Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:00 pm
Pantheists tend to posit a conscious intentional deity,
I'm sure it's not practical that we'll ever have this, but I'd love to see a poll of self described pantheists to see how frequent this "conscious intentional deity" belief is compared to the Einsteinian "God is the universe and the laws of physics" non-personal type of approach.
It seems like both approaches are pretty common. I don't know how many of the replies here are from actual pantheists though - it's from the pantheism subreddit, so maybe most?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:00 pm
Pantheists tend to posit a conscious intentional deity,
I'm sure it's not practical that we'll ever have this, but I'd love to see a poll of self described pantheists to see how frequent this "conscious intentional deity" belief is compared to the Einsteinian "God is the universe and the laws of physics" non-personal type of approach.
It seems like both approaches are pretty common. I don't know how many of the replies here are from actual pantheists though - it's from the pantheism subreddit, so maybe most?
Why did you feel the need to cut out part of what Sculptor stated?
Here:>>
Sculptor wrote:Pantheists tend to posit a conscious intentional deity, and that is where Spinoza departs from the idea. Spinoza does not dismiss consciousness as part of god, because it is present in humans.
I make the point because it pisses me off when people do it to me, and also because what he stated resonates with the topic.
If I quote someone in a way to take their words deliberately out of context to make it appear as if they were saying something that they were not saying, please call me out.
If someone says a bunch of words and I want to just reply to a few of them, then don't.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:00 pm
Pantheists tend to posit a conscious intentional deity,
I'm sure it's not practical that we'll ever have this, but I'd love to see a poll of self described pantheists to see how frequent this "conscious intentional deity" belief is compared to the Einsteinian "God is the universe and the laws of physics" non-personal type of approach.
It seems like both approaches are pretty common. I don't know how many of the replies here are from actual pantheists though - it's from the pantheism subreddit, so maybe most?
Can you be a pantheist while thinking God is a person and has personal attributes?
What a fucking ridiculous question to start any survey of pantheism.
I should be more specific perhaps: the question he asked wasn't tailored specifically for the question I had in mind, and he didn't ask it for the purpose of getting statistical results. He asked it probably because he considers himself a pantheist and wanted to know if his beliefs matched those of other pantheists. It seemed more like he was interested in people's reasoning for their various answers, rather than him being interested in "conducting a survey".
His question may seem ridiculous to you if your view is that the purpose of the question was to "conduct a survey" rather than him just asking a bunch of people a question.
Is it a survey any time you ask any group of people a question?
In general, pantheism is the view that rejects the transcendence of God. According to the pantheist, God is, in some way, identical with the world. There may be aspects of God that are ontologically or epistemologically distinct from the world, but for pantheism this must not imply that God is essentially separate from the world. The pantheist is also likely to reject any kind of anthropomorphizing of God, or attributing to the deity psychological and moral characteristics modeled on human nature. The pantheist’s God is (usually) not a personal God.
Again, I'm not and have never implied that all pantheists view god in this way, just that it is a viable interpretation of what it means when someone says God is "non personal" - they frequently mean "not like a person, especially in regards to having thoughts and desires". They don't exclusively mean that, but that's frequently the direction they're going.
If I am misrepresenting pantheists then apparently so is Stanford
In general, pantheism is the view that rejects the transcendence of God. According to the pantheist, God is, in some way, identical with the world. There may be aspects of God that are ontologically or epistemologically distinct from the world, but for pantheism this must not imply that God is essentially separate from the world. The pantheist is also likely to reject any kind of anthropomorphizing of God, or attributing to the deity psychological and moral characteristics modeled on human nature. The pantheist’s God is (usually) not a personal God.
Again, I'm not and have never implied that all pantheists view god in this way, just that it is a viable interpretation of what it means when someone says God is "non personal" - they frequently mean "not like a person, especially in regards to having thoughts and desires". They don't exclusively mean that, but that's frequently the direction they're going.
If I am misrepresenting pantheists then apparently so is Stanford
As far as I am concerned any notion of a God as a creator that doesn't have any thought of what it is doing in it's creation should be in the definition of a loony bin - panstoopid - panatheism for a couple of examples.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:00 pm
Pantheists tend to posit a conscious intentional deity,
I'm sure it's not practical that we'll ever have this, but I'd love to see a poll of self described pantheists to see how frequent this "conscious intentional deity" belief is compared to the Einsteinian "God is the universe and the laws of physics" non-personal type of approach.
It seems like both approaches are pretty common. I don't know how many of the replies here are from actual pantheists though - it's from the pantheism subreddit, so maybe most?
I can't say about how many. But the Spinoza scholars are keen to distance Spinoza from "Pantheists".
In a quite staggering act of self contradiction, many Christians are also pantheistic, as well as attributing to god as many characteristics as they can collect without narey a care for the inconsistencies in logic and common sense that such a bricolage entails.
In general, pantheism is the view that rejects the transcendence of God. According to the pantheist, God is, in some way, identical with the world. There may be aspects of God that are ontologically or epistemologically distinct from the world, but for pantheism this must not imply that God is essentially separate from the world. The pantheist is also likely to reject any kind of anthropomorphizing of God, or attributing to the deity psychological and moral characteristics modeled on human nature. The pantheist’s God is (usually) not a personal God.
Again, I'm not and have never implied that all pantheists view god in this way, just that it is a viable interpretation of what it means when someone says God is "non personal" - they frequently mean "not like a person, especially in regards to having thoughts and desires". They don't exclusively mean that, but that's frequently the direction they're going.
If I am misrepresenting pantheists then apparently so is Stanford
As far as I am concerned any notion of a God as a creator that doesn't have any thought of what it is doing in it's creation should be in the definition of a loony bin - panstoopid - panatheism for a couple of examples.
attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon May 22, 2023 1:29 pm
Pray for me.
I found a box of frozen "Bangers n Mash" at my local shop...now is the time. (I couldn't be bothered cooking...mmm)
-
I love the selling point "50% Larger". Well? Larger than what?
Is it 500g or not? No its still 500g. So how is it larger?
er.... fewer sausages???
Valid questions. It's main sell point was "PUB SIZE" ...but I know something about Australian pubs when they advertise "bangers n mash"
The 'bangers' are usually their normal bbq size sausages (and they taste rather ordinary) - so I figured by the image and the 50% larger - that it was the sausages. Shit, if they were 50% larger than the bangers my Gramps used to buy the box would have been bulging!
..it actually wasn't too bad a feed btw.
Last edited by attofishpi on Mon May 22, 2023 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
