/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6456278]

>How does one reconcile the idea of being atheist with the diversity of theism that exists and the diversity of the word "worship"?

To say "I don't believe in your god" to a Pantheist seems absurd. To say you don't worship would imply you don't give reverence or adoration to anything which is exceedingly difficult to find in the modern world. Easy examples of this to the general apathist is the adoration of themselves and their will or cultural values and heroes.

[Anonymous No.6456302]

I don't know what you're going on about with the whole worship thing. Pantheism isn't really a thing except for maybe Hinduism, and even then there is a whole other core set of beliefs that you can argue/disagree with.

[Anonymous No.6456307]

>>6456302
Explain please

[Anonymous No.6456318]

>>6456307

I guess my meaning is that the pantheist "God" is an entirely different concept than the Semetic idea of "God", they should be two different things or else discussion is basically impossible.

Same with worship, for a Christian to worship is to ascribe the status of Godhood. For example Catholics will make it explicitly clear that they "venerate" Saints/icons, in contrast to worship, which is reserved for the Trinity.

[Anonymous No.6456336]

>>6456318
>I guess my meaning is that the pantheist "God" is an entirely different concept than the Semetic idea of "God", they should be two different things or else discussion is basically impossible.
There are a wide array of theistic beliefs in the world. To use words that separate the meaning of divinity and god between theistic faiths would break down the unifying concept of theism. You'll have to have a universal understanding of God that fits both the god of Abraham and the god of Spinoza to stay consistent.

>Same with worship, for a Christian to worship is to ascribe the status of Godhood. For example Catholics will make it explicitly clear that they "venerate" Saints/icons, in contrast to worship, which is reserved for the Trinity.

And again, we'll need a unifying term for worship. And yes, it would be good if it was separate from actually "honoring" someone, like Catholics with saints.

[Anonymous No.6456349]

>>6456336

I'll just go ahead and say that I'm operating under a Catholic worldview for the sake of transparency.

Can we agree that God is an "unmoved mover", something that exists outside of our possible understanding? Because a scientist pantheist would most likely assert that God is knowable, but not with current capability.

As for the idea of worship, I'm not sure how we go about this. Maybe to ascribe utmost importance? For example someone who believes that the story of the 300 Spartans (just to give an example outside of theology) is representative of some kind of objective moral guideline?

[Anonymous No.6456350]

Telling a pantheist that their special snowflake version of the universe, and god, doesn't exist, isn't just reasonable, it should be encouraged.

[Anonymous No.6456357]

>>6456350
>oldest conception of the divine in the world
>special snowflake

[Anonymous No.6456362]

>>6456357

Didn't you hear? Anyone who isn't a nihilist thinks they're a special snowflake. Narcissism is the ultimate sin but self-loathing is great.

[Anonymous No.6456469]

>>6456357
If someone believed in a diet berries and ants and called themselves ooga booga they'd still be a special snowflake.

>le born in the wrong oooga bazoogo

[Anonymous No.6456505]

>>6456357
How do you know it's the oldest?

[Anonymous No.6456528]

>>6456278
>To say "I don't believe in your god" to a Pantheist seems absurd.
If a pantheist has failed to provide evidence for their beliefs other than faith, failing to subscribe to those beliefs is in no way absurd.
Provide evidence for your deities, using almost any definition of "deity" you'd like.

[Anonymous No.6456553]

Athesism def, the belief that with finite knowledge you can deny the existence of infinite being with 100% certainty.

[Anonymous No.6456556]

Semitic religion has turned into a worship of submission (which we can see most prominently in Islam and older fundamentalist Catholicism/Orthodoxy) it's original intent imho was supposed to be more akin to Islamic Sufis or the Quakers, or like image of God presented in the Cloud of Unknowing

The other main religious school, rather than Semitic monotheism or submission to the Lord is the Dharmic traditions or adherence to the Law

This is an entirely different culture, with different frames of reference. You'll have to begin to understand the pantheism in the Eastern mythos serves more of an aesthetic purpose than Christians or Muslims would ever understand

[Anonymous No.6456581]

>>6456553

>what is a strawman

[Anonymous No.6456673]

>>6456556
>serves more of an aesthetic purpose than Christians or Muslims would ever understand
Which is woefully apparent in interfaith dialogue. The abrahamic objections I've seen to the dharmic religions have actually made me lmao on more than one occasion

[Anonymous No.6456689]

Fairly easily, none of them are justified by anyone sort of logic or evidence. Contiue LARPing as level 8 buddhist monk.

[Anonymous No.6456710]

>>6456553
>infinite being
>who's not in my finite view

xd ebin trol m8 i r8 8/8

[Anonymous No.6456731]

>>6456689
>any sort of logic or evidence
But the universe does exist and sustains our being.

[Anonymous No.6456765]

>>6456528
Okay.
A deity is a supreme being.
What rules over us is objects and elements of nature.
These elements are determined by other elements of nature.
As what rules over us immediately is made to function this way because of other things the one thing ruling over us supremely is nature itself rather than parts of it.
Nature exists.

Go ahead. Disprove this.

>>6456349
>Can we agree that God is an "unmoved mover", something that exists outside of our possible understanding? Because a scientist pantheist would most likely assert that God is knowable, but not with current capability.
No, as religions exist that don't follow this. The issue I'm bringing up is that Atheism struggles due to the complexity of things called theistic thought. You trying to cut down on the complexity to make a point is ignoring the question outright.

[Anonymous No.6457050]

start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.6457057]

>>6456765
>the one thing ruling over us supremely is nature
Why must one thing rule over us?

[Anonymous No.6457063]

>>6457057
There doesn't have to be. This is only what is capable of being discerned by evidence.

[Anonymous No.6457068]

>>6457063
What evidence do you have that a single thing rules us?

[Anonymous No.6457070]

>>6456278
One more time. Being an agnostic atheist just means I don't see enough proof that any deities exist, and choose not to believe in them. Period.
It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution, Big Bang, or any other theory. It doesn't mean I read Dawkins, worship science or even think the world is round. I can believe in ghosts, UFOs, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, and Atlantis. The only f**king requirement is that I don't believe in any supernatural beings that I consider holy or sacred. I don't have to explain the fossil record or the history of the universe. It doesn't mean I hate religion, or churches, or want to see the end of anyone else's faith. It has nothing to do with whether I give to charities, try to be moral or ethical, or obey the law. It doesn't mean I think life is meaningless, or care what anyone else believes or thinks. I just reject theist explanations as sounding silly to me, and the rest is personal. If I see anything to change my mind, I'll let you know.

[Anonymous No.6457079]

>>6457068
I suppose it would be clearer to say that we know of one thing that rules us.

>>6457070
>One more time. Being an agnostic atheist just means I don't see enough proof that any deities exist, and choose not to believe in them. Period.
No shit.

>It doesn't necessarily mean I believe in evolution, Big Bang, or any other theory. It doesn't mean I read Dawkins, worship science or even think the world is round. I can believe in ghosts, UFOs, elves, the Loch Ness Monster, and Atlantis.

No shit.

>The only f**king requirement is that I don't believe in any supernatural beings that I consider holy or sacred
This does not account for all manners of theism that exist. Pantheism is theistic without being supernatural.

> I don't have to explain the fossil record or the history of the universe. It doesn't mean I hate religion, or churches, or want to see the end of anyone else's faith. It has nothing to do with whether I give to charities, try to be moral or ethical, or obey the law. It doesn't mean I think life is meaningless, or care what anyone else believes or thinks.

No shit.

>I just reject theist explanations as sounding silly to me, and the rest is personal. If I see anything to change my mind, I'll let you know.

Well why reject my deity in >>6456765 ?

>anon in charge of reading

[Anonymous No.6457087]

>>6457079
Because pantheism--as you describe it there-is such a generalized spiritualism that it's essentially just an attitude towards the natural world, and doesn't require any refuting. It's not asking us to believe in a supernatural consciousness in the usual sense, and I have no problem with it on any level. I suspect many people who call themselves atheist, pagan, etc., would find that closest to their actual feelings if put to a lie detector.

[Anonymous No.6457089]

>>6457079
>we know of one thing that rules us.
Oh, of course. I don't think anyone could reject that we are subject to the laws of nature. But it is a leap to jump from "there is something humans are subject to" to "there is one singular thing humans are subject to above all else." It is also a leap to anthropomorphize that thing humans are subject to unto a "being."

[Anonymous No.6457091]

>>6457087
>Because pantheism--as you describe it there-is such a generalized spiritualism that it's essentially just an attitude towards the natural world,
So if godhood is purely an attitude towards something then are atheist just people without this attitude for anything at all? Even themselves?

[Anonymous No.6457098]

>>6456765
That argument is missing 3 things:

defining 'us'

why 'us' escapes being 'objects and elements of nature'

and the most important part, the definition of pantheism: that 'a deity is a supreme being' maps to 'objects and elements of nature'

Don't even need to say that god doesn't exist because your conclusion doesn't even exist m8.

[Anonymous No.6457104]

>>6457091
Some, but atheism is a response to organized religion, not necessarily a refutation or denial of absolutely any spiritual feelings. Many people respect or are awed by nature but describe themselves as atheist, because they follow to model of worship. Veneration has many shades.

[Anonymous No.6457111]

>>6457104
Awe is different from veneration or worship.

[Anonymous No.6457115]

>>6457089
This really seems to end up being semantic then at this point. You make a solid point of the word "being" being anthropomorphism but it does not change the worship and admiration of the thing they do it to and that to that form of theism it is God.

>>6457104
>Some, but atheism is a response to organized religion, not necessarily a refutation or denial of absolutely any spiritual feelings.
Then why call it atheism? You're allowing theistic beliefs by not having a rejection of pantheism and people who apply godhood to certain things.
The breakdown of the word does not make sense with it only be without organized theistic belief.

[Anonymous No.6457126]

>>6457104
Theism is a subset of 'spiritual feelings'.

[Anonymous No.6457152]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/God?
>An image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/divine
>sacred
>Of, from, or like God or a god:

I feel OP's point is that the concept of a god is personally applied and is so diverse that it does not have to limit itself to things outside the natural world. Because of it, atheism says more about the person's personal views of things in the natural world rather than their lack of a religion.

This would mean most atheists are ill-defined and treat themselves, material things, metaphysical values, or other things as a god rather than rejecting gods overtly.

>Atheists want atheism to mean a lack of belief in the supernatural but theists won't let them

[Anonymous No.6457156]

>>6457126
>Theism is a subset of 'spiritual feelings'
Exactly, and not the other way around. That's why atheism is a more accurate description for someone who is in no way considering any organized faiths, or even the existence of an afterlife or immortal conscious beings, as plausible.
Semantics aside, the declaration of atheism--the label--is a negative of another concept; it doesn't stand alone. It's the absence of belief that any deities exist, and that requires a definition of exactly what counts as a "deity," so I refer to the idea of something requiring worship.

[Anonymous No.6457204]

>>6457115

This is how google defines theism
>Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods

>specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe
Pantheism is, I think, most often not theist. At least according to the definition from above

[Anonymous No.6457227]

>>6457204
>Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods
This holds up. See the poster in >>6457152
>specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe
Buddhism isn't theistic? The definition you read is Christiocentric.

[Anonymous No.6457248]

>>6457227
>Buddhism isn't theistic?
Mahayana Buddhism is explicitly theistic, while other forms still require systems underlined by supernatural agents or forces outside human experience to function.

[Anonymous No.6457252]

>>6457248
>separating it down to schools for no reason

[Anonymous No.6457267]

>>6457252
Schools of thought differ to the extent that differentiating them for the purposes of assessment results in useful differences/predictions.

[Anonymous No.6457282]

>>6457152
This is a solid point.

[Anonymous No.6457361]

>>6457156
subset, you fagtard, subset, i.e. meaning if you reject the subset, you do not necessarily reject its superset, i.e. an atheist can have spiritual feelings; your description is more along the lines of like an a-spiritualist, or an a-supernaturalist, not that anyone ever uses those terms, not that anyone doesn't use atheist as you describe, but on pure semantics, the definitions don't align, but usage implies definition, etc., etc. And your little thing about atheism existing because of theism? No shit.

[Anonymous No.6457430]

>>6457361
That's a lot of flack for a post that didn't actually disagree with anything I wrote.

[Anonymous No.6457436]

>>6457152
>I feel OP's point is that the concept of a god is personally applied

You mean personally defined. You don't personally apply a god to yourself. That doesn't make any sense. This means atheists can not only appropriate definitions in order to reject them, but

>Because of it, atheism says more about the person's personal views of things in the natural world rather than their lack of a religion.

If definitions of god are personal, then one person's definition wouldn't impact the worldview of someone who disbelieved it. Otherwise someone who believed cheese is god, would not only impact the worldview of atheists, but other theists rejecting that god.

>This would mean most atheists are ill-defined and treat themselves, material things, metaphysical values, or other things as a god rather than rejecting gods overtly.

A poor definition of god means theism is ill defined. That atheism is ill defined is implied.

All your points can't be applied to atheists specifically, because they impact theism too, and in bizarre ways. They sound like fundie works, or Zizek, because I've heard both say some incredibly stupid things in this vein. And Zizek is popular on reddit, so maybe you're from there. At least Zizek recognizes that his definition is a unique snowflake, which is what I assume you left out.

Come to think of it, Zizek probably cribbed his position off of fundamentalist Christians. Precisely the kind of thing he'd do, not having a genuine bone in his body. Not his fault of course, all his argument strategies were born of hiding ideas like a faggot commie squirrel under Tito.

[Anonymous No.6457644]

I'm leaving this discussion to draw the adventures of Zizek, the faggot commie squirrel!