Okay, we can disagree on that, but feel 100% confident in my judgment.

<They won't consider any alternative view from their own intransigent positions.

Whereas I'm open to other opinions and will try to understand alternative viewpoints, Ohio and the Colonel are completely closed to any perspective different from their own.>

I tend to agree with this. We are able to get along and talk about a range of issues even though you are a liberal catholic while I'm a conservative protestant, without any nonsense. I think this is because we both appreciate intellectual discourse and philosophical reasoning.

<Anyway, in both cases I have always sought to connect with them and try to understand their point of view, but it's like they're dug in and won't budge no matter what contrary facts they are confronted with.>

I've tried too. <mort> and I were discussing his worldview not long ago, and I've followed up on it again in my previous post here. He runs away. He can't give a good answer for the reason he thinks pantheism is more plausible than atheism.

He simply runs away.

<ohio> is different for me. I've never had to really ask him anything about his worldview because he makes it clear and it's like mine at its core. I agree with <ohio> on almost all important questions - and I choose to stay away from unimportant ones.

I sure do enjoy philosophy. I really love to dig into philosophical issues and pull them apart. I think that the more we look carefully at science and philosophy, the more it points toward theism, and this is so strikingly at odds with conventional wisdom. It makes it so interesting.

It's an interesting philosophical question.

Is it even possible that "I" could have been born to a Muslim family?

The concept of predestination is explored in the Letter to the Ephesians, "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." (Ephesians 1:4-6)

In any event, adults do indeed have a choice, although choosing ones religion in a western country is quite different to that in a middle-eastern country. So I take your point that someone born in Saudi Arabia today has no choice in their religion, but whose fault is that?

Be that as it may, the Church leaves open the way of salvation for non-Christians, as stated in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (1964), "The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

Alternatively, there is the atheist viewpoint that we're all just biological organisms birthed at random into a meaningless universe!?

Not sure where pantheists stand on that point?!

Imagine living in that much fear!?

<Not just in Saudi Arabia, but in the US too. It's also very difficult to leave the church in certain communities, particularly in the Bible belt>

Never heard of such a thing, but what do I know, I only live in America and have many friends in the "bible belt", while mort lives in NZ.

You were right, <optimal>, he continually tries to engage in whataboutery. You bring up Saudi Arabia and he says "what about" the bible belt. He's a one trick pony.

<mort>, here's your chance to enlighten us on Pantheism. I've asked you about it and now <optimal> has asked you about it. But you just come back with "bible belt" whataboutery.

So enlighten us.

The strange thing is that he posts something, and then if you ask him a question about what he posted, he doesn't want to elaborate!

So I think, "Well, what was the point of him posting anything in the first place if he didn't want to discuss that particular topic?"

The problem with the Rogoff page is that you can be having an intelligent conversation with somebody when a couple of idiots will jump in with no agenda other than to disrupt the debate and cause acrimony. So I don't bother with Rogoff much anymore.

<Colonel Mortimer: <optimal> <So I take your point that someone born in Saudi Arabia today has no choice in their religion, but whose fault is that?> Not just in Saudi Arabia, but in the US too. It's also very difficult to leave the church in certain communities, particularly in the Bible belt> Will they be stoned to death?

Anyway, can you tell us where pantheists stand in regards to the atheist viewpoint that we're all just biological organisms birthed at random into a meaningless universe!?

And while you're at it, please give us the lowdown on why pantheism is more plausible than atheism.

That's not honest.

You corrected me when I referred to you as an atheist, saying that you were a pantheist instead.

Now you can't explain why pantheism is more plausible than atheism.

You don't need to be an advocate for anything to explain why pantheism is more plausible than atheism.

<I'm not advancing any argument about pantheism>

But you clearly said that this was your worldview. Furthermore, you said you arrived at this worldview by way of intellectually reasoning your way to it. You said that on <rogoff> to me.

I'm open minded about it. That's the difference between me and you. What you believe is fixed and you want to impose it on others. What I believe isn't fixed, I'm a flexible thinker, and I don't advocate any 'truth' onto other people. In short I respect other peoples beliefs as to how existence came to be. But I don't respect people who push their beliefs onto others, while pretending they know the sum of all truths.

I didn't say you need to justify how existence came to be. That is a strawman.

You told me, on your own, that you were *not* an atheist, that you were a pantheist, and that you reasoned your way there.

What are the reasons?

What are the reasons?

What are the reasons?

I didn't ask you to talk about existence coming into being. I didn't say you *need* to do anything.

You said you used an intellectual approach, guided by reason, to not arrive at atheism like I said, but rather at pantheism.

You don't *need* to come here and say "santa claus" but you do, so let's not pretend this has anything to do with what you do or do not need.

You blather yourself all over the <rogoff> page about evil America this and that but you don't *need* to. You say, on that page, that you aren't trying to persuade anybody of anything, but you show up anyway and empty your thoughts onto the page.

So quit lying about why you can't explain yourself here.

The reason is that you are an atheist, just like I claimed, and you know from watching my discussions on <rogoff> that you have *NO ANSWERS* for the questions I will ask!

Well, you can see right here for yourself that <mort> fits your narrative to a tee.

Notice that I'm known on the <rogoff> page as the obnoxious big mouth bully, and they all want me to go away - yet, they follow me to my forum and lurk here, reading everything and thinking to themselves. <perf> does this, <bartle> does this and <mort> does this. They lurk here and bring back quotes to the <rogoff> page, after protesting my presence there, calling me a bully, a hate monger, the antiChrist, a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, a troll - yet they follow me here to lurk in my forum.

Why do you think that is?

Yet, as you say, they make a post (mort, this time), and then refuse to engage in the discussion.

There is evidence for US wrong doing. A lot of evidence - that's because the US has done a lot of bad things to other countries. When people say America is 'x' because 'y' happened, I remind them that 'y' didn't happen and for them to re-evaluate 'x'.

However, there is no evidence for or against the proposition that God exists.

That's the difference, fairly straight forward really. I talk about stuff that I can produce evidence for, real evidence, and I don't bother harassing people over stuff I cannot possibly advocate as the 'truth' in the absence of credible evidence.

Okay, you reasoned your way to it? Let's hear the reasons.>

His answer:

<..and forgive your parents for telling you Santa was true.>

All of a sudden <mort> has nothing to say! He's all meek and whatnot. How'd that happen <mort>?

Oh look how passive he is all of a sudden, <I'm open minded about it. That's the difference between me and you. What you believe is fixed and you want to impose it on others. What I believe isn't fixed, I'm a flexible thinker, and I don't advocate any 'truth' onto other people.> yet he spends all day and all night pushing his anti American agenda on the <rogoff> page.

This does, of course, make his meek statement laughable. *He doesn't want to PUSH his ideas on anyone!*

Does it get any richer than this?

I think I've made my point. <mort> is NOT here to contribute honestly and is only here to cause trouble, but, unfortunately for him, there is no easy pickings here.

I guarantee that if I were a soft pushover Christian, he would be kicking me around with his jackboots all day, every day. Stand up to him and what do we see?

Meekness.

So what? You don't *need* to say anything. I thought it was all about what you *need* or *need not* do?

You don't have to *persuade* anyone, but you try to.

<So what is it you don't understand?>

Pay attention!

You said you reasoned your way not to atheism (you corrected me) but rather toward pantheism. Now you are telling me you did this with no evidence for either side?

So you reasoned with no evidence and wound up with pantheism over atheism, and you're asking me what I don't understand?

I don't understand why you think pantheism is more plausibly true than atheism.

How about that one? I've only asked you a thousand times.

<However, there is no evidence for or against the proposition that God exists.>

<However, there is no evidence for or against the proposition that God exists.>>

You answered a question I didn't ask, so why do you give it to me? It's worthless.

I asked how why you think pantheism is more plausibly true than atheism, and why you rejected atheism - since it was all based on your intellectual reasoning powers.

I don't.

See below..

<there is no evidence for or against the proposition that God exists.>

Truth is objective, and there is no way I would argue for it on either proposition.

What I believe personally has no bearing on the matter. Because what I believe is subjective.

That's another difference between you and me. You argue that what you believe is objective, while I truthfully recognise that I cannot possibly know that God does or doesn't exist. Which is why I don't pretend to convince others on a matter for which I have zilch in the credible evidence department.

So you're an agnostic!?

Well then, why did you previously say that you were a pantheist?>

You're missing the point in a rush to pigeon hole everything and everyone. You should reread by last post. What I believe on a subjective level and what I argue on an objective level is different.

Say I believe in Santa Claus and it's my personal belief, I'm not going to argue out loud that believing in Santa Claus is a perfectly rational thing to believe and consequently something I should be moved to impose on others.

Belief for me is personal. I don't feel the need to share it with others and have it approved, and I don't feel the need to congregate with others to bolster it. I don't feel the need for others to approve what I believe.

What I believe is for me and me alone. And it's not some great construct of how the universe came into existence. It's more a journey of observation, ebbing and flowing on the tides of my own perception and interactions in the world.

And it's not necessarily defined by Pantheism, even though Pantheism by definition is not a carefully constructed system of belief - far from it.

If you want to understand Pantheism look it up, but I fear you will be disappointed and deign it too wishy washy and unstructured.

I have found that people who gravitate to organised religion are more interested in answers than questions.

Either way, they often end up disappointed and miss the beauty of being and enjoying the miracle that is life. Why go destroy the mystery and beauty of life with all its unanswered questions by imposing an artifice of answers on it, answers that are merely conjecture and wishful thinking?

So what?

You corrected me on saying you weren't an atheist but and instead were a pantheistic. Objective, subjective - so what?

You said you reasoned your way there.

I read all your previous posts and they reflect the mind of somebody who is completely and totally lost.

You talk about 'belief' and how it is personal, which is fine, but what kind of belief is unarguable and irrational?

I can say that I believe something because ... and give some kind of explanation.

Others can either accept or reject my reasoning, which is their prerogative.

A "journey of observation, ebbing and flowing on the tides of ones own perception and interactions in the world", as you put it, is an interesting exploration, but not a belief.

Pantheism is a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. If you "truthfully recognise that you cannot possibly know that God does or doesn't exist", then you're not a Pantheist, you're an Agnostic. It's as simple as that!