONE here ever be able to prove ONE or Many gods anyway ?!?!?!!? ;) ::)
Nick
No. Like philosophy it all comes from the mind of man.
-
Will ANYONE here ever be able to prove ONE or Many gods anyway ?!?!?!!? ;) ::)
Nick
No. Like philosophy it all comes from the mind of man.
Yes..and unfortunately the only way we can understand anything is through our senses, our mind & logic...all of which are limited! But since we have managed so much of science and technology by using these faculties...they can't be too bad I think.
Even our philosophy may be meaningful.
-
Sriram-Ji
We ALL love a good story anyway. ;) ;D
Just wait for all the replies from the anti-theists & atheists now ?!!?!?
What exactly IS the difference, if any???? ???
Nick
-
Will ANYONE here ever be able to prove ONE or Many gods anyway ?!?!?!!? ;) ::)
Nick
No. Like philosophy it all comes from the mind of man.
Yes..and unfortunately the only way we can understand anything is through our senses, our mind & logic...all of which are limited! But since we have managed so much of science and technology by using these faculties...they can't be too bad I think.
Even our philosophy may be meaningful.
Sriram.... so are you saying you don't believe in the existence of the Hindu gods?
-
Will ANYONE here ever be able to prove ONE or Many gods anyway ?!?!?!!? ;) ::)
Nick
No. Like philosophy it all comes from the mind of man.
Yes..and unfortunately the only way we can understand anything is through our senses, our mind & logic...all of which are limited! But since we have managed so much of science and technology by using these faculties...they can't be too bad I think.
Even our philosophy may be meaningful.
Sriram.... so are you saying you don't believe in the existence of the Hindu gods?
Hi SweetPea and Nick,
I was only responding to Jack Knave's comment that all philosophy comes from the human mind. My point is that all our ideas and thoughts, including philosophy, beliefs and scientific theories come only from the human mind. We cannot know or perceive or conceive anything except through our mind.
If from this limited mind we can come up with so much of science and technology...our other ideas could also be meaningful.
That is all.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Will ANYONE here ever be able to prove ONE or Many gods anyway ?!?!?!!? ;) ::)
Nick
No. Like philosophy it all comes from the mind of man.
Yes..and unfortunately the only way we can understand anything is through our senses, our mind & logic...all of which are limited! But since we have managed so much of science and technology by using these faculties...they can't be too bad I think.
Even our philosophy may be meaningful.
Sriram.... so are you saying you don't believe in the existence of the Hindu gods?
Hi SweetPea and Nick,
I was only responding to Jack Knave's comment that all philosophy comes from the human mind. My point is that all our ideas and thoughts, including philosophy, beliefs and scientific theories come only from the human mind. We cannot know or perceive or conceive anything except through our mind.
If from this limited mind we can come up with so much of science and technology...our other ideas could also be meaningful.
That is all.
Cheers.
Sriram
That's interesting but I don't entirely agree. My 'belief' in Ahayah, God comes far more from my inner than my mind. It's difficult to explain, but my relationship with God and Jesus Christ resonates in my heart and even beyond my heart.
-
That's interesting but I don't entirely agree. My 'belief' in Ahayah, God comes far more from my inner than my mind. It's difficult to explain, but my relationship with God and Jesus Christ resonates in my heart and even beyond my heart.
Nice poetic language Sweetpea but it is the brain which hosts our thoughts, not the heart. Those thoughts, beliefs etc may be deeply felt but that doesn't mean they come from anywhere other than the brain.
-
That's interesting but I don't entirely agree. My 'belief' in Ahayah, God comes far more from my inner than my mind. It's difficult to explain, but my relationship with God and Jesus Christ resonates in my heart and even beyond my heart.
Nice poetic language Sweetpea but it is the brain which hosts our thoughts, not the heart. Those thoughts, beliefs etc may be deeply felt but that doesn't mean they come from anywhere other than the brain.
You have no proof for that, that is a mere assertion and speculation.
-
As is religion !!!! ;)
-
That's interesting but I don't entirely agree. My 'belief' in Ahayah, God comes far more from my inner than my mind. It's difficult to explain, but my relationship with God and Jesus Christ resonates in my heart and even beyond my heart.
Nice poetic language Sweetpea but it is the brain which hosts our thoughts, not the heart. Those thoughts, beliefs etc may be deeply felt but that doesn't mean they come from anywhere other than the brain.
You have no proof for that, that is a mere assertion and speculation.
Which bit? All scientific evidence shows that are thoughts are associated with activity in the brain, there is no evidence that the heart does anything other than pump blood that I know of. Even those who believe in an external consciousness seem to accept that the brain is the receiver and processor of that consciousness, not the heart. So do you think a relationship can resonate in the muscle we call the heart?
-
We feel emotion in the body - in the heart and stomach among other places. This is usually as the result of hormonal changes because we detect fear, or pleasure, or satisfaction. CBT takes the model that emotion arises as a result of thought, consciously or subconsciously. I've known people dispute that, but I think it indisputable that we experience our beliefs about the world in our body as well as our mind.
-
We feel emotion in the body - in the heart and stomach among other places. This is usually as the result of hormonal changes because we detect fear, or pleasure, or satisfaction. CBT takes the model that emotion arises as a result of thought, consciously or subconsciously. I've known people dispute that, but I think it indisputable that we experience our beliefs about the world in our body as well as our mind.
Of course we feel the results of our emotions throughout our bodies due to hormonal changes etc, that wasn't being denied.
-
So to SweetPea it will feel that is where her love for God resides, and his for her.
-
So to SweetPea it will feel that is where her love for God resides, and his for her.
Sure, she might feel that, but the point being made was that it is brain which hosts our thoughts and beliefs and referring to the heart in the way in which it was is poetic language. I don't think anything said has shown that to be incorrect. The heart tends to be used as a metaphor for deeper feelings and emotions and beliefs but this is poetic language surely.
-
SweetPea says she feels her love for God not just in her mind but in her heart and elsewhere. That seems entirely plausible given that is how many (most?) would describe loving another human being. If she'd said it only resides or originates in her heart, without the mind, then that would be erroneous.
-
Is there anyone here whose heart, when they've thought of or seen someone else they really love, has beaten stronger & faster ?!!?!?
Nick
-
SweetPea says she feels her love for God not just in her mind but in her heart and elsewhere. That seems entirely plausible given that is how many (most?) would describe loving another human being. If she'd said it only resides or originates in her heart, without the mind, then that would be erroneous.
Perhaps we should leave it to Sweatpea to say more, if she wishes, rather than both trying to interpret what she said.
-
It is, as you suggested earlier, a poetic statement and so open to our interpretation. Taking a "literalalist" approach to it entirely misses the point.
-
But I do understand the feeling if loving with the body as well as mind. I describe having children as having your heart existing outside your body. That is of course a metaphor but it does in some sense reflect the very real physical pain and joy of the love that I have for my kids.
-
It is, as you suggested earlier, a poetic statement and so open to our interpretation. Taking a "literalalist" approach to it entirely misses the point.
Okay.
-
That's interesting but I don't entirely agree. My 'belief' in Ahayah, God comes far more from my inner than my mind. It's difficult to explain, but my relationship with God and Jesus Christ resonates in my heart and even beyond my heart.
Nice poetic language Sweetpea but it is the brain which hosts our thoughts, not the heart. Those thoughts, beliefs etc may be deeply felt but that doesn't mean they come from anywhere other than the brain.
You have no proof for that, that is a mere assertion and speculation.
Which bit? All scientific evidence shows that are thoughts are associated with activity in the brain, there is no evidence that the heart does anything other than pump blood that I know of. Even those who believe in an external consciousness seem to accept that the brain is the receiver and processor of that consciousness, not the heart. So do you think a relationship can resonate in the muscle we call the heart?
Actually if you consider the biofield and the chakras...the heart area does store, emit and receive emotional energies. Its called the Anahata chakra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anahata
-
Why should I consider the biofield and chakras though, when there is no evidence they exist?
-
Sriram.... agreed.
Maeght, it's ok.... I understand exactly where you're coming from. We are on different wavelengths, literally, that's not just an expression. I'm 'tuned' in one direction and you in another. This is why we 'connect' with certain people and not with others. It really doesn't matter.
Try this.... do you believe you are an atheist or do you 'feel' you are an atheist. In other words does the thought resonate more deeply.
Another, similar to Trippy's analogy: have you ever experienced a broken heart? If so, did your head ache or did your heart ache?
-
Why should I consider the biofield and chakras though, when there is no evidence they exist?
How do you know whether any other planet exist?
If we only believe what we see then why do we have teachers ?!?!!?!?
Nick
-
SweetPea says she feels her love for God not just in her mind but in her heart and elsewhere. That seems entirely plausible
The heart is just a pump. It does not have a central nervous system. Obviously, in certain circumstances, it beats faster and your brain may notice that. However, if somebody says "I know God exists in my heart" it is purely metaphorical.
-
Sticking my head above the parapet somewhat, my own experience is that the bio field and energy healing are both 'real', and that chakras are a good way to work with that (a bit like reading a map). I know there's no evidence for that, but I think that is because we don't yet have the capacity (or maybe the inclination) to prove what to me is entirely natural and un-woo.
-
SweetPea says she feels her love for God not just in her mind but in her heart and elsewhere. That seems entirely plausible
The heart is just a pump. It does not have a central nervous system. Obviously, in certain circumstances, it beats faster and your brain may notice that. However, if somebody says "I know God exists in my heart" it is purely metaphorical.
During a severe anxiety attack I feel like my heart will stop and my blood pressure raises. When I fall in love my stomach contracts and I can't eat.
But yes, it's impossible to know with the heart. The heart is where we feel things, not know things. And feelings are unreliable in terms of giving us impartial knowledge.
-
That's interesting but I don't entirely agree. My 'belief' in Ahayah, God comes far more from my inner than my mind. It's difficult to explain, but my relationship with God and Jesus Christ resonates in my heart and even beyond my heart.
Nice poetic language Sweetpea but it is the brain which hosts our thoughts, not the heart. Those thoughts, beliefs etc may be deeply felt but that doesn't mean they come from anywhere other than the brain.
You have no proof for that, that is a mere assertion and speculation.
Which bit? All scientific evidence shows that are thoughts are associated with activity in the brain, there is no evidence that the heart does anything other than pump blood that I know of. Even those who believe in an external consciousness seem to accept that the brain is the receiver and processor of that consciousness, not the heart. So do you think a relationship can resonate in the muscle we call the heart?
This joke about how some people use the word heart as a reference to our inner feelings and spirit or life is really running very thin - not funny mate!!!
-
Is there anyone here whose heart, when they've thought of or seen someone else they really love, has beaten stronger & faster ?!!?!?
Nick
Fear has the same effect.
-
Why should I consider the biofield and chakras though, when there is no evidence they exist?
How do you know whether any other planet exist?
If we only believe what we see then why do we have teachers ?!?!!?!?
Nick
Teaching is based on trust and the inculcation of social norms.
-
Sriram.... agreed.
Maeght, it's ok.... I understand exactly where you're coming from. We are on different wavelengths, literally, that's not just an expression. I'm 'tuned' in one direction and you in another. This is why we 'connect' with certain people and not with others. It really doesn't matter.
Indeed, just a discussion.
Try this.... do you believe you are an atheist or do you 'feel' you are an atheist. In other words does the thought resonate more deeply.
I've no idea what resonate more deeply means I'm afraid. I have no belief in God and when I hear religious speak it means nothing to me.
Another, similar to Trippy's analogy: have you ever experienced a broken heart? If so, did your head ache or did your heart ache?
I have experienced emotions which emanate from my thoughts - which have cause physical sensations in my body. Heartache is a poetic phrase but the ache is not in or emanating from my heart.
-
Why should I consider the biofield and chakras though, when there is no evidence they exist?
How do you know whether any other planet exist?
If we only believe what we see then why do we have teachers ?!?!!?!?
Nick
Did you reply to the right post there?
-
This joke about how some people use the word heart as a reference to our inner feelings and spirit or life is really running very thin - not funny mate!!!
What joke? Not sure what you are getting at to be honest.
-
Why should I consider the biofield and chakras though, when there is no evidence they exist?
How do you know whether any other planet exist?
If we only believe what we see then why do we have teachers ?!?!!?!?
Nick
Did you reply to the right post there?
AHH Yes You're one of those here who thinks that we should ALL do & say as YOU do & if YOU don't get it it must be wrong.
Nuff said !!!
-
Hi everyone,
We use the word 'heart' to refer to our feelings because the feelings actually exist in the heart chakra (anahata). Similarly with jealousy in the solar plexus chakra and fear in the navel chakra and so on.
When the heart chakra is fed with positive energy it expands and we feel fulfilled and happy. If it is not fed it becomes depleted and small, we feel deprived and unhappy.
The activities of these energies that surround us initiate corresponding chemical activity in the body which responds accordingly.
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
-
We use the word 'heart' to refer to our feelings because the feelings actually exist in the heart chakra (anahata).
No, it doesn't. We use the word 'heart' to refer to a source of feelings because the hormonal response to certain strong emotional states affects the heartbeat and ancient people's made a false correlation.
Similarly with jealousy in the solar plexus chakra and fear in the navel chakra and so on.
There is no evidence for any sort of 'energy field' that correlates with the notion of chakras.
O.
-
Why should I consider the biofield and chakras though, when there is no evidence they exist?
How do you know whether any other planet exist?
If we only believe what we see then why do we have teachers ?!?!!?!?
Nick
Did you reply to the right post there?
AHH Yes You're one of those here who thinks that we should ALL do & say as YOU do & if YOU don't get it it must be wrong.
Nuff said !!!
Not at all trippmonkey. people are free to think, believe and post what they want and we are all free to discuss it. I genuinely couldn't see that you were replying to me and what I actually wrote.
If you meant we shouldn't discount chakra and biofield just because there isn't any evidence for them then fine. But my point was that Sriram put them forward to support the idea of emotions etc actually emanating from the heart and you can't really use something for which there is no evidence to support something else for which there is no evidence. That was my point.
-
Hi everyone,
We use the word 'heart' to refer to our feelings because the feelings actually exist in the heart chakra (anahata). Similarly with jealousy in the solar plexus chakra and fear in the navel chakra and so on.
When the heart chakra is fed with positive energy it expands and we feel fulfilled and happy. If it is not fed it becomes depleted and small, we feel deprived and unhappy.
The activities of these energies that surround us initiate corresponding chemical activity in the body which responds accordingly.
Just some thoughts.
Sriram
What Outrider said.