Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Challenge To Atheists

Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:05:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

The emotional impact a word has depends on its use and history. If the psychological impact of the word "universe" is different than the word "god," then that necessarily means there is more to the word "God" than "universe" or "all," which refutes your initial equivalence of the two.

Then again, I disagree that "universe" is insufficient to describe the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:05:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

We already know we are part of the universe. The atoms in my right hand probably came from a different star the atoms in my left hand...What does the term "God" have to do with anything? Are you implying the universe is conscious and personal?
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:08:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:05:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

The emotional impact a word has depends on its use and history. If the psychological impact of the word "universe" is different than the word "god," then that necessarily means there is more to the word "God" than "universe" or "all," which refutes your initial equivalence of the two.

Then again, I disagree that "universe" is insufficient to describe the universe.

It doesn't refute anything. If you feel it does, then accept the debate. God, no matter what language or culture, is a word, term and concept that is always given to the highest being that can exist, it is the most powerful concept, period.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:05:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

We already know we are part of the universe. The atoms in my right hand probably came from a different star the atoms in my left hand...What does the term "God" have to do with anything? Are you implying the universe is conscious and personal?

Actually, no you don't. You don't "truly" realize that you are one with the universe. You haven't practiced and trained your mind to truly see the universe and all that is in it, in this way. You can only get this true realization from actual practice and mental training.

And yeah, the universe is conscious in its own way, seeing as how we are, and we are all one, we are apart of the universe. But the universe itself is not conscious and personal. It is not a deity like that.

If you feel I am wrong, accept the debate challenge.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:10:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:08:21 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:05:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

The emotional impact a word has depends on its use and history. If the psychological impact of the word "universe" is different than the word "god," then that necessarily means there is more to the word "God" than "universe" or "all," which refutes your initial equivalence of the two.

Then again, I disagree that "universe" is insufficient to describe the universe.

It doesn't refute anything. If you feel it does, then accept the debate. God, no matter what language or culture, is a word, term and concept that is always given to the highest being that can exist, it is the most powerful concept, period.

And "universe" isn't?
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:12:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:10:53 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:08:21 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:05:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

The emotional impact a word has depends on its use and history. If the psychological impact of the word "universe" is different than the word "god," then that necessarily means there is more to the word "God" than "universe" or "all," which refutes your initial equivalence of the two.

Then again, I disagree that "universe" is insufficient to describe the universe.

It doesn't refute anything. If you feel it does, then accept the debate. God, no matter what language or culture, is a word, term and concept that is always given to the highest being that can exist, it is the most powerful concept, period.

And "universe" isn't?

No, it's not. The universe is just a word to describe all that exists. It's the same as describing the greater portion of North America as the United States of America. It doesn't have the same power and effect.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:18:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Universe dictates the laws of nature.
The Universe gave you life.
The Universe punishes evil.
The Universe is infinite.
The Universe is the totality of existence (by traditional definition).
The Universe handed down a moral code.

Nobody should have any gripe with calling the Universe "God."
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:20:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:12:42 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

It doesn't refute anything. If you feel it does, then accept the debate. God, no matter what language or culture, is a word, term and concept that is always given to the highest being that can exist, it is the most powerful concept, period.

And "universe" isn't?

No, it's not. The universe is just a word to describe all that exists. It's the same as describing the greater portion of North America as the United States of America. It doesn't have the same power and effect.

First, the difference between "North America" and "United States of America" is not one of "power and effect." They have different meanings. Once is a geographical label, the other is a political label.

Second, and more importantly, if "god" means something different than "universe" how can they mean the same thing?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:21:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:18:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Universe dictates the laws of nature.
The Universe gave you life.
The Universe punishes evil.
The Universe is infinite.
The Universe is the totality of existence (by traditional definition).
The Universe handed down a moral code.

Nobody should have any gripe with calling the Universe "God."

Nobody should have any gripe with simply calling the Universe "the Universe." But apparently it's not "powerful" enough.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:27:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:21:45 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:18:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Universe dictates the laws of nature.
The Universe gave you life.
The Universe punishes evil.
The Universe is infinite.
The Universe is the totality of existence (by traditional definition).
The Universe handed down a moral code.

Nobody should have any gripe with calling the Universe "God."

Nobody should have any gripe with simply calling the Universe "the Universe." But apparently it's not "powerful" enough.

I've never seen a pantheist, panentheist, or pandeist say that someone else is wrong (in any serious way) for not choosing to interpret the universe in the same sense that they do or to choose the same terms to describe that experience. Pantheism (imo) has to with one's subjective experience of (for lack of a better word) the transcendent. I personally use the term God because it denotes a sense of transcendence not normally associated with simply "nature" or the "universe". The terms is meant to properly capture the feeling which pantheism essentially is.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:35:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:20:34 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:12:42 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:

It doesn't refute anything. If you feel it does, then accept the debate. God, no matter what language or culture, is a word, term and concept that is always given to the highest being that can exist, it is the most powerful concept, period.

And "universe" isn't?

No, it's not. The universe is just a word to describe all that exists. It's the same as describing the greater portion of North America as the United States of America. It doesn't have the same power and effect.

First, the difference between "North America" and "United States of America" is not one of "power and effect." They have different meanings. Once is a geographical label, the other is a political label.

Second, and more importantly, if "god" means something different than "universe" how can they mean the same thing?

You're rather picky. Lets put it this way. When you call Earth, Earth, you feel nothing. When you call Earth, God, you feel a sense of awe and reverence. Because as we all know, everywhere, no matter what culture or belief system, "God" is something that deserves this awe, reverence, respect, etc. When I say universe, it doesn't instill the same psychological benefits, because that word is no different than any other scientific word for something.

I really don't see the argument here.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:36:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:27:44 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:21:45 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:18:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Universe dictates the laws of nature.
The Universe gave you life.
The Universe punishes evil.
The Universe is infinite.
The Universe is the totality of existence (by traditional definition).
The Universe handed down a moral code.

Nobody should have any gripe with calling the Universe "God."

Nobody should have any gripe with simply calling the Universe "the Universe." But apparently it's not "powerful" enough.

I've never seen a pantheist, panentheist, or pandeist say that someone else is wrong (in any serious way) for not choosing to interpret the universe in the same sense that they do or to choose the same terms to describe that experience. Pantheism (imo) has to with one's subjective experience of (for lack of a better word) the transcendent. I personally use the term God because it denotes a sense of transcendence not normally associated with simply "nature" or the "universe". The terms is meant to properly capture the feeling which pantheism essentially is.

Well I'm neither of those. But the debate and challenge is about the superiority of one belief over the other. In my personal opinion, Atheism is a disease, and if the God of Abraham isn't true, then Pantheism and Panentheism by default is true.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:37:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:18:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Universe dictates the laws of nature.
The Universe gave you life.
The Universe punishes evil.
The Universe is infinite.
The Universe is the totality of existence (by traditional definition).
The Universe handed down a moral code.

Nobody should have any gripe with calling the Universe "God."

Exactly.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:39:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:18:45 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Universe punishes evil.
The Universe handed down a moral code.


Where do you get this?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:39:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:36:59 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:27:44 PM, Noumena wrote:

I've never seen a pantheist, panentheist, or pandeist say that someone else is wrong (in any serious way) for not choosing to interpret the universe in the same sense that they do or to choose the same terms to describe that experience. Pantheism (imo) has to with one's subjective experience of (for lack of a better word) the transcendent. I personally use the term God because it denotes a sense of transcendence not normally associated with simply "nature" or the "universe". The terms is meant to properly capture the feeling which pantheism essentially is.

Well I'm neither of those. But the debate and challenge is about the superiority of one belief over the other.

You and Drafter are operating under a different range of value assumptions. His lies with parismony and description, yers with the possibility of evoking transcendent appreciation. Neither is necessarily superior. It just reflects on how one approaches the topic.

In my personal opinion, Atheism is a disease,

Lol

and if the God of Abraham isn't true, then Pantheism and Panentheism by default is true.

Not really.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:40:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:08:21 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:05:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

The emotional impact a word has depends on its use and history. If the psychological impact of the word "universe" is different than the word "god," then that necessarily means there is more to the word "God" than "universe" or "all," which refutes your initial equivalence of the two.

Then again, I disagree that "universe" is insufficient to describe the universe.

It doesn't refute anything. If you feel it does, then accept the debate. God, no matter what language or culture, is a word, term and concept that is always given to the highest being that can exist, it is the most powerful concept, period.

Yes, the most powerful "concept" but god itself is just a word. Atheists believe in the concept of the universe, which is what a pantheist would label god. The concept is still believed by both. The word doesn't matter. If you labeled Allah, duckbutter, your emotions and views of him wouldn't change, his concept would remain the same.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:40:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I feel like Pantheists are close to realizing that God is just a psychological metaphor. But not quite there yet.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:44:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's funny how Atheists are more than willing to pick on and attack any religion with a personal deity, but when confronted with a belief system that doesn't have a personal deity, but has obvious psychological superiority over Atheism, they have to nit-pick about things, and never take on the religion. I've used this argument many times against Atheists. And just about every single time they have to admit that this belief system is at the least, superior to Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form. They either reconsider their faith, or leave the debate at, "I disbelieve that the universe is God."

This isn't about whether or not it is true that the universe is God, because it either can be or can't be. It's up to you to choose whether or not you want to venerate the universe as God. And in choosing to do so, there is clear and obvious superiority of this belief over disbelief.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:45:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:39:42 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:36:59 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:27:44 PM, Noumena wrote:

I've never seen a pantheist, panentheist, or pandeist say that someone else is wrong (in any serious way) for not choosing to interpret the universe in the same sense that they do or to choose the same terms to describe that experience. Pantheism (imo) has to with one's subjective experience of (for lack of a better word) the transcendent. I personally use the term God because it denotes a sense of transcendence not normally associated with simply "nature" or the "universe". The terms is meant to properly capture the feeling which pantheism essentially is.

Well I'm neither of those. But the debate and challenge is about the superiority of one belief over the other.

You and Drafter are operating under a different range of value assumptions. His lies with parismony and description, yers with the possibility of evoking transcendent appreciation. Neither is necessarily superior. It just reflects on how one approaches the topic.

In my personal opinion, Atheism is a disease,

Lol

and if the God of Abraham isn't true, then Pantheism and Panentheism by default is true.

Not really.

Accept the challenge. Because I haven't even scratched the surface of the superiority of this belief over Atheism.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:46:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:40:35 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:08:21 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:05:16 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:02:48 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:53:43 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/22/2013 1:30:29 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
Here is an open debate that so far hasn't been accepted. It was originally a challenge to RoyLatham, but he declined because I haven't properly defined Pantheism and Panentheism. Seeing as they are apart of a Perennial Philosophy of many traditions together, I would be using all of said traditions to define it. The key definition being that the all is God.

Any takers?

I'll take it if you can answer this question:

If All is God, and we already have the word "All," what do we need with the word "God?"

Because the term, "God," no matter what language you use, it is this concept that is the most powerful psychologically. It is this term, concept, that would instill the most powerful effect upon the individual.

Just imagine seeing your archenemy, truly, as an aspect of "God," as piece of yourself, and yourself as a piece of him and the whole. This has massively deep, psychological implications and greatly affects your outlook on all that is. Not only that, you would see the environment as a part of yourself, thereby instilling a deep reverence, respect and gratitude for it. There is a lot more. But that's the jist of it.

And being that the universe is the most powerful being there is, why not give it such a worthy title, term, concept?

The emotional impact a word has depends on its use and history. If the psychological impact of the word "universe" is different than the word "god," then that necessarily means there is more to the word "God" than "universe" or "all," which refutes your initial equivalence of the two.

Then again, I disagree that "universe" is insufficient to describe the universe.

It doesn't refute anything. If you feel it does, then accept the debate. God, no matter what language or culture, is a word, term and concept that is always given to the highest being that can exist, it is the most powerful concept, period.

Yes, the most powerful "concept" but god itself is just a word. Atheists believe in the concept of the universe, which is what a pantheist would label god. The concept is still believed by both. The word doesn't matter. If you labeled Allah, duckbutter, your emotions and views of him wouldn't change, his concept would remain the same.

Of course they would. Duckbutter? How does that compare to "The God." The One and Only. The high, the all-mighty?

This seems like denial at its best.

Accept the challenge if you disagree.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:48:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:40:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I feel like Pantheists are close to realizing that God is just a psychological metaphor. But not quite there yet.

In a way, that is basically what it is. However Panentheism takes it a step further, and says that there is another part, aside from the universe, that is God. An impersonal powerhouse of infinite production that is pure consciousness, intellect, which can be tapped into. I recommend you read the works of Plotinus. He "tapped into" this source only a few times in his life, and described this experience in a very similar way to what Zen Buddhists experience. The method is also the same, to think of nothing, to have a clear mind, and to contemplate on this nothingness.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:51:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:44:32 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
It's funny how Atheists are more than willing to pick on and attack any religion with a personal deity, but when confronted with a belief system that doesn't have a personal deity, but has obvious psychological superiority over Atheism, they have to nit-pick about things, and never take on the religion. I've used this argument many times against Atheists. And just about every single time they have to admit that this belief system is at the least, superior to Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form. They either reconsider their faith, or leave the debate at, "I disbelieve that the universe is God."

This isn't about whether or not it is true that the universe is God, because it either can be or can't be. It's up to you to choose whether or not you want to venerate the universe as God. And in choosing to do so, there is clear and obvious superiority of this belief over disbelief.

Pantheism isn't a religion. It's a specific view that can included in a religion, like Theism and Atheism.

It's perfectly rational to talk about these possibilities.

Supernatural dogma is a different issue.

But I'm glad you say that the importance of the belief is in the belief itself and what it does for you. But don't you think you may be preforming a "double-think" and ignoring that your belief is just a lifestyle choice and has nothing to do with anything literal? Or do you openly accept that? In which case, all the power to you. But I think a more accurate label, in that case, would be "existentialist".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:52:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:48:56 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:40:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I feel like Pantheists are close to realizing that God is just a psychological metaphor. But not quite there yet.

In a way, that is basically what it is. However Panentheism takes it a step further, and says that there is another part, aside from the universe, that is God. An impersonal powerhouse of infinite production that is pure consciousness, intellect, which can be tapped into. I recommend you read the works of Plotinus. He "tapped into" this source only a few times in his life, and described this experience in a very similar way to what Zen Buddhists experience. The method is also the same, to think of nothing, to have a clear mind, and to contemplate on this nothingness.

How do you know when you tap into it? Is it just a matter of faith?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:53:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:51:03 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:44:32 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
It's funny how Atheists are more than willing to pick on and attack any religion with a personal deity, but when confronted with a belief system that doesn't have a personal deity, but has obvious psychological superiority over Atheism, they have to nit-pick about things, and never take on the religion. I've used this argument many times against Atheists. And just about every single time they have to admit that this belief system is at the least, superior to Atheism, the disbelief in God in any way, shape or form. They either reconsider their faith, or leave the debate at, "I disbelieve that the universe is God."

This isn't about whether or not it is true that the universe is God, because it either can be or can't be. It's up to you to choose whether or not you want to venerate the universe as God. And in choosing to do so, there is clear and obvious superiority of this belief over disbelief.

Pantheism isn't a religion. It's a specific view that can included in a religion, like Theism and Atheism.

It's perfectly rational to talk about these possibilities.

Supernatural dogma is a different issue.

But I'm glad you say that the importance of the belief is in the belief itself and what it does for you. But don't you think you may be preforming a "double-think" and ignoring that your belief is just a lifestyle choice and has nothing to do with anything literal? Or do you openly accept that? In which case, all the power to you. But I think a more accurate label, in that case, would be "existentialist".

Well it once you realize that it is about your choice to venerate the universe or not as God, it comes down to which choice is superior over the other. Which choice has more benefit over the other. And obviously, the choice of veneration has clear benefit over the other.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:53:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 2:52:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:48:56 PM, Talib.ul-Ilm wrote:
At 5/22/2013 2:40:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I feel like Pantheists are close to realizing that God is just a psychological metaphor. But not quite there yet.

In a way, that is basically what it is. However Panentheism takes it a step further, and says that there is another part, aside from the universe, that is God. An impersonal powerhouse of infinite production that is pure consciousness, intellect, which can be tapped into. I recommend you read the works of Plotinus. He "tapped into" this source only a few times in his life, and described this experience in a very similar way to what Zen Buddhists experience. The method is also the same, to think of nothing, to have a clear mind, and to contemplate on this nothingness.

How do you know when you tap into it? Is it just a matter of faith?

They both described similar psychological experiences, and overwhelming feeling of bliss, contentment, being at peace, etc, etc.
Talib.ul-Ilm
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:55:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This choice doesn't simply affect you as an individual either, this effects the entire human race as a whole, because if the entire human race as a whole were to benefit from these superiorities... Well. You get the point.

So it also comes down to a decision as a people, as a race. And clearly, again, Pantheism/Panentheism beats Atheism without a doubt.