God is nature

>What do you think of pantheism? It cured my 11-year-old case of Reddit atheism.

Credible...

youtube.com/watch?v=YKf6BJi-9tU

youtube.com/watch?v=YBAE-3755NY

>This earthworm is God.

Surely that cannot be blasphemy......

>You're sacralising earth and nature as the highest form of divinity.

If there's a God then mortals do not rule this planet.

youtube.com/watch?v=VBqGOdx0tiQ

Pantheism is retarded, it's too logical and unimpressive, may as well worship your mom uterus or your dad sperm

it doesn't even have metaphysics, what kind of religion is this?

>try to fight nihilism
>have the nihilism take over your life and give you dementia
>fail utterly, die a broken man in an asylum
>gee, I wonder why edgy teenagers see his example as nihilistic

Pantheism is the cargo cult of theology. Instead of embracing rational methodologies, attempts to enshrined them as a faith based ideology. Instead of teaching people to do science it teaches people to worship science, or at least to worship the thing that the sciences do a heck of a lot better job describing.

Learn to overcome your anxieties about the things which are unknown to you, and come to terms with the fact that you may never know them. Stay curious, stay rational, stay open-minded, and know that the ethical lifestyle is the one which will pay off the most long term dividends for you, even if that means having to let go of childish arrogance and delusion. That is the path to the divine

>Pantheism is the cargo cult of theology. Instead of embracing rational methodologies, attempts to enshrined them as a faith based ideology. Instead of teaching people to do science it teaches people to worship science, or at least to worship the thing that the sciences do a heck of a lot better job describing.

(sorry, this is deleted and re-posted because I linked the wrong evidence)

If you assert there is a god, it must be living. The premise of monotheism is that there's a god that speaks through mortal writings with such perfection that they can transcribe the word of God with 100% perfection but there hasn't been a single one of these people in over 2000 years and they're all Jews by the way.

Except, Jews didn't invent theology and all the systems that came outside and before Judaism seemed to believe in living deities that rule natural aspects of civilization and nature - i.e. pantheism except with delineated deities.

The next question is, is there any evidence of superhuman intelligence perceivable in the environment?

The answer is yes.

youtube.com/watch?v=a6wmDBz8H_Q

I think pantheism has a major issue which Kant revealed in his transcendental dialectic.
Assuming the absolute, as the pantheist does by understanding the whole of nature as being the indivisible and infinite God (for to assume God as divisible or finite is counter to the task of making nature itself
divine, as we then lose the case of the divine even existing), comes with the following contradiction:

i) Our activity of trying to gain knowledge causes us to find ourselves compelled to postulate the absolute, or God, to create the total collection of conditions (the way things are/can be).
However, by such logic, there must be a first cause, or some ultimate constituents of God, otherwise there would be an infinite regress and there is no way to demonstrate how anything could
possibly come into being.

ii) In our struggle to grasp knowledge, we are forced to seek the condition for any event or thing- so that for any cause or constituent, there must be a prior cause or simpler constituent.

I believe the pantheist is caught here and must either: (1) deflate their claim, (2) overcome the contradiction or (3) move the debate to the area of revelation or intuition.

(1) seems to me as being the worst choice for the pantheist who then undermines the fundamental doctrine of God-as-Nature.
(2) while likely the most favorable, is something that I do not see myself as being resolved by a pantheist, though I can say I have been mistaken before.
(3) moves the argument into another arena entirely and is pointless to debate, as assertions true or not simply cannot be dissected by reasons.

God is within.

>i) Our activity of trying to gain knowledge causes us to find ourselves compelled to postulate the absolute, or God, to create the total collection of conditions (the way things are/can be).
>However, by such logic, there must be a first cause, or some ultimate constituents of God, otherwise there would be an infinite regress and there is no way to demonstrate how anything could possibly come into being.
>ii) In our struggle to grasp knowledge, we are forced to seek the condition for any event or thing- so that for any cause or constituent, there must be a prior cause or simpler constituent.

The idea of a 'total collection of conditions' renders the logic of there being a first cause separate to the collection of all conditions illogical. A total collection of conditions contains all causes, the collection of all causes contains the cause that caused itself. It can be self-caused, although really, the idea of causes is irrelevant in a pantheist universe which would function within a B-theory model of time, the universe (all that exists) could unite happily be eternal. There is also no reason for a state of non-existence or pre -existence to be obligatorily accepted as necessity, these are human abstractions that cannot be applied to a being of God as "All that exists and ever could", existence and non-existence do not apply to this pantheistic version of God. There simply is everything, and nothing can exist outside of everything.

A transcendent monotheistic God is a weaker theological position than a Pantheistic All-God; a Monotheistic God relies on special pleading for its uncaused nature; it relies on our reality being akin to a video game level; and it can ultimately be grouped within a larger set of God + any object from his creation. A Pantheistic God cannot be grouped at all, it is the highest expression.

Well you eventually need a cure for that pantheism? I have an ignostic pill ready.

:^)

Seriously though, it used to be a position I took. Then I realized the futility of it. And perhaps more seriously, the uselessness of it.

So God is nature. Now carry these buckets of water up the hill. Chop wood. Clean your room.

Nowadays I focus less on "God" and more on the chopping wood and cleaning your room. Because if there is a God, he surely puts more beauty into the most airy and insignificant things of the world than in the abode of gravity and seriousness.

You made a lateral move, at best.

Yes, he wouldn't care at all about the great lengths he went to in order to provide mankind with one and only one possible hope for salvation, and you ignoring that means of salvation, which required the death of the Christ, to chop wood and clean your room.

PANTHEISM, AS DEISM, IS A FORM OF ATHEISM, SO, IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT MANY ORTHODOX ATHEISTS TURN TO PANTHEISM.

ORTHODOX ATHEISM BELIEVES IN GOD, BUT DISAVOWS IT; DEISM BELIEVES IN GOD, BUT RELEGATES TO IRRELEVANCE; PANTHEISM IS THE MOST SACRILEGIOUS OF THE THREE, BECAUSE IT EQUATES GOD WITH MATTER.

GOD IS NOT EVERYTHING, BUT EVERYTHING IS IN GOD, AND NOT EVERYTHING IS MATERIAL.

THE ROOT OF ATHEISM IS MATERIALISM, AND MATERIALISM HAS A BIOGENETIC —RACIAL— ROOT.

Stop being autistic. If only Christians would shut up and go on chopping wood! It'd teach them there is another world...in front of their faces!

And not to mention that salvation is one of the ugliest concepts ever bequeathed to man. That in the "end", order will overcome entropy. That one particular picture from one particular book will immanetize itself!

Please don't plead from a book. You were not the one who wrote it and neither did you shed blood for its knowledge or origin.

ah it all makes so much sense now

You're still a reddit atheist.
First, there is no 'nature'. That's a false category made up by Enlightenment pseuds.
Fuck off pagan.
That's not what Nietzsche was doing you fucking idiot

POLL: WHO IS MORE INSANE??

this guy:
or this guy:

>POLL: WHO IS MORE INSANE??

I'm bat shit crazy.

youtube.com/watch?v=DHNqA2l4w08

That guy is insane

That guy is awesome... 99% there

Nature is our enemy. If you're a man that is, for nature is female.

What is divine reverence? How is it useful in any way that rational fear isn't already useful in? Why does anything deserve reverence, divine or otherwise?

>First, there is no 'nature'.

I pretty much agree with this. You are nature ya dummy. I don't see the purpose, at this point in the history of mankind, to deify anything. It's so shallow and meaningless, I'd be surprised if it had any practical psychological purpose.

This isn't a problem, though. You're talking about letting fictitious mythology worsen your life because you accidentally trust that it's all actually for your own good.

A collection of all conditions that to which subscribes a B-theory model of time, which also describes all of the conditions relevant to the lives of mortal men, cannot exist, because mortal men experience a linear time which allows the conditions of non-existence, pre-existence, and post-existence. (also, why you got to speak in deliberately obfuscated ways? To make the brittle and shallow meaning of what you're saying more difficult to actually find?)

Never actually read about Nihilism, this actually sounds like my kind of philosophy. Too bad I have no idea if any of this is true, because I haven't read anything about Nihilism, and because contradicted you. I guess I have to fucking read now.

My religious history in a nutshell:
>Born an agnostic (soft atheist), just like all humans are
>Grew up as a Roman Catholic
>Became a agnostic as a teenager
>Soon enough turned into an atheist, mostly because of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche's influence
>Seriously started to consider Buddhism and Taoism for a while
>Then I took the Marxist pill
>Now I've spooked myself with Stirner, so I've dropped the whole toothbrush-collectivization gommunist shit