It's your standard mystical-type model of 'God', taking in the higher, archetypal-causal aspects that pantheism avoids altogether by equating God with only the physical universe. In pantheism, there is no divine presence that's transcendent. Only immanent.
Actually, I'd never heard of the word either until recently. Humans. Got damn words for everything. One of my all-time favorites is mytacism: the repetitive use of the letter m.
I thought stamping my feet and wailing might be over-the-top.
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Apr 21st, 2012 at 06:45 PM
Digi is basically stating this: "Why do Christians/Muslims/Jews get to be in charge of what the word 'God' meands? Because they are the majority and they have domain over the use of "God" in the common daily speech and meaning."
So if someone asked you, "What are your religious beliefs, if any?"
You'd say, "I believe in a pantheist God" and then you're done.
No Pantheist has ever told me: "I believe in God." And left it at that.
So while you do bring up a good point, I don't believe it is applicable.
I agree. I used to dislike Pantheists' idea of God. But when it was explained to me, but a much smarter person, that Christians are borderline pantheists (because the Light of Christ is in everything in the universe), I had to eat some humble pie. It wasn't bad pie...was quite delicious.
Almost. It's more that I find most explanations of "pantheist God" to be equivalent to a scientific worldview. I just see it, in many cases, as having a little less courage to drop the idea of religiosity altogether for social reasons.
I feel like there's a lot more agnostic and atheists in the world than any data would suggest, but many vaguely cling to a religion because they don't care enough to identify as agnostic, and many remain agnostic because they think something along the lines of "eh, good enough," and avoid the social stigma of atheism. So they're either clinging for social reasons, or they're clinging out of a need for something "else" in a spiritual sense, not out of genuine belief.
"Pantheist God" as it has been explained to me by numerous people, is an extension of those same motivations for many.
So, God is a scientific worldview? God is an atheist's worldview? You're making the term meaningless.
"Meaning" or "Purpose" is what we create. God and religion is one of the ways it is created. You're pretending that "God" is the void that must be filled, when it's the means by which the void is filled. Or if you aren't, you're doing a bad job of describing it.
I can't keep them straight. You may be right.
I'm actually responsible for the lone transhumanism thread on KMC. It seemed awesome to me at first. Until I looked into it and realized that a lot of transhumanists are off their rocker.
It became much easier just to say "I like the steady march of technology in our lives, in all its forms," and leave it at that, instead of subscribing to the numerous unsubstantiated transhumanist theories that exist out there.
Just the opposite of meaningless. And you're applying the word "God" with an incorrect and/or narrow perspective. Replacing God with something else is no longer "God", btw. It's quite explicitly not God if you replace it or fill the void with "not God".
None of the above, actually. The void must be filled with a god, sure...but god in the general "not-so-specific to a concept of deity" sense. The god can be God. It is an attachment to something. Something almost or is transcendent. Humans fill that void with what they can. You call it meaning, but it is not meaning as some people fill the void with something other than purpose and meaning (meet my friends the negative existential nihilists). It is a third kind that no word quite exists that I can think of. I think there is a word for it in Buddhism, actually, but it escapes me...it's right on the "tip of my tongue"...
Shakyamunison, do you know what the word is that I am looking for?
Right on. That's how I am, as well. Transhumanism appeals to me but only if it is pragmatically executed. Much of the constituents are just as religious, if not more so, as many theists. They become...obsessed?
You've never been sonned? That's like a classic internet thing.
So you don't want to call it meaning, but you also don't want to call it "God" or "god" but another word you can't quite think of (or that may not exist). To that, I say: ok, sure. That works. Initially it sounded like you were saying that because "God" was the default, you were presuming that everyone needs a God or gods in a religious sense, which isn't true. Thus, in trying to use the more all-encompassing usage of "God" you're just creating confusion in people instead of calling it something more universally accepted.
I don't know if it's just you and I, but you seem to push our conversations this way, until we're working out a definition that accounts for every exception or nuance. It can be frustrating when trying to have a religious discussion that turns into a linguistic one. You know that for the most part I use definitions as they exist colloquially, because I don't really care about academic exactitude. Like our debates on the term atheist. Our KMC distinctions don't actually mean jack ****, as much as we'd like to think we have a good grasp on the different levels of belief/non-belief. So it ends up not having any practical use outside the forums.
So all the semantic care we seem to take on this forum (not all of it is bad, mind you) I'm usually just going to concede or agree. Because I find myself roped into such discussions constantly, and really just wanting to get back to the topic. I enjoy discussing things with you, I wouldn't continue if I didn't, but I do think we get sidetracked too often with this stuff.
Agreed. I wouldn't put it on level with religion because there isn't the social and legal in-group that religions represent. Even if something has, say, a yearly conference, they're not congregating at the level of religions. So it doesn't cross the line into practiced religion or cult status. But in terms of belief, yes, there can be an equal obsession.
If I grok you correctly (probably not), the term sometimes bandied about in esoteric circles is "the Ineffable." Ultimately, "It" is an experience which any word, even "Ineffable," falls infinitely short of. This is why, in writings past (way before KMC), I sometimes simply referred to This as "!". Naturally, though, "!" is awkward conversationally, so the practice didn't last.
(I always thought Don Juan is Carlos Castenada's "Tales of Power" did an entertaining job trying to explain the Unexplainable. I think in Buddhism, it's sometimes been said that one can never say what "!" is, only what "!" isn't.)
Hope that helps. If not, pardon my 2-cents.
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Do not get offended by what I am about to tell you....
I never thought this was about using the word "god" or anything like that. From the beginning, it seemed to me that it was always something "not-god" and "god" since I said "replace" or "fill the void". I don't think this was one of our word games that we sometimes talk about. I personally think you're so used to arguing with God-centric, egoists, that you expected my words to mean one thing when it was the "third-kind": neither "meaning" nor "god". Again, do not be offended by this as I make assumptions when talking to so called "atheists" as well. To me, it sounds like my reply is "lol...no" but that's not what I intended it to be.
Also, I am definitely aware of the 'son' meme. Let me introduce you to some old school humor called the "80s style smartass".
lol, no no...I was serious about the frequent meetups and sunday school stuff. For some, it is every bit like a real, full blown, religion.
Perhaps you haven't heard of the transhumanists that go to "church" weekly and have "Sunday school" during their 'sermon'?
Eh, no worries. I probably cater my arguments to "classic" Christians somewhat, I'll keep an eye out for that.
And screw you, grandpa.
Wow. I had not heard of this.
Though as an employee of a national organization with "regional gatherings," I can tell you that the meetings are never nearly as regular as the website suggests.
Still, we're social animals, yeah? Some people don't have "group" interests, and religion is a social circle for many who don't. Me, for example, I swing dance. Which lends itself to other forms of dancing quite easily, and thus other gatherings, events, friends, etc. It's a built-in social group in nearly any city I live in. If I didn't do that, I'd be fairly lonely unless I found a replacement. And I'm an atheist free-thinker, so I wouldn't necessarily be involved with transhumanism, but if I lacked other social options I could very easily find myself at something similar.
So I'm not sure it's always replacing the "obsession" aspects of religion (though I'm sure it is for many). But sometimes it's probably just replacing a social need. I realize some people simply switch one form of dogmatism or extremism for another, but I think many in both camps are just fulfilling a much simpler need of human interaction.