how is pantheism not just atheism. i am not talking about religions

gook

>>8588637
It's a bit supernatural to say that everything is one substance that flows from one divine thing (Nature).

Check out Plotinus. Spinoza was influenced by his theory on "divine emanation from The One"

>>8588637
Check out Jonathan Israel's 3 volumes on the enlightement - he details those debates pretty extensively. If youre specifically interested in the pantheism question, maybe check the 3rd volume - the Germans in the second half of the 18th century go through all sorts of maneuvers with this.

>>8588658
thanks>>8588639
what

>>8588658
But actually, to continue, there were lots of debates in the 17th and 18th century also of whether these religious forms you mentioned were in fact philosophical atheism. The Jesuits in China tried quite hard to argue that it wasn't, for instance, and offical doctrine turned against them (saying in gist that it was), undermining the Jesuit efforts in China - though of course the official doctrine doesnt have power over Protestants, say, and there are public sympathizers with the Jesuits in the philosophical debates (e.g. Leibniz), who typically argue for a common source to the great world-historical religions/philosophies/moralities, whether that source be the legendary figure of Hermes or "natural morality".

>>8588637
bump before bed

File: Egypt.KV34.04.jpg (77KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 640x480px

>>8588637
Practical (i.e. regardless of metaphysical intricacies) pantheism or panentheism is the logical result of First Cause monotheism. God knows all things and has created all things, therefore the universe is under his control and knowledge like a body to His mind, though this relationship is even more perfect than it is for humans.But in human terms this is of course identical to what polytheists and pseudo-monotheists call atheism- the god that rules and wills the world and everything in it, even all men's souls, cannot be appealed to or contradicted. All of the polytheists' notions of ritual, sacrifice, appeasement, sin, and judgment- these originating in applying the principles of respectful human interaction with the supposed interaction with the sun, moon, & dead kings who were the first to be called 'gods'- become irrational when applied to this conception of God.

The god of Abraham was a hegemon and demiurge, the god of Israel just as Marduk was the god of Babylon or Asshur the god of Assyria. Certainly he was proclaimed, as all the gods were, to be far wiser and far more powerful than humans, and indeed than any other god. But he was not the First Cause.

Though it may have been somewhat precedented in Egypt (though the Egyptians' conception of divinity was quite different from the Greeks' or Semites'), this disharmonious, absurd, and blasphemous conflation came about through the Hellenistic Jews' and early Christians' thoughtless and orientally slavish application of Greek philosophy to their polytheistic single god.

>>8589644
How the fuck did you end up in this dark place? Go be educated and insightful somewhere else, before the zombies eat your brains.

could you all also recommend some other pantheist authors so that i can get a better understanding of the idea. and i don't mean authors like thoreau who make sort of a pantheist bible i mean someone like spinoza who is more clear about presenting the idea

>>8588637
bumo

>when spinoza find replaced it to Nature because his friends were getting pissed off he wouldn't stop sperging about God
the world isn't ready for the divine autism yet

>>8588637
Theism: God exists, Nature != God
Pantheism: Nature = God
Atheism: God doesn't exist, Nature != God

Now if you're thinking, Wait, then pantheism doesn't REALLY differ substantially with respect to reality and the world from atheism; isn't this just a difference in words?

Yes, but then: welcome to language. You'll never get a pantheist to use "God" your way.

Spinoza's pantheism is a but mystical, though, which might make you less apt to accuse him of hifalutin atheism (even though that's precisely what his contemporaries did).

>>8589644
pls help me with my paper it's on god nd it's hard :((

>>8588637
>how is pantheism not just atheism
1. Everything is God
2. OP is a faggot
3. I will try not to be a dick towards God
4. OP is also God
5. I will tolerate OP's faggotry

I don't particularly care for the objection to atheism that is the Moral Argument, I'm just pointing out that a pantheist can dance around it by asking people who claim he's an atheist: "If I'm indistinguishable from an atheist, why am I not unconcerned with treating God like shit?"

Not everyone gets this, then again not everyone gets pantheism or anything *theism either, for that matter.