Pantheism and its implications.

File: image.png (186KB, 463x515px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 463x515px

>>1406015
Big Bang, et al. Pretty much makes sense. Sorta of an AA Atheist Higher Power thing. There are no implications. It's the way it is. Everybody else can just "get over it".

>>1406103
stop posting that fucking image, shitposter

>>1406103
Well, I disagree with that. Marcus Aurelius for instance said that since we're all components of the same divinity, it is our duty to cooperate, as lower teeth cooperate with upper teeth. It's a clear implication that follows from the central premise.

There's also nothing atheistic about it.

File: Manson.gif (498KB, 480x370px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 480x370px

I can see it going either the way of extreme sacralization of the universe or extreme trivialization of the sacred, leading to cynicism, amorality, and even psychopathy, and even both extremes at the same time.

Every meal is an eucharist; every turd is a god.

Every man is my neighbor; murder is a great sin. I am every man; murder is not a sin because I have the right over my own body.

Every word is a prayer, even swear words.

Every act is divine; there is no sin or judge; to kill a man is no more serious than brushing one's teeth.

>>1406125
Why would you assume that atheists can not believe in a common good and have a desire to cooperate with their fellow man for the better of mankind and protection of Gaia (for lack of a better term)

>>1406199
I don't assume that, you bloody moron. I said pantheism isn't atheistic, as there is a form of theism present in it.

>>1406213
Like I said, the AA Athiest Twelve Step Higher Power. I know many an atheist who accept the Universe as their "higher power".

Pretty simple really

Have a blessed day.

Pantheism is most logical theism. If God exist, it can't really be separated from anything, because separation means limitation and God is unlimited.

>>1406229
So, what you're saying, let me get this straight, is that you're a fucking imbecile? Did I get that right?

There is an obvious difference between a universe in which nothing has any special relation to anything else, and one in which everything is in fact part of a singular divinity.

I don't know much about pantheism as an established philosophy, but it's a sort of thing I could get behind.
To 'worship' just how impressive the universe is, and even consider it divine, sounds sensible even to one who doesn't believe in God. It's a philosophy that I feel could easily be integrated into existing philosophies. As >>1406125 referred to Marcus Aurelius I'd have to concur that it would mesh well with a stoic philosophy - everything acts and should act according to its nature, and so should man (and if the stoics are to be believed, that means to both make use of your reason and gainfully be a part of human society for a common good). A religion that emphases rationality and social good sounds fine by me.

>>1406263
Stoicism as I recall was explicitly pantheistic. Early Taoism is sometimes described as such as well. I've heard Nietzsche's spiritual ideals described as pantheistic, and it takes a very different conclusion from that premise than Marcus Aurelius.