[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 32 KB, 304x172, pantheism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3851574 No.3851574 [Reply] [Original]

>2011
>Not being a pantheist

I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>> No.3851666
File: 54 KB, 407x497, 3b6d64754f9c424e8bf9cfafcdc77639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3851666

I mean for reals, many great scientists have been pantheists, even Einstein and Hawking.

>> No.3851671

>>3851666
>Einstein kinda/maybe
>Hawking NOPE

>> No.3851683

>>3851666
>many great scientists
have been a lot of things but many of them, if confronted with today's current understanding of physics and the sheer scale of shit in general, would probably shit themselves and promptly change their minds about any sort of personal god or completely let go of the God idea all together.

>> No.3851687
File: 64 KB, 646x536, carl_sagan[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3851687

favorite Carl Sagan quote:

"atheism is very stupid."

>> No.3851695

>>3851683
same can be said about Charles Darwin's thoughts on evolution in the light of 2011's understanding of the cell

>> No.3851698

>implying I haven't been considering pantheism for a long time

>> No.3851705

>>3851695
how so? if your saying he would consider evolution false after that then show him our understanding of DNA and genetics and how shit does change over time.

>> No.3851713

>>3851687
>>3851687
I love using this one against militant butthurt Atheists. I love how the situation unfolds:

Atheist: Agnostic? Lol are you fucking retarded, it's just as stupid to take that stance as it is to believe in a God.

Me: Well actually a lot of great people have been agnostics, Carl Sagan was and he thought that Atheism was really stupid

Atheist: WHAT YOU CAN PROOVE THAT WTF

Me: Actually the wikipedia article says otherwise (show him source)

Atheist: FFUUUUUUUUUUU-

>> No.3851723

>>3851713
>wikipedia article
really now? wikipedia article as reliable source?

>> No.3851727

>>3851723
That's strange. It seems to come in very convenient for you skeptics whenever you try to write off some strange event or conspiracy as a hoax

>> No.3851733

>>3851727
>you skeptics
I'm not really a skeptic, im just saying i see threads on 4chan all the time about, Lets go fuck with wiki pages.

>> No.3851735

>>3851705
i am saying that when Darwin thought evolution could happen, he believed so because the current understanding of a cell only had like 10 parts to it, if he knew the true complexity of the cell (as far as we do today), I am not sure he would continue with his theory

>> No.3851744

>>3851723
a lot of professors have their grad students fact check wikipedia articles related to thier fields of study. try to add fake information to one, and see how long it lasts.
especially to such a high profile one like Carl Sagan's.

>> No.3851751

>pantheism
>nature is a deity
>nature is a supernatural entity
>nature is supernatural

Nice logical consistency there. Also, nature is so far removed from the conventional definition of a deity that all you're doing is trying to make yourself look less like a non-believer. Man up pussy.

>> No.3851754

>>3851735
well i said if they had the entire understanding of todays physics so we could assume he would have the same broadness of understanding of his science branch which would be Biology?

>> No.3851762
File: 223 KB, 809x2527, Athéisme - contre nordique.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3851762

>2011
>Les religions ne sont pas mortes.

Pick two.(Déprimant)

>> No.3851763

>>3851751
Essentially, "deity" in pantheism is just a metaphor for the divinity of the union of all things.

>> No.3851767

Pantheism is meaningless.

To say everything is God you might as well say that nothing is God. But hey, prove me wrong. Tell me what exactly does it mean to believe that we're all part of God, and how is it different from saying we're all part of the universe.

>> No.3851770

>2011
>caring

>> No.3851772

>>3851754
hmm, i think we are going off onto different tangents, but thinking we are on the same page.

but in response to your original post, I still dont think so. what people know about stuff doesnt have too much of a bearing on their reasoning abilities. I know more about physics than Newton does, but I dont think I am anywhere near his level of thinking.
If an old timey scientist believed in some sort of god, they came to that conclusion through a great level of thinking.

>> No.3851778

>>3851713
can you go back to /b/?

>> No.3851781

>>3851767

Pantheism doesn't really say nature is supernatural, it says that nature doesn't really exist, it is an illusion. Thus, everything real must be supernatural. Seems logically consistent to me.

>>3851751

It is, more or less, saying the same thing as saying we are all a part of the universe, pantheism is simply an interpretation of what the universe is. Atheists say the universe is a set of scientific laws and logical conclusions. Monotheism says that the universe is a construct of God, and is still real. Pantheism says the sensed universe is not real. It is an illusion, and everything that is above the universe (life, God, etc.) is all a part of whatever is above, it is all the same.

>> No.3851793

>>3851778
>Doesn't agree with my story
>HURR MUST BE A BTARRRD

I've been on /sci/ for two years and am doing a Masters in Chemistry so please kindly FUCK OFF

>> No.3851798

>>3851767
Pantheism deals with both sides of this. Some people believe that there is no god, but there is still a Union of all things in existence. Whether or not they dub this relation as holy or not really doesn't matter, as long as they recognize its relationship.

>> No.3851803

>>3851793
>Doesn't agree with my story

what the fuck does that even mean?

>>>/b/

>> No.3851811

>>3851781

>Atheists say the universe is a set of scientific laws and logical conclusions.

Technically those are physicalists.

>Pantheism says the sensed universe is not real. It is an illusion, and everything that is above the universe (life, God, etc.) is all a part of whatever is above, it is all the same.

Do you really think the kiddos on /sci/ believe that, or do they just get emotional after watching Sagan marvel over the awesomeness of the Universe? Regardless, it flies in the face of anything empirical and consequently contradicts science. Op implied it is the best belief because, I presume, he has the aforementioned Sagan-pantheism in mind and not the pantheism that originated as being extremely mystical and magical.

>> No.3851857

>>3851574
>Patterns in nature.
>The cosmic microwave background was Jesus the whole tiem!!1