Are my defintions of words and terms relating to religious debate wrong or right?
Naturalistic Pantheist - someone that thinks the Universe is cool and we are all part of one Universe but there is nothing magical about it.
Pantheist - someone that thinks we are all part of one Universe and it is magical.
Agnostic - someone that holds the extremist empirical position that gnosis is impossible.
Atheist - someone that holds the position that there is no reason to believe in a god and therefore doesn't.
Deist - someone that holds the position that the Universe was created by a supreme being but we can't know anything about it.
Theist - someone that holds the position that a supreme being that created the Universe exists and he has given us knowledge of what the supreme creator being thinks through divine revelation via angels and prophets.
Polytheist - holds the position there are loads of cool gods, like Hanuman or Zeus and they get up to various cray capers at the expense of mankind.
Gnostic - someone that holds the position that the material world sucks and we are all spirits, dude.
Antitheist - someone that holds the position that all religion is harmful.
>>346380
I think your definition of naturalistic Pantheist, actually describes most Pantheists in general.
Stephan Hawking has been described as a pantheist, but I don't believe he would say there's anything magical about it.
>>346390
He probably believes in Spinoza's god, like Einstein, which is just a flowery way of saying he thinks the universe is neat.
>>346390
I think Stepehen Hawking is philosophically a pantheist but has openly described himself as an atheist on many occasions.
>>346415
I can never get my head around what Spinoza thought. He seems to be taking the position that the Universe itself is divine and describes it as God but uses a totally different definition of God to one that Theists and Deists use.
>>346380
Is that Stephanie Jewsten?
>>346380
Everyone thinks they're part of the universe, like they are.
Need to work on the pantheist description then.
>>346460
>I believe in God if you define God to by the chair I'm sitting on.
I think it's usually just a way to not believe in God but sound like don't you believe in God.
>>346473
I would agree with that, but pantheism is the big thing I am struggling to grasp my head around most.
>>346380
>Deist...but we can't know anything about it.
Not too sure on this one. I thought Deist was the idea that there was Divine Creation, but aside from that spark the Creator is purely "hands off."
Also:
Panentheist: "All is God, but God is more than (or at least distinct from) All"
Pandeism: "God created All by becoming All"
>>346511
>Pandeism: "God created All by becoming All"
>>346536
Crudely: there was a Being who could be called God, and It made the universe out of Itself, and lost Its Being-ness as a result, or transferred it or whatever. The point being God the Person is now God the Universe.
>>346380
>Antitheist - someone that holds the position that all religion is harmful.
Wouldn't that be anticlericist or something?
Belief in god and following a religion are not the same thing.
>>346589
I thought an anticlericist was specifically against the Catholic church?
An antitheist is not necessarily agains deism as far as I understand itm just against theism.
But we, humans, are in a single universe
>>346649
Until we spread out into the Multiverse and our consciousness exists outside of space and time.
>>346675
But outside our universe there is only the atropic void where absolute temperaturs are.
>>346563
Technically it was multple gods who either willing sacrificed themselves or were tricked into sacrificing themselves in order to create Nirn.
>>346675
How do you reveres entropy?
>>346691
Thats one hell of a question
>>346684
>atropic void where absolute temperaturs are
You shouldn't just string up words together and hope they mean something.
>>346723
Atrophy is the rule that energy leaves shit. Like if you sit out in the cold, you lose heat.
We cant prove the edge of the universe exists or that it ends, but we suspect thag it does, and that it just is expanding.
The average temperature in space is something like -455 degrees fahrenheit (on phone, cant look up). This of microwaves travelling through space. Jf you are in space and can see a star in the distance, there is at least some energy around you.
We suspect that outside the pysichal matter of the universe there is nothing, not even light. Therefore the temperate is absolute zero, which is like -456.8 fahrenheit or around there. Energy follows the path of least resistance, so it leaves to swim in the sea of blackness. The universe is slowly dying.
>>346752
>We cant prove the edge of the universe exists or that it ends, but we suspect thag it does, and that it just is expanding.
Incorrect. There is no "edge" to the universe, no more so then there is an edge to the 2D surface of a sphere. The universe infinite or finite and unbounded.
>>346771
Im assuming that universe means area with nuetrons in it
>>346776
Neutrons? The universe means the extent of space and time.
>>346691
THERE INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE.
>>346380
And once you've finished amassing your little catalog, do you gain any insight?
Or are you now just faced with a series of cliches?
>>346874
>And once you've finished amassing your little catalog, do you gain any insight?
Very much yes. Although I am thirsty for more.
>Or are you now just faced with a series of cliches?
This seems to be based on a bit of a strange meaning of the word "cliché", would you mind expanding?
>>346691
In the context of the universe as a whole, entropy has no meaningful definition, so you can pick whatever direction you like.
>>346914
Sorry, don't mind my bitter rambling. It's just that I have always hated philosophy textbooks, as they kill any pleasure of reading.
>this guy believes objects have an essence and it is in them
>this guy believes essence is in another plane
>and so on
Always been insanely boring to me.
And it's kinda what you're proposing here.
>>346929
Incorrect. Entropy in a closed system cannot be reduced.
>>346930
I was more trying to pin down specific meanings of words in English to aid my understanding of debate than trying to get into some kind of dull discussion about the meaning of meaning.
I didn't propose anything, other than my understanding of the words.
>>346380
Nice joost, friend
