Talk:Pantheism/Archive 2

Useful critism?

 * I recommend removing this line: "Some critics argue that pantheism is little more than a redefinition of the word "God" to mean "existence", "life" or "reality". Many pantheists reply that even if this is so, such a shift in the way we think about these ideas can serve to create both a new and a potentially far more insightful conception of both existence and God."


 * This isn't really an interesting, serious criticism of pantheism. It isn't a semantic move by a pantheist to deny the individuality and separateness of God.  Pantheism rejects all "wise father on a cloud" conceptions of God, which comprises most views of Him.  Pantheism is at its core *rejecting* an important piece of popular religious - not 'calling something by a different name'.


 * I'd like so see an addition to this aritcle containing literature which deals with the theme of Pantheism, and literature penned by pantheists. I would prefer fiction and poetry be included in this list.


 * All of the quotes on the page are a bit annoying, especially when they are all available at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pantheism they aren't even being used in any useful way, if there needs to be a list why not start Pantheism/Quotes_about or similar. Ultima 22:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Benedict Spinoza was excommunicated by Amsterdam's rabbinical council for his appeal to pantheism, of which he was by no means the first individual to suggest it. Those claiming the Talmud supports such a notion need to cite references in Torah or Tanakh, because no rabbinical court has ever approved of anything than Yahweh being a Supreme Being. It's heresy.

When Alfred North Whitehead proffered his "process philosophy" as a viable claim to the divine immanence, he was repudiated by Jew, Christian, and Muslim alike. Ralph Waldo Emerson tried to instantiate a hybrid of a Unitarian divine being and divine immanence, but ontologically, a being cannot be immanent, nor an immanence a being. Tertullian was right: It's absurd. 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)~dshsfca

Archives

 * Talk:Pantheism/Archive 1 (up to January 2004)
 * Talk:Pantheism/Archive 2 (January-April 2004)
 * Talk:Pantheism/Critique
 * /Archive 3
 * /Pandeism

Cosmotheism
I've just added a couple of sentences on cosmotheism (from an e-mail sent to me by Prof. Jan Assman, which I've reproduced on Talk:Cosmotheism (classical)). I'm now going to make Cosmotheism (classical) into a redirect to this page (as per discusion on its Talk page). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let Prof. Jan Assman post for himself, or we do not believe that this revert was not done for only your own biased and politically-motivated POV. --216.45.221.155


 * I removed the copy of the long extract from the article that you posted. It is confusing to have this on the Talk page.  The best thing to do if you want to refer people to something in the history is just to provide a link to the article history.  --BM 18:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here is a link from a thesis paper, http://www.academy.umd.edu/ila/Publications/Proceedings/2003/lrowland.pdf that shows that either the author of this paper is either lying or is just mistaken, and/or that Prof. Jan Assman has only quite falsely and deliberately "changed the actual meaning" of the ancient and the archaic term "cosmotheism" to only POV suit himself! Also added DNA GOD's suggestion to expand upon how Cosmotheists view GOD/Cosmos-ANON.


 * You appear not have read the piece very carefully yourself. Aside from the fact that it's a (not terribly impressively written) reference to Assman with no direct quotation, it confirms the fact that the term was coined by Lamoignon de Malesherbes &mdash; the claim that you tried to remove from the article. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The mention of the racialist sect of Cosmotheism under the heading of "Criticisms" is confusing and misleading. IE- if this section is criticisms of Pantheism, it should be limited to just that. I think any mention of this particular group should fall under the heading of "Cosmotheim", as it is not in any way representative of Pantheism, but is a fringe group.

216.45.221.155/Paul Vogel
It's been determined that 216.45.221.155 (talk &middot; contributions) is in fact Paul Vogel. I've banned 216.45.221.155 for an initial period of 24 hours until I can ascertain the proper procedure with an IP-address sockpuppet of a banned User. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transhumanism?
I've just reverted a change made by SS with regard to Pierce's racist version of pantheism, 'cosmotheism', in which he changed 'an evolutionary interpretation of God' to 'a Transhumanist interpretation of God'. No explanation, nor any citation or source, was given. It can be replaced when that's done (if other editors agree, of course). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Next time ask for a citation before reverting. As for the rest of the above, kindly take your attitude elsewhere. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's odd. I've just come from Golliwogg, where you removed a reference to its use as a racist epithet being 'extremely offensive', before asking for justificatory citations (forsooth!) on the Talk page &mdash; something I've seen you do many, many times before. Another example of do as I say, not as I do. As for your final remark, I fail to see what you're talking about. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Odder still; I've just looked at the citation that you provided, and the words 'transhumanism' and 'transhumanist' appear nowhere on the page. I'll remove the claim again until a genuine citation is supplied.  Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Christ, do a moments research. Look at the left hand side of the page, about 1/2 way down. Click the blue link titled "transhumanism". If thats too taxing try. I would have just given you that, but I wanted to make sure you knew they were all the same webring. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Giving a citation doesn't mean doing the equivalent of throwing a book at someone and saying: look it up! In fact, though, the only relevant part of that page is this: &ldquo;Church of Cosmotheism A list related to the Cosmotheism movement. Cosmotheists believe that our true human purpose is to know and to complete ourselves as conscious Individuals and also as a self-aware species and thereby to co-evolve with the cosmos towards total and universal awareness, and towards the ever higher perfection of consciousness and being.&rdquo;  There's no mention of Cosmotheists holding a transhumanist interpretation of god (indeed, there's no mention of god at all), though there is a mention of evolution &mdash; which is what you're trying to replace in this article. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said, a moments research would be nice. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that we shouldn't ask for citations, because that's just lazy &mdash; we should look it up ourselves? Do you intend to press for a change to Wikipedia rules on that?  Do you, indeed, intend to stick to it yourself instead of demanding citations in future?
 * In any case, a Googled (Transhumanism + Cosmotheism) list of Web sites doesn't count as a citation for the specific claim that you've made in the article. Your reluctance to give a genuine source for your claim strongly suggests that you don't in fact have one. Until you do, please don't replace the claim. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 16:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sam, the problem here is that these prometheism/conscious evolution websites are Dnagod's, and quite a few of those are coming up under the Google search you referred us to (along with Wikipedia mirror sites). He can't be used as a Wikipedia source, because he's not known, not reputable, not credible, and not a published source: these are just his personal websites. I see you've also added his sites back into Transhumanism. Rather than us just arguing with you, could you say why you feel so strongly that pantheism, cosmotheism, prometheism, and conscious evolution should be associated with transhumanism on Wikipedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can provide a convincing case that the websites in that ring are less than authoratative regarding Cosmotheism, prometheism, etc..., I will cede this point. I've heard your argument regading the banned user, and find it unconvincing. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But what you find unconvincing isn't really the crucial point here. The onus of proof is on you, as you want to include a specific claim in the article.  You've so far offered one substantial citation, which supported the article as it stands rather than your version. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, I'm not including pantheism, by the way, as a discredited idea. Regarding Dnagod, I don't know what else I can say. He is anonymous, and we don't use anonymous sources. He is not a published source. He self-publishes on websites that don't contain much information. He runs discussion groups around these websites, which don't attract many members. His domain names are registered to a box number, and the telephone number given on the forms goes to the room of a very old lady who lives in an old people's home, and who was somewhat bewildered when I telephoned her inquiring after neo-Nazis. All in all, Dnagod could be cited on No original research as an example of the kind of source Wikipedia doesn't use: the intellectual opposite, if you like, of the Times of London. Do you find any of that persuasive? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, I am unconvinced that Dnagod produced those websites, and regardless of who made them they are clearly affiliated with National Vanguard, which is itself encyclopedic. I'm not claiming these organisations are citable sources on much else, but they are at least citable regarding themselves, arn't they? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 18:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * They'd be citable about themselves if they were worth writing about, but they're not, for all the reaons stated above. They're anonymous people making up neologisms and new religions that no one, or very few to judge by the discussion groups, seems to be a member of. I'm not aware of anything linking them to National Vanguard. Do you have evidence for that? As for the writing, Dnagod doesn't seem to write the material, as he had problems with his writing, and some of the material on the websites doesn't indicate that. Matt Nuenke presumably writes it, but again, trying to find out who he is leads to a dead end, and he doesn't seem to be a published author, except for one book review I found in a magazine; and enquiries by another editor showed this magazine will publish almost anything submitted to it. We can't use unpublished sources that we can't identify, regardless of their politics. SlimVirgin (talk)  18:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

. Its not hard to see the link. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you mean the National Alliance ad, that doesn't mean there's a formal link. Or did you mean something else? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:41, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

No, I ment the ad, and I think your probably right about there not being a formal link, I can't find any mention of Transhumanism or cosmotheism at natvan's website. So this all seems to boil down to if the euvolution webring is usable as a citation, and if it is worthy to link to. Despite my year and 1/2 here, I can't think of where and how such decisions regarding citation worthiness are made. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The two main policies that talk about this issue are No original research and Neutral point of view. Verifiability may also say something, but it's been a while since I read it. NOR says that sources must be credible or reputable; it acknowledges that these words are hard to define, but it gives examples: good publications will tend to have fact-checkers and so on. As you said earlier, if we were writing about Dnagod's websites, then they'd be good-enough sources for that (that is, primary sources), though not good-enough sole sources. But that gets us into NPOV, which states that tiny-minority positions should not be given space. Dnagod's is definitely a tiny-minority position. If you look at the discussion groups, there's very little activity, and he's often asking for small amounts of money to keep the websites running. Matt Nuenke seems to be a somewhat more serious figure, and if we knew who he was, it's possible we could use him as a source, but it's unlikely that's his real name, and all I could find written by him under that name were book reviews. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well its obviously an interesting subject to me, and while I tend to assume their doing better than you suggest due to the quality and coherance of their websites, I admit to not having looked into them more deeply. After giving it some thought, I don't think their worth focusing on here, but are applicable at transhumanism. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

216.45.192.70
I've just blocked this address for a year, as it's Paul Vogel again. I've reported it on the Admin's noticeboard, which may lead to his block being restarted at one year. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Honing the page
The following two links


 * The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (second listing down)
 * /Pandeism

contain info which should be integrated into this article.

Sam Spade 16:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"Classical" and "Naturalistic" varieties of pantheism
Can anyone point me to some documentation of this distinction? I am unfamiliar with it. --goethean &#2384; 16:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Classical" is probably ideosyncratic to the wiki, we came up w it as a term for pre-spinozian form of Pantheism. "Naturalistic pantheism" is in discription of the form of pantheism exposed by Spinoza, the Universal Pantheist Society (UPS) and World Pantheist Movement (WPM). These articles are less than perfect for a number of reasons, and were mainly created as a compromise due to fierce and extended debate between an atheist, a nazi, and myself ;) Sam Spade 23:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to naysay this article yet again, but I'm afraid Spinoza did not espouse naturalistic pantheism. Instead, he was a panentheist with a dualistic or "classical" view. Spinoza believed that Nature was indistinguishable form the 'substance of God,' but that God also transcended Nature. This is not a view consistent with modern naturalistic pantheism, which holds that Nature and "God" are synonomous terms and are entirely co-identical.


 * The article should be edited to reclassify Spinoza as a panentheist or "classical pantheist," and better examples of notable naturalistic pantheists should be provided. I can suggest such examples, if necessary.


 * See this article by World Pantheist Movement president Paul Harrison for further reference. --Nat 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Spinoza was a pantheist and not a panentheist - he was adamant that God is in no way transcendent. The confusion arises due to the definition of 'nature'; Spinoza claims that God is more than the material universe ('nature' as is commonly understood), but God does not transcend reality ('nature' as used by Spinoza when he wrote 'God or Nature', meaning 'the entirety of existence'). Hence he is not, however, a naturalistic pantheist as currently defined (it's arguable whether naturalistic pantheism as currently defined is pantheism at all).

Holism
Have you read Holism? If not, please read it before deleting it. If you have read it, why would you delete it? Its clearly a related concept. I also added emergence, due to its similar relevence. Sam Spade 23:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read it. It's not particularly related, no (it has little to do with religion, and nothing to do with pantheism).  Emergence is slightly more relevant, I suppose. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 00:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And yet it is the very basis of pantheism, is it not? That things be viewed as one whole, possessed of qualities unable to be understood as the sum of its parts alone? Sam Spade 00:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that it is the basis of pantheism. Pantheism has many bases, and was arrived at from many different directions by different people and cultures, but I'm not aware of any case of pantheism following from holism.
 * Having though more about the question of emergence (and read the Wikipedia article more thoroughly, which says nothing of obvious relevance to pantheism)), I'm less convinced that there's much of an interesting connection there either.
 * Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 07:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the history of the term, or of organised pantheists can be traced to advocates of the term "holism". Much like political articles, I see no reason why such a chain of connections is necessary for their to be a relationship between two ideologies, similarly here I see no need for a historical heredity for this to be a related concept. Sam Spade 14:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is only the ontological variety of holism that is related to pantheism. They are both the result of ontological synthesis, of the urge to unify consciousness, to overcome various dualisms. In short, they are both somewhat mystical philosophies. That is, they are both rational reconstructions of transrational states. Pantheism overcomes the distinction between god and nature. Ontological holism is an attempt to overcome all absolute ontological distinctions by identifying some property common to all organized entities &mdash; wholeness. Additionally, adherents to one are generally sympathetic to the other. --goethean &#2384; 15:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. All of this relates to monism, btw. Sam Spade 21:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * removed the statements on judaism, as they are absolutely not true.

Mordekhay Nesiyahu's Cosmotheism
I've moved the following new section (tidied up a little) here:


 * In modern Israel, Cosmotheism was described by Mordekhay Nesiyahu, one of the foremost ideologists of the Israeli Labor Movement and a lecturer in its college Beit Berl in Israel.


 * In Cosmotheism &mdash; Israel, Zionism, Judaism and Humanity towards the 21st Century, Nesiyahu proposed not to just assume the existence of God as being "prior to all that was created", but to consider God as only being a result of the development of the universe and the consciousness of all of humankind. Divinity on this view is a human invention. The development of the divine (or what the believer would qualify as being "the revelation of the Divine") was, in Nesiyahu's opinion, both the condition for a more exalted human functioning and all that bears the fruit of it.


 * In Nesiyahu's universalist re-imagining of a secular divinity, the universal celebration of Cosmotheism is the basis for rebuilding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and is also a secular ethnically Jewish and a Zionist contribution to all of humankind.

I've done this for two reasons: first, there are no sources or citations beyond a reference to a minor book from a minor publisher (which may in fact be a vanity press); secondly, this seems to be unbalanced (there's more on this one person than on some of the major types of pantheism). What do other editors think?

I'm also concerned that this is a move in an attempt to get the article on the racist version of "Cosmotheism" back into Wikipedia; Paul Vogel (banned under a string of account) was desperately trying to get this done, and http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/User_talk:Mirv/Cosmotheism.html this] indicates his involvement with the text inserted here by SS. (Note that Nesiyahu's theories have been described as racist themselves, as a search on Google brings out.)

I'm also worried at the section on Judaism; aside from not knowing what the vague term "pantheism/panentheism" means (which is it? How could there be a combination?), it's again uncited and unsourced, and seems to be original research. User:Mel Etitis (sig added by ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC))


 * It could be a pantheism/panentheism combo if it is unclear (as much mysticism is), or if its followers fall into both camps. The Hasidic stories often speak in terms of a personal god, but (as is often the case with mystical literature) their god seems to be fully immanent as well as transcendent. That speaks for panentheism, although I'm not convinced that a Hasid would be comfortable with the term. --goethean &#2384; 15:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As a Hasid, I am completely comfortable with the term.

(@ mel, due to edit conflict) I'm sorry, I find that to be an unsatisfactory reasoning. Who cares if this guy is racist? If you think its unbalanced, contrubute more content. Create an article for Mordekhay Nesiyahu and merge content there. Do some work, rather than deleting what I spent a good deal of time hunting down and restoring.

As far as the Jewish section, it is most certainly not original research, indeed its only a couple of sentances long, and should be expanded. See


 * http://www.gotquestions.org/Kabbalah.html


 * http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0013942.html


 * http://www.arthistoryclub.com/art_history/Kabbalah

or heck, just look at Kabbalah for a few minutes! ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the material would be more appropriate at Mordekhay Nesiyahu. --goethean &#2384; 16:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that Goethean has moved the material to Mordekhay Nesiyahu, which makes much more sense I think (though I'm still worried about the possible hidden agenda).
 * As for the Judaism business, simply looking at the Wikipedia articles on Hasidic Judaism and Israel ben Eliezer suggests that this article should be rather more cautious. For example, from the latter: "This pantheism, or panentheism (depending on how one interprets the early writings, of the consequences of which he was not at all conscious), would have shared the fate of many other speculative systems which have passed over the masses without affecting them, had it not been for the fact that Besht was a man of the people, who knew how to give his metaphysical conception of God an eminently practical significance."  This sits ill with the straightforward claim in this article that the unclear "pantheism/penentheism [...] has wide acceptance in Hasidic Judaism, particularly from their founder, the Baal Shem Tov." --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I reworded the section based on these concerns --goethean &#2384; 21:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Its very important not to allow the reader to confuse the views of spinoza (who was not religiously jewish) with the views of the kaballah or the bal shem tov. While spinoza certainly was influenced by jewish mysticism, he was profoundly divergent. He believed in an unconscious, non-sentient god. That has nothing to do with what is presented in the kaballah, or was spoken of by the bal shem tov. Also, I don't believe "primitive" or "nanscent" is an accurate way to describe the beliefs of Israel ben Eliezer. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I described his variety of Pantheism as primitive or nascent pantheism. I didn't imply that his beliefs themselves were primitive. --goethean &#2384; 22:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. I would still say these are misleading adjectives however, who is to say his is the primitive pantheism, and that spinoza's was more pure? What about monism? Is that nanscent simply due to its early origins? The trouble is the word "Pantheism" is much younger than the concept. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Spinoza
Spinoza's god certainly wasn't unconscious, and calling it non-sentient needs argument; he talks in different ways in different places, but the most central notion is of god as being substance conceived under the attribute of thought (substance as conceived under the attribute of extension being the world; hence "deus sive natura" (Ethics IV, Pref.). Sometimes, however, he talks of god as having the attributes both of thought and of extension). From the Ethics, for example: --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I, p.16, cor.2: "God alone is a free cause"
 * II, p.1: "God is a thinking thing"
 * II, p.3, d.: "For God (by p.1) can think infinitely many things in infinitely many modes"
 * II, p.3, sch.: "God acts with the same necessity by which he understands himself"


 * Very interesting. I havn't read more than exceprts and overviews of spinoza, and they presented a very different picture. If you have a more in depth knowledge of his beliefs, please feel free to contribute to the article. We could certainly use more content on spinoza. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are correct, btw, you would be exposing Naturalistic pantheism as a fraud, as they are atheistic, viewing God as an unconscious existance. I am of the opinion that they are not pantheist at all, but they feel they are in the same tradition as spinoza. I am very interested in what you might have to add to this discussion, and the ramifications of it. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a copy of my comment there. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I dispute the claim that naturalistic pantheists "feel they are in the same tradition as Spinoza." As a naturalistic pantheist myself, I feel that my interpretation of pantheism is quite different from that of Spinoza. What Mel Etitis (quite correctly) points out here is that Spinoza was a classical pantheist/panentheist (as I have maintained elsewhere in this discussion). It does not follow that naturalistic pantheism is "a fraud" because of this, especially when the alleged claim of allegiance to Spinoza is entirely false.


 * Every naturalistic pantheist I have encountered has been careful to distance himself/herself from Spinoza to a greater or lesser extent, on the basis that Spinoza is better considered a "classical pantheist" or a panentheist. Both the World Pantheist Movement and the Universal Pantheist Society (the two most significant organizations for self-declared pantheists) have published materials distancing the "modern" (naturalistic) interpretation of pantheism from the "classical" version espoused by Spinoza and others.


 * I have previously requested on several occassions that Sam Spade recuse himself from editing this article due to POV bias. However, I won't insist on that. A reasonable compromise would be for Sam to abstain from editing portions of the article which deal with naturalistic pantheism. It's clear that he has openly believed the view to be a fraud all along, and I think that due to his clear POV bias in this regard, he should do the right thing and recuse himself from editing any sections of this article which deal with naturalistic pantheism and/or the distinction between that view and its "classical" counterpart. Sam should know better than to continually use this article as a vehicle to push his anti-naturalistic POV. In fact, I believe he does know better, and I think that Sam has the integrity to step back. I hope I am not being too generous in my assessment.


 * Sam is extremely knowledgeable regarding classical pantheism, panentheism, the Vedic traditions, etc. On these subjects, his edits are a credit to the article. However, when he approaches naturalistic pantheism and how it differs from the views he himself espouses, the article invariably suffers. I have been fighting for a fair and accurate NPOV exposition of naturalistic pantheism in this article for roughly two years. While there has been some compromise (and improvement) during that time, I'm still seeing entirely false statements and misinformation creeping in, and it's very discouraging to me.


 * When will Sam Spade finally put aside his POV and allow Wikipedia to have a fully accurate article on pantheism? --Nat 22:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your right that I don't think naturalistic pantheism is pantheism. I also apologise for having misunderstood and misrepresented you in your level of agreement w spinoza. I'll ask you this: If not spinoza, who is the source of "naturalistic pantheist" doctrine? Who comes up w this stuff? You? I don't feel aneed to recuse myself due to an "anti-naturalist bias", but I am very willing to discuss the sources for your beliefs. The problem here is me not understanding you, not me trying to present you unfairly. Sam Spade 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sources of Naturalistic Pantheism:


 * Taoism
 * Heraclitus
 * Giordano Bruno


 * (among others) --Nat 21:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza's Pantheism
Letter 21 — Spinoza to Oldenburgh:


 * The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus the unity of G-D and Nature (meaning by the latter a certain mass or corporeal matter), is wholly erroneous.

{Spinoza's pantheism is simply awareness that all parts of the universe are bound into an organic interdependence of an infinite organism—G-D.}

Yesselman 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi
According to Ayyavazhi theology, Ekam is supreme to all: the God beyond human consciousness. Though, through the concept of Ekam, Ayyavazhi states the Ultimate Oneness, there are some quotes in Vinchai in Akilam nine which indicate pantheism. In Akilam seven a new term 'Ekan' (One who appears as Ekam) was used to refer to God. In this expression, the Akilam lays the groundwork for viewing Ayyavazhi as a panthestic faith.

I think this should be better worded and then restored. Sam Spade 00:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Ayyavazhi the term Ekam seems closer (almost same) to the term Nirguna Brahman in Hinduism. Though this term in tamil means 'one, and uncomparable', in some verses The term 'Ekan' was used to refer God. Which means, the whole (Ekam - because all the universe and different godheads formed from this Ekam) which exist is God himself. That is "God appears as the ekam and then as the universe and all. -  வைகுண்ட   &   ராஜா 

From the Ayyavazhi articles, there's no indication that this religion (a minor offshoot of Hinduism) is pantheistic; rather the contrary &mdash; they're full of a rich mythology of personal gods, etc. I can't see the grounds for including a section on it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Akilattirattu Ammanai the 'Ekam' is the ultimate one and all others is the lesser gods and all were a part of the Ekam. And Ayya Vaikundar was the incarnation of this Ekam, And Vaikundar says that Iam Ekam it self. So according to the mythology though there were many gods, all were unified in one, Vaikundar. And expanding the sub sections of Akilattirattu Ammanai will provide enough source and it will be done as quick as possible. -  வைகுண்ட   &   ராஜா 


 * But what you say here tends to confirm that Ayyavazhi isn't pantheistic (though some of its beliefs might be interpretable in ways that sound a bit like pantheism). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think so. But it may not be true for the cent. Because as far as I've read, the concept Ekam (in tamil oneness) was repeated some 20-30 times in Akilattirattu Ammanai as a supreme one. So it can be confirmed as an Monistic. But in some parts god is said to be appear as that Ekam. Any way no doubt, the Ekam is supreme to all. -  வைகுண்ட   &   ராஜா 

From what I have learned Ayya Vazhai has a rich mythology (similar to mainstream Hinduism in many respects), which is not terribly suggestive of Pantheism. On the other hand it has some doctrines distinct from mainstream Hinduism which are suggestive of pantheism. The prayer before a mirror for example. I think it might help if there were more discussion of Ekam, Brahman and Advaita on the Ayyavazhi mythology page. Sam Spade 21:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam, do not confirm Ayyavazhi as a non-pantheistic because of different god heads. Because it says that the Ekam or God himself divides as many and in the end unite. Any way an Ultimate oneness is strictly focused by Akilam. Now the thing to be discussed is the ultimate oneness is God or the oneness itself. It's good to discuss on Ekam and Brahman -  வைகுண்ட   &   ராஜா 


 * I am only saying it isn't obvious from the mythology. Is there any important difference between Ekam and Brahman? If not, there could certainly be similarities to Advaita Vedanta. Sam Spade 02:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Pantheism doesn't talk about "ultimate oneness" (especially when "ultimate" seems to involve a temporal aspect); for the pantheist, talk about god as being in any way distinct from the world (and of gods as distinct from each other) is simply mistaken. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats really not true, the concept of The Ultimate Oneness has alot to do w pantheism. Your right about the distinctions between objects however, monism is a good source of info on that. Sam Spade 16:14, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that philosophers and theologicans don't associate pantheism with "ultimate oneness". First, in general, because it implies that there's some sort of non-ultimate non-oneness; secondly, more specifically, it often implies that this "oneness" is something that is attained after a period of non-oneness. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hinduism explains these objections w maya, the illusion that there is such a thing as non-ultimate non-oneness, which when removed, results in enlightenment, moksha. and of course the realisation of our ultimate oneness. Sam Spade 17:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know (though there are some problems with the notion; this isn't the place to discuss them). I could see no sign, however, that Ayyavazhi held such a view. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The view of Ayyavazhi in this matter is almost as the same of Hinduism (because of Maya). But at the very next moment God (Ekam) incarnated as Vaikundar overtaking all the boons of Kaliyan, there happened a universal change and the maya started degrading. Then the Ekam seems almost the same as Nirguna Brahman. It is not very much defined in Akilam. But it come repeatedly 20-30 times. But in the Tamil the exact word Ekam gives the meaning 'One,(and) incomparable'. But the main issue to claim Ayyavazhi as Pantheistic is in Akilam God was called as Ekan (which means 'one who is Ekam' in Tamil). As Mel said, Oneness is viewed different from Pantheism, The concept Ekam may be different from Pantheism but the issue here is the call, 'Ekan'.

And the article Ayyavazhi mythology had a lot of work in it. It was notted that the mythology is ment in the way that Narayana telling the whole events to Lekhsmi. But have you notted, in the article there is nothing about that. It had a lot in it. -  Vaikunda   &   Raja 


 * Wonderful! This is becoming an excellent conversation, one in which we grow and learn, AND the articles get better ;) Sam Spade 21:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Taoism
Couldn't Taoism be construed as a form of Pantheism? It is not my area of expertise, but I had generally assumed, from the little I know of it, that it was a form of pantheism at its most pure.


 * I think so, but we'd need a citation of someone notable saying that. Sam Spade 20:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, philosophical Taoism is a form of pantheism. I don't know if it's "notable," but I am in a leadership position in the world's first specifically pantheist organization, the UPS. Other pantheist orgs agree, as evidenced by this quote from the WPM:


 * Philosophical Taoism overlaps in many respects with Scientific Pantheism. Both are non-dualist, and deny that spirit and matter are separate substances. Both are non-theist, and deny the existence of any personal creator God or supernatural realm. Yet both have a deeply religious reverence for nature and the universe. Both stress the importance of living in harmony with nature. If you are attracted to the Taoism of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, then you will find scientific pantheism totally congenial. --Nat 21:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It can, all we need is to devide Brahman into two parts locked into a symbiosis (think of the Enuma Elish story), inbetween the two extremes you can classify everything.

Ideocentric RoyBot (69.248.43.27) 11:10, 01 January 2006

Definition of Idolatry
Idolatry is taking the infinite as finite. Taking the finite as infinite is pantheism.

Yesselman 01:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that is the opposite, taking the finite as infinite (i.e. A coke addict) is idolatry. Taking the infinite as finite is just blasphemy (sullying that which is transcendent with the traits of what is carnal). I hope people understand this difference. Ideocentric RoyBot (69.248.43.27) 06:16, 01 January 2006


 * Is not the 'coke' an inseparable part of infinite thing and hence infinite? Yesselman 01:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. You have caused me to re-vamp my entry as follows: Yesselman 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Idolatry
Idolatry takes the infinite as finite.

Taking the finite as infinite is pantheism.

Idolatry (defining the finite) is taking an inseparable part of an infinite organism (G-D) as finite—and having it (the part, a mode) stand alone finite and supreme without interaction with the other parts; breaking down the organic interdependence of parts. (Money, slums, sex, substance abuse, etc.)

A part may be separated for analysis, study, and improvement purposes; much as a heart doctor studies the heart; but he is always conscious of the interaction of the heart with the rest of the body.

Yesselman 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am glad that I provoked some thought. I saw your site, it was quite impressive.

I still think pantheism is heretical because the very definition of a God (as opposed to a god, which is merely a very sophisticated being that can manipulate matter within a universe, I believe they exist also and can do things angels nor men respectively cannot do, gods having the build and abilities of an angel but the brains and sentience of a man, bassically, a cyborg) is that it is transcendant, beyond space and time (though God could be Panentheistic, the universe an outgrowth of God, God remaining independant of this finite universe, though the fact that this universe is finite, destined to entropy, probably suggests it is not connected to God anyway, at least not now, if you remember the Garden of Eden story, the Pauline Christian interpretation of this story may have been a reference to this cosmic astrangement between H'Shem and His Universe, at least a our solar/terrestrial/biospheric portion of it, given all the instability in these spheres from the son's electro-magnetic fluctions and the Earth's periodic pole shifts, both allowing for genetic instability and spontanious mutations and it's subsequent natural selection and competativeness, all of this constituting "the fall" in Pauline theology, induced entropy).

However, just the fact that there is a transcendant God does not cancle out the fact that there is a Brahman, however, or that it itself may be alive and sentient, given all the conductive miniral deposits throughout the universe, it could be possible, though rather baffling, that a type of super-intelegence resides within the mineral gridwork of planets, and the neuron-like electromagnetic pulses of stars in a galaxy. This is not "Jah" as we should know Him, but rather one of His creations (a collective Adam), at least not at the present.

I am glad I inspired you to look deeply within your own theories and helped you define them further. It has been nice meeting you.

Ideocentric RoyBot (69.248.43.27) 11:10, 01 January 2006


 * Thank you for your kind message. I believe, that because of our different World view we are talking past each other. It is not a new problem; but, pray, we respect each other. Please see JBYnote1 and Theisim.


 * Yesselman 18:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Do believers of pantheism believe in deities?
I'd just like to knew.Thanks.

-

Mu[]. Now you know. :D

First of all, sorry about this (our friend here appears to be the Neo-Nazi version of WiC. As for the deities thing, of course they do, they merely believe that the deities are part of a larger whole (the Hindus made a wonderful science of this by stating that there are entire catagories, each catagory itself some god, and then there are sub-catagories, usually sons). Ex. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are all collectively known as Brahman. These three beings sprout out into, and are comprised of, other beings. Man Castes where represented by a god (the castes themselves where gods). Very scientific, and the ultimate destination for all pagan religions (since it makes no sense to have multiple gods when the universe clearly had a singular cause, polytheism, in it's pure form, defies Occam's razor), unless the gods are reveald to be parts of a larger whole, evolving out of a common substance (bassically, this turns into materialism, pure and simple, the sum of all paganism).

Ideocentric RoyBot 69.248.43.27 04:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am neither "any Neo-Nazi version of WiC" WiC and nor do I believe in any such "nonsense", by Pierce, nor by anyone else.

The sum of all paganism is not any materialism, and as you erroneously believe or stated, and pantheist "deities" are only the simple personifications of impersonal "natural creative forces", all of which are ultimately: ONE.

Pantheism as a religion does not have anything to do with any deities, but only with the One God. Many religions with Pantheist ideas (such as Hinduism) do have beliefs in deities in them, and they are fully compatible with Pantheism. For example, a deity in Spinoza's philosophy would simply be a being that has access to more modes, or attributes than us humans (we can access the mental and the material, but he argues that there is an infinite amount of modes.) Anyway, there is no philosophical or scientific evidence of deities. --Ilya 05:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

216.45.251.197

 * Hello 216.45.251.197. I guess you believe in this stuff, right? That is fine (I am THAT tolorant to even allow this stuff, as long as it is made clear and obvious what it is about and is not obscenity laden, and you know what I mean by obscenity, do not play semantics, some terms are rightfully considered obscene these days because they denote inferiority, do not blame me, blame the elitists who enslaved and misstreated the individuals in question, remember, we would not have had these sorts of problems today if it was not for them and their greed).


 * I admit, you could do worse, allot worse (afterall, Willy is one of the smarter, more cogent ones, even Laird Wilcox said in his 1996 book American Extremists that "Unlike most, William Pierce's writings are intellectual and readable"), I will not prevent you from expressing your views, just as long as you do it in a non-abusive manner and do not condone violence.


 * Now, all that being said, can you actually give us webserfers some actual, relevant insight into this matter rather then copying whole wiki-articles? You are not helping your cause with vandalism. I am sure you have something specific or original you want to elaborate on, rather then make your statements through pittling acts of passive aggression, acts which ultimately say abolutely nothing at all.


 * Help: Perhaps you need to learn How Your Mind Can Keep You Well, some Platonism/Neo-Platonism (particularly his Divided Line, which will help you understand what the contrast between Monotheism and Paganism is) or just go and post in Uncyclopedia.org).

Thanks,

Ideocentric RoyBot 69.248.43.27 04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: It has come to my attention that this persion has posted stuff before, it was all vandalism. I think this person is a hopeless exhibitionist and has no message to communicate whatsoever.

Sorry that I wasted my time. Ideocentric RoyBot 69.248.43.27 05:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You had said:

"I will not prevent you from expressing your views, just as long as you do it in a non-abusive manner and do not condone violence."

Right. :D Unfortunately, some few others always falsely mislabel the whole truths of reality of cosmotheism, as always being "vandalism" and also they do so in only an abusive manner, regardless of the accuracy or factual content of the message. http://www.cosmotheism.net http://www.nationalvanguard.org

For example:

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pantheism"

This is regarding your edits to the article Pantheism. Please don't just copy and paste large portions of content from another article (specifically, from William Luther Pierce). If Pierce is relevant to Pantheism, then feel free to mention him in context and provide a link to his article. However, continually posting this same material may be seen as vandalism. Thanks! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He is relevant to pantheism/cosmotheism, so he was mentioned in context. However, I will add a link to his article to avoid any false charges of vandalism. Thanks! :D


 * Hi. Please do not add diffs, rather, link the article directly (internally). Thanks. El_C 02:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The direct article keeps being POV-reverted (internally) to an inferior and to an incorrect and less-informative one. See the history. Thanks! :D


 * Why are you still doing it? It is not permitted and appears to be making an inappropriate point. Please cease and discuss the pertinent issues. If you persist, you may be temporarily be blocked from editing. Thanks in advance, again. El_C 16:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Hi. It is also not permitted to vandalize articles with inaccurate and biased pov viewpoints and false reverts. The direct article keeps being POV-reverted (internally) to an inferior and to an incorrect and less-informative one. See the history. Which behavior is far more "inappropriate"? Stating the unbiased facts within articles in a NPOV or allowing biased editors to revert articles to only reflect their own political or religious bias? Thanks! :D


 * Content disputes are outside our mandate as administrators. Please use Wikipedia's dispute resolution or any other pertinent channels. You simply cannot circumvent the rule that articles are to be linked internally, as opposed to via your prefered diff. El_C 16:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why can some editors circumvent the rule of NPOV for content which is far more important than any "rule that articles are to be linked internally"?. Maybe, all admins. should just not enforce any such rules that only bias or favor one editor or that favor only one group of editors over any and all others?


 * Because what is seen as N/POV often varies widely. This is your final warning; the next time you replace the internal link with the diff you will be blocked from editing for a while. You need to work toward getting the current article up to par, holding on to your diff in this way will result in nothing but grief. You don't need to take my word for it, ask any other of the ~700 admins. El_C 16:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't replace the internal link with the diff this time but only added it to the end of "cosmotheism", as there are external relevant links that were only pov-excluded in that current William Pierce article and some fixes to other links and to the format. The link is to an article that IS UP TO PAR, and is being reverted to an INFERIOR and INACCURATE version by a pov-biased editor. For an example, see the References Section of that article and also all of the missing and deleted links! I have compromised by not replacing the internal link with the diff but only adding it to the article that doesn't have one. You should NOT edit or block ANY EDITOR that is only trying to improve only the factual accuracy and NPOV within articles.


 * Negative, do not add that diff into the article space instead or alongside the article. Final (final) warning. El_C 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is it stated by any rule within Wikipedia that adding ANY DIFF within ANY other NON-article space within Wikipedia is NOT ALLOWED? Post this specific rule here and where I can read it myself. Do not issue warnings to rules that you are just making up yourself as you go along. There is an AESOP fable that comes to mind. The wolf and the sheep?


 * The rule is Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Regardless, I'm uninterested in allegories, metaphores, fables, and so on. If you wish for another admin to take over, by all means, feel free (i.e. I will immediately uninvolve myself at that time, quite gladly, to be perfectly honest). El_C 17:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should NOT be ANY soapbox for ANY POV-BIAS. I am interested in the facts and in accuracy within articles. It is too bad that you are uninterested in allegories, metaphores, fables, and so on. You could learn quite a bit of wisdom from some of them.


 * The rule is Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Regardless, I'm uninterested in allegories, metaphores, fables, and so on. If you wish for another admin to take over, by all means, feel free (i.e. I will immediately uninvolve myself at that time, quite gladly, to be perfectly honest). El_C 17:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that you have become "emotional" over something that requires a more logical and reasonable and neutral and only unbiased point-of-view. The whole point of having a on-line encyclopedia is always to provide only honest and unbiased information within all of the articles, and a NPOV, especially and even on "touchy" subjects.


 * I blocked you for 3 hours (most admins would opt for 24). Once the block period expires, please have another admin look into this. El_C 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, for just proving my point! :D Blocking or censoring, just because you have become "emotional" or "tyrannical", is both typically pov and narcissistic.

block
You have been blocked from editing for twenty-four hours for persistent PoV-pushing disruption, despite multiple warnings. If on the block's expiry you wish to edit in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, you'll be welcomed; otherwise blocks will increase in length. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Mel Etitis, for just proving my point yet again! :D Blocking or censoring, just because you have become "emotional" or "tyrannical", is both typically pov and narcissistic. And such lying hypocrisy as yours is the "hallmark" or actual "mark of the beast"!

According to Wikipedia's own Rules:

When blocking may not be used:

Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article-editing conflict. Generally, extreme caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.

Although the latter was somewhat common earlier in our history, self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Sysops also should not block themselves for testing unless they they have a static IP because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users.

Why Is The Whole Article Pasted on Talk???
That pretty much speaks itself, why is this being put up here? This being here IS normally known as vandalism.

Formally 69.248.43.27 IdeArchos 02:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because vandal editors are pov reverting it. Pov reversions are actual "vandalisms". The only NPOV version of the Cosmotheism article is here:[] and the only NPOV article on Pantheism has been posted on the Pantheism Talk Page above. That is why the Whole NPOV article has been pasted on Talk. To show just who and whom has been POV reverting it. --blocked User:Paul Vogel posting as anonymous


 * User: Paul Vogel has been blocked by Arb Com for one year. His posting of his preferred article version has been removed.  --Blainster 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

William Luther Pierce
Removed out of context link added by anon as there is a link already in the text.

Mikereichold 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

God God God
I would to mention one BIG thing that people making this chapter missed, and that thing is to LEAVE GOD ALONE! Damn it, people, it is not all God. God God God.

'Classical Pantheism belives in god as conscious and Naturalist believe in (again) God as uncoscious.' This is ridicilous. Why does 'all' has to be 'God'? Have ever that crossed your mind?! Naturalist Pantheist believe that there is no such thing as God but unity. LEave God. We don't think of it as 'unconscious God' but like one BIG UNITY. Now please change the whole thing. (for naturalist pantheist, or whatever you call them)


 * Dear Anonymous, you can blame Benedict Spinoza for "God God God." He wrote: "Deus est omnia rerum causa immanens, non vero transiens." This, in English, means "God is for all things the immanent cause, not the transcendent." (Ethics, Pt. I, prop. 18). Note the use of Deus (God) and omnia rerum (all things). Lestrade 12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade


 * The God of Pantheism is the God of philosophy (an idea introduced by the Greeks, developed in the middle ages, and perfected in the Enlightenment age), which interestingly is quite similar to the God described by the greatest scholars of many religions (for example, this type of God is described in the Vedas). It is also very similar to the God of Judaism (it is among the greatest sins in Judaism to say that God thinks in human-like ways, looks like a human or acts like a human). The word God is the best English word to describe the idea we are talking about, and has been used in this manner for ages. It is a shame that superstitious fundamentalists are ruining such a beautiful word, but it's no reason for us to abandon it. The being we are talking about is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, infinitely perfect, infinitely Free... Any property that God needs to have, the Pantheist idea of God has. So why not call it God? --Ilya 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
Is it the official policy of Wikipedia to categorize talk pages?--Arado 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, but it is not clear how to remove them. --Blainster 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I asked at WP:Village Pump and an editor there informed me that the category code can be placed anywhere on the page. In this case it seems that it was in the block of text (entire article) that was pasted here as some kind of unnecessary attempt to "preserve" a preferred form of the article.  Whoever did it neglected to comment out or link to the cats. --Blainster 06:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism ?
What about Buddhism ? There are some aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and Tantric Buddhism that seem very pantheistic .. I wish someone would verify that and add it to this article soon ..( Taoism as well )Hhnnrr 10:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Buddhism is an atheistic religion. It asserts four "truths." (1.) There is suffering; (2.) Suffering results from craving (willing); (3.) Craving can be eliminated, resulting in nirvana (absence of willing); and (4.) There are eight ways to eliminate craving. There is no relation between Buddhism's four fundamental principles and pantheism.Lestrade 17:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

This statement seems to be too broad a brush for the subject. Buddhism is better described as an agnostic religion since it does not really try to make any definite statements about the truth of the supernatural at all.

Additionally, in some Mahayana and even Vajrayana traditions, there is described a universal "Buddha-nature" that one emulates when becomming enlightened. One description of this is called the Dharmadhatu, which is described with God-like qualities of transcendence and eternal being (This could be taken as somewhat pantheistic, since it includes the whole of Buddhahood, though, it can just as easily be described as panentheistic, or even wholly Monotheistic).

Interestingly, for the same person who said that Nirvana is nothingness, founder Sidhartha proclaimed himself the Tathgata in the Mahayana traditions, proclaiming that he was "The God above the gods, superior to all the gods; no god is like me - how could there be a higher?". IdeArchos 04:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of vandal's preferred version from talk page
User:Paul Vogel has repeatedly vandalized this and other pages, and again with anonymous POV edits when he was blocked. As a result he has been blocked for a year by the WP:ArbCom. During his anonymous edits he placed a copy of his preferred version of this article on the talk page to facilitate his actions. To create some room without having to archive, I am removing his copy of the article from this page. --Blainster 06:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

St. Francis
This article is not completely accurate. The first pantheist was St. Francis of Assisi, who had to face an inquisition and, eventually, was freed. The discussion on his Pantheism obliterated him, for many centuries, from the due glory he now enjoys.

The Yin and Yang (or male and female) in PanDeism
Consider for a moment the gender roles that best suit the parent philosophies of PanDeism. First you have Deism - this is absolutely a masculine concept. God is a father-figure, not a mother giving birth to the universe, but a mechanic, an architect, a craftsman, a clockmaker, a typical male role. And what does this father do after the universe has been made and set in motion, when the gears are wound? He abandons us. He disappears, and does not make himself available to us. We trust that he is still there, but can only confirm this through the exercise of cold reason; this is a God who is cold, emotionless, out of reach, like every stoic father who has presented only this face to a son, a tradition passed down from generations before. The God of Deism therefore possesses the attributes of the Yang.

Now you have PanTheism - a feminine concept if ever one was! God is the universe that envelops us, is all around us, wraps us in her warmth. God is ever present, sharing herself completely with us, giving us unconditional love because we are part of her, born from her womb with an umbilical cord that can never be severed. This is the ultimate mother, the ultimate feminine, possessing the attribute of the Yin.

Hence, PanDeism strikes the perfect balance of masculinity and femininity, of Yin and Yang (thus not surprisingly, PanDeistic ideologies are far more prevalent in Asia). Like the masculine Deist God, the PanDeist god is a mechanic, an architect, a clockmaker; but the PanDeist God does not abandon us when his act of creation is completed; rather, the PanDeist God assumes the other role, that of the PanTheist all enveloping mother, allowing us to exist through her very substance

So, as Deism and PanTheism combine to find the perfect balance in PanDeism, so must we strive to find this balance in ourselves and in our relationships, to both build and nurture, to be sufficiently distant yet always present when this presence is called for. We are each a microcosm of the potential balance of the universe, and each of us already carries with us the connection with the universe that enables us to emulate its temperment, should we desire to touch the God within ourselves. Realize, therefore, beloved friends, that touching God therefore means touching the characteristics within ourselves that reflect the opposite gender - men must find their feminine side, and women their masculine.

//// Pacific PanDeist 07:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pansies
Proper terminology:

Regarding proper terminology; for those who beieve in pantheism, shouldn't they be called "pansies"? I guess you could call them pantheists; but I prefer pansies. &mdash;Unsigned provocation added 28 June 2006 by 165.196.139.23
 * That`s a really intelligent observation... lol... greier 08:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Cro-Magnon mentality in action... Nat 04:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an insult to Cro-Magnons, who were really smart. More like Ramapithecus... Naturalistic 18:27 10 January 2010 (UTC)

God, the Theological Principle
The introductory paragraph refers to God as the theological principle. All of these years, little old ladies thought that they were praying to the supreme Being who created and rules the world. Instead, they were only trying to make contact and communicate with a principle.Lestrade 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Principle? Please explain yourself better. Thank you.--209.80.246.30 (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sagan
"While Sagan never described himself as a pantheist, many maintain that pantheism fit his views better than any other term" <-- The idea that Sagan's views are compatible with pantheism is a fringe point of view that has been pushed a very few. If there is a scholarly source that makes the case, then that source can be cited to support the idea, but to say "many maintain" will require many scholarly sources. --JWSchmidt 06:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Neopaganism
I was surprised to see Satanism mentioned but no Neopaganism, that seemed a bit odd. Pantheism is quite popular in Neopaganism (plenty of variations on what "Mother Earth" is all about), whereas the philosophy most often employed by Satanists seems to be suitheism. I'd be interested to see examples of pantheism in all of the Other Religions mentioned, anyway.--Snowgrouse 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the link should be changed to LaVeyan Satanism. I wouldn't have put Neopaganism on here either that's more Panentheism isn't it, they have the idea of an actual deity that is more than the natural universe? I guess any religion can be pantheistic depending on your interpretation. MattOates (Ulti) 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on the kind of pantheism you adhere to.... Christianity and Islam can't be religions of naturalistic pantheism or pandeism because these deny that there is God who intervenes in the Universe.... since pantheism generally counts God as identical to the Universe and not transcending the Universe, this actually eliminates any religion which views God as a transcendant being!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

God= nothing= everything= perfection. No religion is the same, but what makes this one unique is the fact it does not believe in one form, or being.--209.80.246.30 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Take that to mind.

Peer review comments
Since the peer review is apparently abandoned, here are my comments from there....

This should start with the ancients (Thales to Xenophanes) but with caution that the ancients said much that can be mischaracterized as PanTheism, but is not quite it.... they were not so sophisticated, never shared all ideals of modern PanTheism.... then into Vedic concepts of unknowable date of origin.... this should precede Eurocentric developments.... there's no mention of Johannes Scotus Eriugena and his PanTheistic De Divisione Naturae, condemned by the Church for such an interpretation of Christianity.... this was sometime in the 800s, and was really the last word on PanTheism to the 1500s with Giordano Bruno and Jakob Boehme.... they set the stage for Spinoza's dissection and Toland's popularization of the idea, which is what we have as PanTheism today!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 06:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity
The section on Christianity seems to say that historically, there haven't been many Christian pantheist thinkers, but I think we can consider Johannes Scotus Eriugena to be one. Let's put him in there somewhere. --Munchkinguy 04:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is the only reality for our local universe. Without The Urantia Book and The Fifth Epochal Revelations, there is no "God" - this is where the Godless thus end up - with Godless pantheism and materialism.4.241.222.51 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed a couple of references to "pantheistic doctrine", since obviously there is no such thing. Also removed the word "critics" from a paragraph indicating that pantheism demotes the notion of "god", since for many people this is the whole point of pantheism and not a negative criticism at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian James (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement is strange... "Rome referred to early Christians as atheists, and the explanations of this semantic phenomenon vary, one of which refers to the confusion between these two concepts."

But early christians never was (and theoretically should not be, if they aren't heretics... :D) pantheists! ... in antiquity they were considered atheists and subversives 'cos they didn't want to worship the Gods and professed a superstitio compromising the fundamental Pax Deorum hominumque and the stability of society.

--Antioco79 (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

They had a belief, but their belief was far too different for their time.--209.80.246.30 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pantheism and polytheism
What about the mixtures between pantheism and polytheism, ie. that there are many gods which exert/show themselves as forces of nature? Ie. that the deities exist (and are not merely "personifications" of the mentioned phenomena) and they "incarnate" as forces, elements, etc?? Is it pantheism, panentheism, pandeism or only a 'mystical' form of polytheism? I think it's not polydeism, because polydeism contradicts the idea of deities participating in contemporary Nature (only as a primordial cause). I would be grateful for help. Regards, Critto (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

merger with Panentheism
I think Panentheism should be merged with this article. --Ne0Freedom 04:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be very confusing. Pantheism is wrongly mixed up with panentheism very regularly so please create as much distinction as possible. Panentheism is as much related to pantheism as classical theism and because it is a mix of the extremes it would be very incomprehensible to put it completely in one of the two. Term is a distinguished term in theology and philosophy so I don't see any reason to merge. Peterbogaerts (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree with my colleage Ne0Freedom. As my colleague Peterbogaerts indicates, pantheism and panentheism are too frequently conflated despite being quite distinct. In short, pantheism says the universe is God while panentheists maintain that the universe is in God--that is, a part of God but that God is much, much more than just the universe. In my view, two articles ought to remain separate and each ought to state the distinction clearly. Jacob1207 (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why on earth would you think to merge them? They're very different concepts.  It's bad enough that the words are so similar. -- Zsero (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Another "no" vote. Count me in the group that would oppose seeing Pantheism and Panentheism merged. As stated before they are absolutely different concepts, are too easily confused already and dseserve as much individual attention as possible. - LKD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.252.196 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another "no" vote for all of the above reasons. (Anna RW (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree (so that's another "no"), per above. I have removed the merge proposal template from the Panentheism article. Feer 01:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Joseph Campbell
Interesting quote from an interview within The Power of Myth though unsure where it could fit into the wiki article.

"We have today to learn to get back into accord with the wisdom of nature and realize again our brotherhood with the animals and with the water and the sea. To say that the divinity informs the world and all things is condemned as pantheism. But pantheism is a misleading word. It suggests that a personal god is supposed to inhabit the world, but that is not the idea at all. The idea is trans-theological. It is of an undefinable, inconceivable mystery, thought of as a power, that is the source and end and supporting ground of all life and being."

70.231.238.98 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Omnitheism? Metatheism?
In one of Robert Heinlein's books, in the penultimate scene, the character ends up as an observer at a table around which Yahweh, Satan, Odin, Loki, and other deities of antiquity are seated, arguing amongst each other (about how they respectively handled the end of the world). What would this notion be if it isn't pantheism? Omnitheism?

Additionally, at the table is a figure above the rest, who is described indirectly as the God of all these gods, though he takes on more a role of an arbiter or manager in the scene. I suppose this would then be more aptly described as "metatheism".

I guess these concepts never caught on as a belief system as I'm not finding much about them. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer thought that the word "Pantheism" was senseless. For him, the world was often a scene of pain and suffering and nothing like a God. In his On the Will in Nature, in the "Sinology" chapter, to take only one instance, he wrote: "the word Pantheism, properly speaking, contains a contradiction; for it denotes a self-destroying conception, and has therefore never been understood otherwise than as a polite term of expression by those who know what seriousness means. &hellip; I would humbly suggest leaving their meanings to words, in short, calling the world, the world; and gods, gods."Lestrade (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Repetition
Intro is repeated in Reception section...quite repetitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.249.253 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

All is God
Everything is God and God is everything. There can be no evil. Everything is good and divine. Hitler, cancer, Hurricane Katrina, serial killers, Auschwitz, urban gangs, Keith Olbermann, etc. are all divine and godly. Is this truly the definition of Pantheism?Lestrade (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

No. Read the article. Qwo (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because everything is a part of God does not mean that a specific thing is God. That is Hitler is indeed part of God and the effects of his actions shall resonate throughout God... is not Gravity a part of God and was not Gravity pulling the bombs to the ground? The same way Einstein was a part of God and his teachings and the effects of his knowledge (i.e. Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons) resonate and shape God going forward... all that was, is, and will be. To deny that Hitler is a part of God is to deny his existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.171.33 (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Henism?
In the "Other Religions" section Paul Carus is mentioned as having called himself "an atheist who loves God" and advocated "henism", which is often seen as monist or pantheist in nature. I went to his page and found the following...


 * "Carus emphasized form by conceiving of the divinity as a cosmic order. He objected to any monism which sought the unity of the world, not in the unity of truth, but in the oneness of a logical assumption of ideas. He referred to such concepts as henism, not monism."


 * 1) This to me does not sound as if Carus is "advocating" henism, but rather that he objected to it.
 * 2) I have looked and looked and cannot find much else on "henism". So Carus' definition appears to be all there is.  Any thoughts?    .`^) Paine  diss`cuss (^`.   06:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"I've heard Pantheism has no ethics."
"This is not a contradiction, but a revelation into the mind-set of the Pantheist. If the Pantheist viewed all things as a part of God, and God being without flaw, and he acted in dignity in that regard, himself also being God, therefore knowing right and wrong, then the need for ethics and all rules (instructions from external authorities) would be eliminated. Hence, Pantheism has no ethics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.153.42 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why Pandeism represents an advancement upon Pantheism. 198.100.3.85 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hint for a comprehensive reference
I would like to recommend a comprehensive book for reference on the subject of Pantheism - the only one that concerns itself explicitly with the subject: Michael P. Levine; Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity, Routledge, 1994.

Regards R. Rehor --R. Rehor (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

contradictions and fallacies
The article opens by saying that pantheism is considered philosophically indistinguishable from atheism, and then goes on to describe a whole bunch of writers and schools of thought as pantheist in nature. For example: Kabalistic Judaism, Hinduism, Animism, Monism, neopaganism, New Age, Biblical pantheism, Naturalistic pantheism, Baruch Spinoza. But hold on! If pantheism is philosophically indistinguishable from atheism, then all those guys are atheists. lol  The Bible? Hinduism? All atheistic? cool. And why does Schopenhauer get his own section? Is he the final authority on this topic? WillMall (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to like it or understand it. I agree, the article needs a cleanup to be more coherent, but removing a cited, credible statement in favor or the un-cited junk below isn't the right course of action. Reverted your edit. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaks the user who misinterpreted an article that doesn't even deal with Pantheism. Your edit is the reason for the cleanup. --75.74.114.94 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Misinterpreted an article that doesn't deal with Pantheism? Are you joking? The article I cited spends 3-4 paragraphs discussing pantheism. Here's an extended quote
 * "At its simplest, pantheism can be ontologically indistinguishable from atheism. Such a pantheism would be belief in nothing beyond the physical universe, but associated with emotions of wonder and awe similar to those that we find in religious belief. I shall not consider this as theism...However there are stronger forms of pantheism which do differentiate the pantheist from the atheist (Levine, 1994). For example the pantheist may think that the universe as a whole has strongly emergent and also mind-like qualities.".
 * I tried to summarize that with my edited statement that "This simple view of pantheism, without any anthropomorphism, is not considered a form of theism and is philosophically indistinguishable from atheism." Your source is better, but doesn't deal with the topic of pantheism != || == atheism as well. They actually seem to contradict one another on whether most pantheism is atheistic or not. Your own source gives Buddhist and Spinoza as examples of atheistic pantheism. I edited to include both references and leave it more balanced toward the position. Nontheism is a type of weak atheism anyways, so this whole contention seems silly. It all depends on what you consider "atheism". --kittyKAY4 (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to be confused. Atheism is a beleif there is no God.  Pantheists beleive that God is composed of Natural Law, Existence, and the Universe as opposed to beleiving in an Anthrapamorphic God.  While you may not be able to appreciate this understanding of God it is in fact a beleif in God and is therefore a Theism.  But if there is any doubt I would recommend you look at the name of the beleive...  Pantheism means God is All.


 * Let's turn to your specific reference. You link to an article comparing Atheism and Agnostism which only discusses Pantheism in the that context.  The same source has an article on Pantheism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/) which refutes your entire argument and states: "The face that pantheism clearly is not atheism".  I will quote the entire section:


 * "With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. It is a form of non-theistic monotheism, or even non-personal theism. It is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person. The fact that pantheism clearly is not atheistic, and is an explicit denial of atheism, is disputed by its critics. The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person."144.42.254.13 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the opening line correct?
The opening line says that "Pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God." Is this correct? Richard Dawkins says that "Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for nature, or the universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings... Pantheism is sexed-up atheism."  Dr Dec  ( Talk )    15:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Pantheism is the beleif that God is everything. Atheism is the beleif that God does not exist.  You may hold neither, one, or both of these to be true.  It is interesting to note, however, that if you hold both of these to be true it would follow that everything does not exist or, in other words, that nothing exists.  I'm not sure if Dawkins appreciates Pantheism or if he truly beleives that nothing exists...  I think Dawkins is just interested in promoting Atheism and his beleifs and may not be representative...  I would see the entry above and the reference to the standford library as it is at least more definitive...71.185.171.33 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which entry above? Have you any references for your claims that pantheism is the belief that God is everything?  Dr Dec  ( Talk )    12:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Would suggest http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/


 * Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a "unity" and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) "‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it." Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.42.254.13 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Opening line of the above version was indeed incorrect and is rather a description of Panentheism. My edit of January 8 2010 removed this inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalistic (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia References not under copyright
An admin modified this post to remove references to the catholic bible (located at NewAdvent.org) because of copyright issues. Let me assure you that the only copyright that NewAdvent has is on the design and layout of their web site. The Catholic Bible was first published in 1907 and the version on New Advent was published in 1917. All works created before 1923 fall under the public domain including this version of the Catholic Bible.

I think the confusion probably arises because the page says the work CopyRight... in this case it is the layout and design that is copyrighted while the contents are in the public domain.

About copyright... anything that is published by the author or author's agent that is available without need for registration, password, or permission and containing no clear restrictions on use (i.e. don't link or reproduce) then it is in the public domain. It is fair use to quote or reference any article so published as well as link to it... and especially in this case where both MLA and APA citations are included at the bottom of the article and the publisher makes it clear that, in fact, he wants others to reference the work.

Would suggest that before you remove the article for copyright violations you do more than look for the word copyright... as this will appear on many websites that copyright their layout and design but have no copyright on their content. I would imagine that it is incredibly rare that someone would link to any work that is not in the public domain... as the ability to link to it would probably indicate that it is in the public domain (with some exceptions for deep linking). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.42.254.13 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Atheism
Yes, there's that thing in the intro about pantheism not being atheistic. But from what I've read everywhere so far, it seems atheists are more likely to be pantheists than christians. There is also no proof or explanation anywhere in the article or the reference provided. It says in P god=universe, and A don't believe in god (as defined by most religions). But they do all believe in the universe, so all of them believe in the pantheist god. Therefore, while atheism isn't pantheism (pantheism adds some sort of mystical layer), it is likely for atheists to be pantheists (And I can say from personal experience that atheists tend to see themselves as insignificant, and the universe as some sort of grand superior thing they can never understand). There's a logical flaw here, that's why I'd like to see more than a sentence in the intro and more than the ref of a poorly written online encyclopedia. (And that isn't an acceptable reference for wikipedia btw) Ren   ✉  17:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Divide and conquer. To claim dominance, you need to maintain the appearance of solidarity. To weaken an opponent, you create the illusion of discord. Why are pantheism and atheism treated as different philosophies when they're basically equivalent? Why are so many religous sects treated as equivalent when they're so fundamentally different? Because that's how you maintain power.129.2.167.219 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is really a conundrum. The very term "pantheism" as the article says literally "God is all" apparently must implicate that it is a THEISM and not non-theism/atheism. Then again Richard Dawkins f.e. mentions patheism being the "polite" version of atheism. I conjecture pantheism equates the universe and reality with a deity. It therefore lacks the crucial property of SUPERnaturality with a deity and can thus be hardly called a theism. However if it is not, it MUST be atheistic, which is but a latin prefix for "non-theistic".--92.226.31.247 (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop trolling, the reference is right there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#cite_note-SEP-0 And if Stanford is a non credible source, I don't want to imagine what you consider credible.

This reference is an encyclopedia, and such references aren't normally accepted on wikipedia. I would accept it if it were a better recognized specialist encyclopedia. Which it is not. The main issue however is that there's a pretty big fallacy in the intro. Let me give you an example. I believe the can of coca-cola next to my computer is god. I call this Cocatheism. No atheist will ever claim not to believe in my god. Moreover, if you look at Atheism, you discover that it simply is "the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3 ". If I check this article, as well as theism and deity, this introduction becomes inconsistant with the rest of wikipedia and the Pantheism article itself, because pantheism is non-theist monotheism (and the article provides reliable sources). The cherry on top of things: Most atheists in the world are pantheists. the confusion about atheism and the need to differentiate from it only exists in deeply religious countries where the biased definition of that word is "disbelief in everything". Dawkin's definition of pantheism as sexed-up atheism is accurate. Ren  ✉  03:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop trolling. What you are presenting is Original Research (OR) which is strictly banned on wikipedia.  The source is a legitimate, peer reviewed article from a collegiate encyclopedia, it gets more credit than your opinion or OR with no peer-review.  Further, this discussion has allready been had 3 times in this thread;  there is no need to rehash it again.  Please, stop vandalizing this page.  Also, who the hell marks an entire article as "Controversial"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.42.254.13 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pantheism is simply Atheism" Catholic encyclopedia, a reference in this article. The article also says pantheism is non-theism, and that's atheism. You've got a serious conflict of interest here for some reason. The original research in this article is YOURS, and the only resource suggesting pantheism is very distinct from atheism is this stanford encyclopedia. everything else suggests otherwise. Ren  ✉  12:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're talking to the guy who put in both the reference from the Catholic Bible and the conflicting reference from the Standard Encylopedia of Philosophy. That's right, I put both points of view with valid references into this article.  You on the other hand have repeatedly deleted one reference you don't like while leaving the other intact.  I have tried to bring together various viewpoints while you are trying to promote your own view.


 * Pantheism is, broadly speaking, the belief that God is everything (immanent) while Atheism is the beleif there is no God; it is hard for me to see how you can beleive there is no God yet hold an opinion about the nature of that God...  Personally, I have read the Catholic entry in detail and don't agree with their conclusion because it is based on the presumption that God is transcendant and that all Pantheists are necessarily Monists.  While I think both of these postulates are unreasonable you don't see me inserting my own original research... instead I put in the Catholic Bible reference in it's entirety and let the reader decide based on the text just as I did and as you did!  You on the other hand are adding your own Original Research and blanking sections and references.

I did not mark the entire article as controversial, nor did I vandalize the article. You removed my tag and insist on asserting pantheism is distinct from atheism when every other resource (including this very same article) suggests otherwise. Your behavior will be reported to admins, and this article will be freed from your bias and cognitive deficiencies. I have to say, I found your identification of the revert you made as vandalism to be particularly hilarious. Ren  ✉  12:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are making repeated changes by deleting any reference that says Pantheism might not be Atheism, you changed it from a beleif in "God" to the beleif in "Gods" for no apparent reason (feel free to explain), and you marked the majority of the article as controversial without giving any reason. On the other hand, I have added conflicting references from the Catholic Bible and the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy so the readers may make a decision;  you are repeatedly deleting one reference because you disagree with it while using the other to support your own argument.  It's vandalism and I hope any good admin would tell you to stop deleting references to legitimate, peer-reviewed article from a respected university and stop adding Original Research.

"You are making repeated changes by deleting any reference that says Pantheism might not be Atheism". I removed references which contradict the article. That is that Pantheism maybe theism but not atheism, because the rest of the article which isn't OR or stanford-backed suggests otherwise. "you changed it from a beleif in "God" to the beleif in "Gods"". That was certainly not me. "you marked the majority of the article as controversial without giving any reason". I marked your OR SECTION (called explanations I think) as controversial because the only source it provides contradicts the rest of the article, all the other sources of the article and the rest of wikipedia too. I didn't mark the entire article as controversial, no-one did. "On the other hand, I have added conflicting references from the Catholic Bible and the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy so the readers may make a decision; you are repeatedly deleting one reference because you disagree with it while using the other to support your own argument" No. there is only one reference that suggests pantheism is not atheism. All other sources (included in the article or not)say pantheism is indeed atheism. Atheists say so, christians say so, the definition of pantheism "non-theist monotheism" says so. Only that ONE reference from that stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (which is not considered a reference in encyclopedias of any kind) says the total opposite. "stop adding Original Research" The only thing I added to this article was a tag suggesting the article was more than confusing, I only removed the inconsistent stuff (A small sentence in the intro). Adding a tag isn't OR, it's not original nor is it research. Either you like lying, either you need to see a doctor, take a break or something. Ren  ✉  10:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot decide that one resource (Catholic Bible) is legitimate and another resource (Stanford Encyclopedia) is not. I added both conflicting views, you have decided one is right, and now you intend to remove the other viewpoint from the article.  Both reference are valid and should be left in.  Please explain why you think a peer-reviewed article from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and excerpts therefrom should be removed?  The fact that it passed peer-review should be a good indicator that this is NOT a controversial article but rather one that survived the academic repudiation process intact.  So... unless you have a Doctorate in Philosphy I don't know why you think you have the credentials to dispute this article.


 * Please don't assume I am biased. When I saw that someone put "Catholics consider Pantheism to be heresy" I went out of my way to find the Catholic viewpoint (which I disagree with) to find the essential points out of a very long article, and quote the article in an effective way so that people can understand the viewpoint of the Catholic Church.  I absolutely disagree with this view but I added it none-the-less because, unlike you, I am not trying to bias this article but rather to present multiple viewpoints; you have no ground for saying that I am biasing this article because I won't let you delete references to a peer-reviewed academic article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.54.143 (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic". This information backed by the stanford encyclopedia contradicts all of the other information that can be found. This very sentence contradicts itself by assuming that pantheism (most of the time non-theist) cannot be atheism, when non-theism is ALWAYS atheism.

"I added both conflicting views". Where, how? The real problem is that the stanford encyclopedia is the only source that says pantheism is not atheism when everything else suggests otherwise, not just the catholic encyclopedia. This intro is inconsistent with the rest of the article and wikipedia, stanford encyclopedia contradicts everyone else. It seems pretty obvious that there is only one thing that's very wrong, and has to go. Ren  ✉  12:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read the entire Standford article; it goes supports the rest of the article fairly well. Atheists do not beleive in God.  Pantheists beleive in an immanent God while Monists beleive in a transcendant God.  Clearly Pantheists beleive in God while Atheists do not therefore they cannot be the same thing.  If you read the Catholic Bible entry (circa 1917!) it is based exclusively on Spinoza who is in fact a Monist (Naturalistic Pantheist) and the writers of the Catholic Bible are correct to presume that his God was a transcendant God;  however, Classic Pantheism presumes an immanent God and the argument from the Catholic Bible (which literally presumes a transcendant God) can not even be applied in this context.  That is because this article is about 90 years old (I used it because it was out of copyright) and predates many modern Pantheistic ideas.  Yes, it is confusing; not all forms of Pantheism are the same but let me take a second to quote some from this peer-reviewed article:


 * "Taken as an alternative to, and denial of, theism and atheism, pantheists deny that what they mean by God (i.e. an all-inclusive divine Unity) is completely transcendent. They deny that God is "totally other" than the world or ontologically distinct from it. The dichotomy between transcendence and immanence has been a principal source of philosophical and religious concern in Western and non-Western traditions [...]"


 * "With some exceptions, pantheism is non-theistic, but it is not atheistic. It is a form of non-theistic monotheism, or even non-personal theism. It is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person. The fact that pantheism clearly is not atheistic, and is an explicit denial of atheism, is disputed by its critics. The primary reason for equating pantheism with atheism is the assumption that belief in any kind of "God" must be belief in a personalistic God, because God must be a person." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.42.254.14 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Except the god of pantheism is indistinguishable from the universe, and atheists do not disbelieve in the universe. Atheists and pantheists call the same thing a different name, all external sources apart from stanford agree on this. Ren  ✉  00:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The stanford article does contradict itself too. Except it gives some sources for "pantheism is atheism" and none for the opposite. On another note, The sentence is copyright infringement (I'm amazed i didn't notice it the first time). I suspect the article has some more of this but i really can't be bothered to check through this mess. I actually suggest the article be deleted and restart it from scratch. Ren  ✉  00:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're acting ridiculous. Citing an academic article is not copyright infringement...  In fact they say, "You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). "


 * I will be the first one to agree that this article needs a lot of work but deleting what is (arguably) the most reputable reference on this page is hardly the place to start. Why do I think the Stanford Encylopedia is the most reputable?  Let me quote "All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research."  That's right, peer-reviewed and up to date.  I would recommend you read the article...  the arguments stand for themselves even under academic repudiation.  I am reverting your edit because there is no copyright infringement as the work is properly cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.54.143 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not the proper way. See WP:QUOTE Ren   ✉  08:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, it is not presented in a way that contradicts previous thoughts on the matter. (Just like it does on stanford encyclopedia, which is why I think that thing is absolute rubbish). It has nothing to do in the intro. Elsewhere maybe. I can remove it, and you can put it back somewhere else better (a Section about how people disagree whether pantheism is atheistic or not?). I mean, even a good quote would be tasteless in an article intro, and it's not as if we couldn't bring it back as it's not the work of a wikipedia editor. Ren  ✉  08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, It'd be good to use the same sources as the stanford encyclopedia as references than the encyclopedia itself. Ren  ✉  09:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags (and article improvement)
I just added quite a few tags because on top of having a few incoherent things, the quality is very low (long unclear article with almost no refs). Anon user do not remove the tags. Ren  ✉  11:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll start doing serious work on this article, by adding tags where needed (for refs), removing non-important unverified statements (they can find their way back on the article in the future if they are referenced, the "obvious" can obviously stay ^^), and probably merge 2 sections related to the inconsistencies. Inconsistencies such as atheism vs theism MUST BE PRESENTED AS SUCH in an encyclopedic manner, not the way they currently are (an absolute mess). Ren  ✉  11:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see you are genuinely trying to improve this article and I beleive we can work together to do it properly. There needs to be a promonant section on Pantheism/Atheism debate this debate constantly comes up.  Sorry that I reverted one of your changes this mornign...  if we are both legitimately trying to improve the article it is better that we work together than get into a revert war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.54.143 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't quite understand the revert you just did on the tag, but there shouldn't be any major changes coming soon anyway so it's fine.

I tried looking at biblical pantheism, and all I could find were copies of wikipedia, and various pages/forums which suggest the few pantheistic-sounding bits of the bible are in fact descriptions of the christian god's omnipresence. I'd vote to remove it and replace it with "traditional pantheism", with a merge of all traditional religions which sort of fall in that category. (For example, some form of pantheism can be found in Hinduism, but it nevertheless remains a polytheist religion) In salvaging wikipedia I found "Pantheisms can be categorized as traditional (native, indigenous), classical (theistic), naturalistic (Spinozian) and contemporary (neo-Pantheism, naturalistic Pantheism, scientific Pantheism)" which seems to be a better classification. Ren  ✉  15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping this here as right now I don't know what the point is (then section only conatins that quote). Keeping it here for rfuture reference:

Schopenhauer on Pantheism
Ren  ✉  11:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pantheists
I tagged Category:Pantheists with cleancat as it requires better inclusion criteria. I did this before noticing there is already a discussion on improving the related article here. Please see Category talk:Pantheists for suggestions. -84user (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of serious confusions with Theism and Panentheism plus non-existent versions of Pantheism
The article as it stood at January 7th 2010 was very seriously misleading and a serious disservice to Wikipedia readers. Many ideas not found in Pantheism but derived from Panentheism or even Theism had been inserted. Non-existent theistic and panentheistic "versions" of Pantheism (Classical Pantheism and Biblical Pantheism) had been inserted. My edit removes many of these errors but more work is needed in inserting citations. Naturalistic  ✉  01:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I had begun to think you had vanished into thin air :) Ren   ✉  02:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I had been discouraged by the continual edit wars here caused by a small number of people intent on inserting erroneous or newly invented versions into the subject. I got tired of having to come back every single day and see some new act of vandalism. Frequently my efforts were deleted within half an hour of making them. Now that the Wikipedia article is the number one Google result for Pantheism, I believe it is a public duty to get this right, to make it accurate and unbiassed, and to keep it that way. I hope to bring along some more people who know this subject and its history very well indeed, and enough of them to keep the article in good shape. There's still much work to be done here. Naturalistic   ✉  18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Now that google gives way too much credit to wikipedia, we're obliged to make it good... At least, although I myself only know of the basic principles of pantheism, we could clearly see there was something terribly wrong with this article. (And one particular editor's actions come to mind) Ren  ✉  20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The pandeism part is abbreviated and merged it into the section on panentheism. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)