Zephie Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Doesn't the term agnostic pantheism seem a little self refuting and maybe a bit pretentious? If your a agnostic pantheist, to me, your just a agnostic that loves nature. Why not just then say your a agnostic? I thought pantheism was that nature is god or that god is evident in nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I thought pantheism was that nature is god or that god is evident in nature? Pan = All Theism = belief or having to do with god All is God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Doesn't the term agnostic pantheism seem a little self refuting and maybe a bit pretentious? If your a agnostic pantheist, to me, your just a agnostic that loves nature. Why not just then say your a agnostic? I thought pantheism was that nature is god or that god is evident in nature? I'm not sure, but I think even pantheism has its divisions. If so, then it wouldn't be a surpise to me. We'll argue over anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Doesn't the term agnostic pantheism seem a little self refuting and maybe a bit pretentious? If your a agnostic pantheist, to me, your just a agnostic that loves nature. Why not just then say your a agnostic? I thought pantheism was that nature is god or that god is evident in nature? I'm not sure, but I think even pantheism has its divisions. If so, then it wouldn't be a surpise to me. We'll argue over anything. That's true for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I thought pantheism was that nature is god or that god is evident in nature? Pan = All Theism = belief or having to do with god All is God. oh okay that makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Can we create such languages as do communicate these paradoxes? Only if not understood explicitly. A-man, I am going to return to this because it really bothers me. Yes, we can create languages which communicate these paradoxes and we have done so. Higher order logic, non-well-founded sets, and category theory come to mind for instance. You are wrong here. Flat out mistaken. You set yourself up to be flat our mistaken by making such absolute statements. Here's my point you miss. Language creates dualities. When you get into nonduality the minute you say even one word about it, it is no longer it. God is about one of the closest words to nonduality you can say, but it itself is not It. God beyond God. God's God. You see? You can't say it. You can't say it, because you can't think it. You experience it. It is a transrational, transmental realization. No words can define what is undefinable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Doesn't the term agnostic pantheism seem a little self refuting and maybe a bit pretentious? If your a agnostic pantheist, to me, your just a agnostic that loves nature. Why not just then say your a agnostic? I thought pantheism was that nature is god or that god is evident in nature? Pantheism seems to be to be a bit of a is or isn't kind of statement. To say god might be in nature is self refuting if your calling yourself a agnostic because your saying god might be in general. Its adding a word where you don't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I'm not talking about God the indescribable though. I'm talking about the ability to explicitly understand the paradoxes which inher in nature and in ourselves. And the importance of having languages which support paradox and yet disclude self-negating contradiction. This is important to me because I think transmitting this to future generations is among the better things we could do to ensure their well-being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 mu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 mu "µ" said the cow. Maybe it was holy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 mu Alright. Okay. I have a question for the mods here. I am requesting permission to open fire with rifles, grenades, cannons, mortars, and howitzers! I want airsupport with clusterbombs and napalm! I want space based lazers.on direct line. I am requesting permission to open fire and drop ordinance on the vicinity of this man who say "mu". Mods, sirs! Permission granted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Mods, sirs! Permission granted? I'm not sure why? Let's start a new topic in Lion's Den. I'll make one right now. And you can blast your lasers there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I'm not sure why? Hans! He sits over there, seeing what he sees, and says "mu". It's digusting. He's right and he knows it like we're a bunch of silly, silly monkeys. ? Can you see the little arrogant ------> mu Hans I am once more requesting permission to open fire with rifles, grenades, cannons, mortars, and howitzers! I want airsupport with clusterbombs and napalm! I want space based lazers.on direct line. I am requesting permission to open fire and drop ordinance on the vicinity of this man who says "mu". Hans! Permission granted!? Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerces Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 What's the point? It's trying to make sense of everything using the same methods people have been using for centuries, by using spiritual type beliefs. And so far only the scientific method has worked. I'm not arguing against those right here and now, but I don't understand why they're still being used when they don't work. Many have lived and died thinking their beliefs were the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 What's the point? It's trying to make sense of everything using the same methods people have been using for centuries, by using spiritual type beliefs. And so far only the scientific method has worked. I'm not arguing against those right here and now, but I don't understand why they're still being used when they don't work. Many have lived and died thinking their beliefs were the truth. But work in what way? What questions are being asked and looked into that a non-rational, non-scientific method addresses better? Clearly it can't be 'how things works', as empirical science is clearly the tool for that. What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Antler I'd give your post a plus one, if I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 What's the point? It's trying to make sense of everything using the same methods people have been using for centuries, by using spiritual type beliefs. And so far only the scientific method has worked. I'm not arguing against those right here and now, but I don't understand why they're still being used when they don't work. Many have lived and died thinking their beliefs were the truth. But work in what way? What questions are being asked and looked into that a non-rational, non-scientific method addresses better? Clearly it can't be 'how things works', as empirical science is clearly the tool for that. What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them? In my opinion it is best to have both, and even more if we can find them. If our goal is to expand our awareness and understanding then the more methods we have to expand them the better. I've had experiences where I was reading about scientific models (explicit understandings of nature, some of which do address the WHY of things) and a CLICK occurred as a light bulb came on and the understanding snapped into place. Very pleasurable. I've also had mystical experiences, some lasting moments, one lasting days. This was no "click". It was more of an opening. Also pleasurable. How would I enable my own children to also experience these good things and have expanded awareness and understanding? I think they both involve self-discipline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I don't see a problem with using both the scientific method and other methods. I just don't think the scientific method has it entirely covered as an answer for living a good life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I don't see a problem with using both the scientific method and other methods. I just don't think the scientific method has it entirely covered as an answer for living a good life. The goal of science is to aquire understandings of nature and ourselves. If the goal of Buddhism is Satori or Nirvana then isn't this the acquisition of expanded awareness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 What's the point? It's trying to make sense of everything using the same methods people have been using for centuries, by using spiritual type beliefs. And so far only the scientific method has worked. I'm not arguing against those right here and now, but I don't understand why they're still being used when they don't work. Many have lived and died thinking their beliefs were the truth. But work in what way? What questions are being asked and looked into that a non-rational, non-scientific method addresses better? Clearly it can't be 'how things works', as empirical science is clearly the tool for that. What could it be that rational people are looking into then that science falls short for them? In my opinion it is best to have both, and even more if we can find them. If our goal is to expand our awareness and understanding then the more methods we have to expand them the better. I've had experiences where I was reading about scientific models (explicit understandings of nature, some of which do address the WHY of things) and a CLICK occurred as a light bulb came on and the understanding snapped into place. Very pleasurable. I've also had mystical experiences, some lasting moments, one lasting days. This was no "click". It was more of an opening. Also pleasurable. How would I enable my own children to also experience these good things and have expanded awareness and understanding? I think they both involve self-discipline. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with all you say here. Our knowledge in one area adds to and informs knowledge in other areas. Having a spiritual opening for me makes beautiful the scientific natural understanding. Having a scientific understanding, makes all the more wondrous the knowledge from the spiritual. This is integration, and I very much agree that the pursuit of both involves genuine self-discipline. You can no more fill your mind about the natural world without diving into it, looking into it, than you can the spiritual by just speculating at some metaphysics. You have to swim in her waters. And to learn to swim, you have to practice.. religiously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The goal of science is to aquire understandings of nature and ourselves. If the goal of Buddhism is Satori or Nirvana then isn't this the acquisition of expanded awareness? The goal of Buddhism may be different depending on what type you are practicing. The ultimate goal of Tibetan Buddhism is to free oneself and others from cyclic existence (samsara). Legion - this is a complicated question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The goal of science is to aquire understandings of nature and ourselves. If the goal of Buddhism is Satori or Nirvana then isn't this the acquisition of expanded awareness? The goal of Buddhism may be different depending on what type you are practicing. The ultimate goal of Tibetan Buddhism is to free oneself and others from cyclic existence (samsara). Legion - this is a complicated question. I tend to ask questions like that Deva. Why do you think it's complicated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I have my own understanding, of course, but would rather not discuss it on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I have my own understanding, of course, but would rather not discuss it on this thread. I can't remember being disappointed with you before Deva. I guess there's a first for everything. And I'll get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I can't remember being disappointed with you before Deva. I guess there's a first for everything. Yeah? Line forms to the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts