> no, they're atheists' more humble and intellectually honest cousins who recognize that there very well could be some kind of god. if someone says "they do not know if god(s) exists" then they are definitionally atheist because they do not currently have a belief in the existence of god(s). they are just too scared to reveal themselves as atheists because they know doing so will inherently trigger theists into conflict. > people subconsciously recognize nature as god no matter how they rationalize things. prove it. i'm an atheist and i don't view nature as god in any shape or form. > b-b-but your subconsciousness prove it. > the first is that no pantheist believes in the abrahamic demon. in the western world, practically all pantheists trace their origins to the previous cultural belief in yahweh. if the culture did not believe in yahweh, then pantheism would never emerge because there would be no concept of a deity. > the second is that nobody who goes from naive theism (these gods exist, we were told so) to naive atheism (these gods don't exist, therefore no god does) can have possibly considered pantheism because naive atheism is contingent on the assumption that the deities of naive theists are the only possible gods. what a bunch of retarded word salad. atheism is the non-belief or disbelief in god(s). that means all gods, and generally any spiritual/supernatural force/creature, etc. in between. > > pantheism isn't atheism destroying. > it absolutely is. the mere fact that nature can be god (and logically must be god if nothing supernatural exists) makes atheism impossible because atheism is contingent on nothing existing that can possibly be god. any non-naive atheism is explicit nature denial. nature =/= god(s). hurricanes existing does not mean a hurricane god exists. nature existing does not mean a nature god exists. you keep spewing retarded non-sense. > if i change the definitions of words, i win. retarded.
Canada