Please don't bore us with a definition your god. Anyone can read about Pantheism and subsequently they need no definition from you of what god means to Pantheists. That's not particularly interesting.

Here's something of interest.. let's begin with your describing:

1) Your REQUIREMENT for god(s).
2) Your REQUIREMENT for a religion.

Lady's first. Besides, "it's yo thang."

(Hmmmm. I'm gonna have a nightcap. I expect to become somewhat incoherent shortly, and my spelling to still be incomprehensible, as usual.)

god!

1) Why do you REQUIRE god(s).
2) Why do you REQUIRE religion.

Look up the word "require" in any dictionary and apply it's first definition. Thanks.

BTW. if I was in a desert with my PC, a source of power and an Internet connection and if these posts were water, I would have died of dehydration. Shall I assume that this "debate" is intended to continue over a period of several years?

I think it was her best decision, too! lol

You misunderstood me with regard to what I was talking about as to a Christian web site. I wasn't talking about trolling it. There are other ways to get on their nerves than trolling or flaming them.

Read what I asked in this thread, and re-asked again, again.
If call that trolling, that's you peregative. The person that started the post never answered the 2 questions I asked. Instead she went on with a long post explaining Pantheism. Exactly what I did not ask. As such I re-asked again.

That she didn't like my "tone" is her problem.
That she hsa a need to talk about her religion, and hear that I'm not interested in it, nor did I ask about it, is also her own goddamn problem.

If you want to consider that as trolling, fine. I am entirely used to it, and it's exactly the sort of crap that is commonplace, and why I never did, and still don't give a shit about what anyone calls "trolling".

If you don't like my answers, to fucking bad.

I asked 2 VERY SIMPLE questions twice. They still remain to be answered, but obviously the thread-poster would rather attempt to avoid answering them and refer to my responses as trolling, whilst her fellow poster does the same about something else.

So it goes. Frankly, I didn't expect answer to my questions as that would have been too difficult for a Pantheist to figure out.

As yes... trolling again. Nope. Just telling it as it is.
To damn bad if you don't like it. That's how it is.

 If you have no reason for believing in those two questions treat2 asked, why would you believe in these ideas? The only way you can truly make a valid case for just the possibility of your pantheism is by only renaming natural laws as God. This is unscientific, though, as it is unfalsifiable given that if there is no true God as the causality of something, we would continue to find reasons for why things happen at deeper and deeper levels and you would always continue to say they work that way cause it is God that is doing this.
I gave this answer, but I still feel a bit confused about the actual details of what you specifically believe as a pantheist. I have read definitions for it, but I am confused with these definitions and things you have said, so perhaps you could be more elaborate in what you believe. Some extra effort to do this very clearly would definitely be appreciated.

You're not making any sense...

1) Pantheism is a religion.
2) Pantheism defines what "God" is.

I asked you (as you are a Pantheist), why you require both.

Now you state that you don't.

Your response is a typical example of Pantheist-speak, and EXACTLY why I have put up a number of post which clarify that Pantheists redefine the English language, AND my dislike for obfuscating commonly used words to mean something that they do not.

I know you didn't originally answer my questions, by intent.
And I know it is also not because you believe I don't know what Pantheism is, but because you didn't want to answer the questions for the very reason that when you finally did answer the questions your answers were NOT the answers of a Pantheist.

I'm not interested in your own definition of Pantheism.

I'm also not interested in debating with someone that is not a Pantheist, as you can not answer my questions because you are not a Pantheist.

The "debate" is silly and over.

It's a belief, religion is an institution. Pantheism is not an institution, it's a belief around which an institution can be built.

Yeah, so? This doesn't make God necessary, just extant. If you're asserting that necessity is a requirement of existence, support it.

And I answered you. I don't require them.

How about you make a decent effort to define "require" if you think I am abusing it. "Look it up in the dictionary and assume the first definition" is a cop out. Be specific or don't get shirty when people can't meet your ridiculous expectations.

That's rich, you've obfuscated in every single post you've made to this thread. Be clear or be over it for crying out loud, your sulking is laughable.

No. No. No. Soz. You’re going way off base. Pantheists are no goddamn different than Atheists, except for their requirement for a God, a religion, and redefining the goddamn Dictionary so anyone that doesn't know squat about Pantheism will not have a clue as to what the fuck they are saying! There's good reason for the redefinition. Without it, they could not speak proper English. As to their need for God and a religion, that's the same primitive need that have Theists have for a God and a religion. No goddamn different. EXCEPT, for one person that I personally know of... Einstein... all of the rest have no reason for it, other than I just explained. As for Einstein, had he said he was an Atheist, it would have ended his career.

Spinoza "The Father of Pantheism" was another story, and he got nailed. On the other hand, he was fucking nuts, and attempted to write a book which constructed a religion based on mathematical theorems and other such shit in math.

If you want to know about Pantheism check out SEVERAL Pantheist web sites, in particular find a glossary of Pantheist terminology. Such glossaries can be found on Pantheist Web Sites and elsewhere. Find a site which has Pantheist-speak and an interpretation into REAL English.
It'll take about a day at least. After that blow your head off to cure that head ache.

Again, if you want, feel free to ask me about Pantheism and I'll give you an explanation in unadulterated English.

er... no.. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said at all. I wasn't the one who brought up cause as an issue, that was you, and my response was to dismiss it.  To reiterate, there is reason to believe that cause is a correlative condition not a necessary condition so finding God in cause is redundant. This goes to your argument that a God which depends on being the cause of something will be defeated by deeper scientific discovery, this god does not depend on being the cause of anything because nothing depends on cause for existence, cause dictates order not existence.

This makes it plain that you misunderstood my post. I never said causality leads to God, I argued against your contention that causality can supplant God by mentioning that it may not be essential enough to supplant God.

I said nothing of the sort and I am, frankly, speechless that you think I did.

Actually despite the misunderstanding here you have charged me correctly with saying that causality is God (or at least a part thereof). How quantum mechanics fits with this idea is as I have already said, causality is an order, not a precedent.

erm... I don't think that it is fucking with us, really. We habitually attribute causality to order, the universe has order which is not causal, this is not a fuck around, I suspect it's just reality.

Life as you are implying it to be in this statement, is very much related to what I said about our average understanding of our condition being imprecise. The existence of hostility to life depends on how you define life.

I admitted that I hadn't given you exactly what you asked for, that is not a qualitative statement. I have refrained and would continue to refrain from saying you're misrepresenting my words if I had reason to believe that you were doing it accidentally, but you're, fast, eliminating that possibility.

First, read what I wrote in response to that quote (I suspect you'll be doing so for the first time rather than again). Show me where I have charged you with saying that I think causality leads to God in that paragraph? Besides the fact that you did actually say that later in the post which makes even arguing this point utterly ludicrous and silly, you are wasting our efforts on trivial nonsense by asking me to defend things I did not say. Why?

Non sequitur rubbish - "I told you what you think and so you failed to provide insight into what you think" ?? What does that even mean ??

No, I'm telling you that you do not already know what I believe. You appear to be quite adamant that you do.

I've said a lot more than that.

You're assuming that I have made an assumption here? Why? I clearly stated that I have reasons to believe it, not assumptions. How are you not absorbing anything I have said at all?

Nah. I'm content, and to all a goodnight.

I'll take some popcorn.

Let me see if I got this right.

With these questions, treat2 was asking Eloise why God and religion were necessary. 

Since these questions were vague (actually, they were kind of incoherent), Eloise interpreted them as "what did an entity require in order to be a God or a religion." In response, treat2 didn't realize that Eloise had misinterpreted his questions and assumed that she was dodging. Eloise decided that treat2 was rude and was not trying to have a real discussion at all, so she ended the conversation. treat2 took this as further evidence that Eloise was trying to dodge his questions.

What do you define pantheism to be?

Hmmm, so, you're saying that if something contains enough of the general characteristics of what humans, throughout history, have attributed to God(s), then that something, by definition, is God?

Ok I will spell it out for you clearly.

I believe that what is, is God.

I believe this follows quite comfortably from recognising that what we are ends at the total state of the universe, rather than at the edge of our skin.

And I believe also that the above follows, among other things, from the realisation that cause is a law of order, rather than a condition of existence.

Ok?

 treat2, you should acknowledge that there are several shades of meaning of 'require', so a dictionary will not really clarify just what you intended there. Responding as you have been is just coming across as an arrogant prick. We are not mind readers.

Well I do not have a problem then if you think the universe is God. You have just defined everything that we can see as God. What does that matter? You are just redefining the the word universe lol. That's not a religion but an attempt to give a word new meaning.

Is there perhaps something else you believe or is that just it? You just worship matter and the laws of physics? Me too, in a sense. Not really worship but definitely a big fan 

I am guessing there is something more but so far all you have described is no problem except that you for some reason wanna say everything that is is God and there is no need or reason to redefine the word God to mean those things when we can just say universe instead.

You are correct; I don't have that ability. Instead, I know that many words have multiple meanings, and I determine the meaning of a word based on the context. If I don't know what a person is trying to say, I will usually ask them to clarify. Assuming that it is the first meaning in the dictionary will often lead to problems with communication, which, ditto, uh..............

My 2 questions were intended to a person whom I THOUGHT was a Pantheist. Later, I learned I was wrong in my assumtion.

As to my questions, they would be directed for a Pantheist to answer, and NOT to the thread-poster, nor to anyone else to answer. Moreover, they are simple questions, and even a simple-minded Pantheist would understand them. That you do not is your problem. Besides which they are NOT directed to the Forum at large, or to anyone that is NOT a Pantheist, for the very reason that they are to be answered by a Pantheist, from the perspective of a Pantheist, and NOT someone else that is NOT a Pantheist.

As to carrying on a discussion of these simple questions with a person that is NOT a Pantheist was not my intent, and my intentions have not changed.

Therefore, as there are no Pantheists here to answer the questions directed to a Pantheist, I've nothing to say to any of you that I've not clarified as to my view of Pantheism, and why I maintain my opinions of Pantheists, as they are.

At this point, given there are no Pantheists, there's nothing I've to say about the subject, until I have access to 3 quotes from Einstien, which I believe you all will fail to understand, and would be more than happy to explain
Pantheist-speak.

As to what Pantheism is... for the millionth time... I've posted EXACTLY what Panthests do, and I've spent enough time studying Pantheism is based on, including studying Spinoza, so that I have a very clear understanding of exactly what Pantheism is.

However, should any of you not understand it, as it is clear that you do not understand Pantheistm, if you have a quotation from a Pantheist which requires interpretation because it is unclear or seems to make no sense, I would be happy to shed light on the quotation. AND as I said at least TWICE before I highly recomment that if you are interested in learning about Pantheism that you refer to my earlier posts which make several helpful suggestions that I'm not going to repeatedly post.

At this point, given what has been posted I consider the subject of THIS Topic as being not worth my time discussing.
That's not to say that I would not engage myself in another post about Pantheism which is a discussion of it. Clearly, that was not the intent of this post. More importantly it was not posted by a Pantheist, and as such the viewpoint / perspective of a Pantheist whom could provide a simple answer to 2 simple questions was not even possible...

As such, I withdraw my questions, and my involvement from this thread, as it is silly, and the motivation of the thread was directed towards myself, from a non-Pantheist, whom can not and could not answer the vital questions that only a Pantheist could answer without silly remarks about not understanding what the 2 very simple questions mean, even after further simplification which was done at a time that I incorrectly assumed I was conversing with a Pantheist.

If someone wants to discuss Pantheism. Feel free. If someone wants to engage the thread-poster in a discussion or a debate feel free. However, I've no interest in doing so in this thread, with this thread-poster, given that the thread-poster is not a Pantheist, and for a variety of other reasons which are too silly to respond to.

LMAO!

Thanks for all of your trolling, and demonstrating how a troll behaves. You and several of you fellow trolls are clearly one of the reasons that THIS topic was posted.

You've provided only insipid off-topic garbage having nothing to to with the topic and a fine example to everyone of trolling. Thanks for your example!

treat2, I doubt that you'll actually consider a single word in this post, but I will write it anyways. I am not a pantheist, but if you think pantheism must be religious, then you have absolutely no idea what pantheism is. Let me say that again. Based on what you've written, you do not know what pantheism is, you clearly do not understand Einstein or Spinoza, and your expertise in matters of "Pantheist-speak" is roughly equivalent to my dog's expertise in multivariate calculus.  

Aside:

So you're basing it on my saying that I am irreligious? Irreligious theists are quite commonplace and if you are saying that no true theist is irreligious you might be indulging a blatant no true scotsman fallacy. To be clear, can you provide the definition of "religious" that you're operating under there?

Not exactly. I'm pointing to the characteristics historically attributed to the universe, collectively reasoning an entity behind its being named God, and I am saying we can't write them off so quickly.

Yeah, I don't believe in worshipping at all, actually, or any religious acts for that matter. I come from a Native American family and I was raised with the idea (which is still alive in tribal tradition) that religious rites are not an end unto themselves but a method of intergenerational communication, just another way to pass down stories aside from written communication, basically. My life experience and my studies of theology have reinforced that and I believe it is accurate.

So I don't worship, but like you, I guess, I'm a big fan. This universe is amazing.

I've got no investment in how the universe should be named, as far as I am concerned, and most know here, just calling it the universe instead makes no difference to me. It is the reason I call it God which matters to me, and I have a reason.