In article <3omdneekG9Ao54TcRVn-sQ@megapath.net> "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> writes:
<On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:13:16 +0000 in episode
<<cfbrrc$kbh$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> we saw our hero
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell):
<
<> In article <gMSdnZCzrfUG7ITcRVn-vw@megapath.net> "Mark K. Bilbo"
<> <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> writes: <On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:54:51 +0000 in
<> episode <<cfbqor$jq6$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> we saw our hero
<> <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell): <
<> <> These `pan-atheists' must be rarer than Loch Nessies. Has one ever
<> been <> conclusively sighted on camera?
<> <
<> <"Jd" is citing a *wikki. Which--for those who don't know--are stupid
<> webby <things that sometimes pretend to be "dictionaries." However,
<> they're more <blogs than anything. Anybody can type anything in them. This
<> one appears <to be *pretending to be an encyclopedia... <
<>
<> Actually, I kind of like Wikki -- although you're completely right: you
<> and I could go there and commit an "authoritative" article on wombats or
<> the like, and someone might actually be so foolish as to believe what we
<> had contributed.
<
<They can have their uses. However, without some kind of vetting process,
<they can become useless. This "wikkipedia" site allows anybody and
<everybody to post anything. I can't see creating an "encyclopedia" by such
<a process.
<
<> Nonetheless, it can be useful if one relizes its limitations.
<>
<> Of course, what JDay failed to twig to here was not the caveat-emptor
<> limitations of Wikipedia, but the intention of whoever coined the term
<> "pan-atheist". Obviously these folks were not sneering at atheists, but
<> at animists. Jd just got to the word "atheist", and fired his wad.
<
<He's obviously used to "proof texting."


Huh? Whazzat?


-- cary

In article <3omdneekG9Ao54TcRVn-sQ@megapath.net> "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> writes: <On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 01:13:16 +0000 in
episode <<cfbrrc$kbh$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> we saw our hero
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell): <
<> In article <gMSdnZCzrfUG7ITcRVn-vw@megapath.net> "Mark K. Bilbo" <>
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> writes: <On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:54:51 +0000 in
<> episode <<cfbqor$jq6$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> we saw our hero <>
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell): < <> <> These `pan-atheists'
must be rarer than Loch Nessies. Has one ever <> been <> conclusively
sighted on camera? <> <
<> <"Jd" is citing a *wikki. Which--for those who don't know--are stupid
<> webby <things that sometimes pretend to be "dictionaries." However, <>
they're more <blogs than anything. Anybody can type anything in them. This
<> one appears <to be *pretending to be an encyclopedia... < <>
<> Actually, I kind of like Wikki -- although you're completely right: you
<> and I could go there and commit an "authoritative" article on wombats
or <> the like, and someone might actually be so foolish as to believe
what we <> had contributed.
<
<They can have their uses. However, without some kind of vetting process,
<they can become useless. This "wikkipedia" site allows anybody and
<everybody to post anything. I can't see creating an "encyclopedia" by
such <a process.
<
<> Nonetheless, it can be useful if one relizes its limitations. <>
<> Of course, what JDay failed to twig to here was not the caveat-emptor
<> limitations of Wikipedia, but the intention of whoever coined the term
<> "pan-atheist". Obviously these folks were not sneering at atheists,
but <> at animists. Jd just got to the word "atheist", and fired his wad.
<
<He's obviously used to "proof texting."


Huh? Whazzat?

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:54:51 +0000 in episode
<cfbqor$jq6$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> we saw our hero
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell):

These `pan-atheists' must be rarer than Loch Nessies. Has one ever been
conclusively sighted on camera?

By the way...

A Google search turns up a *total of 29 references for "panatheism." Yes.
29.

Three or four are dead links. And I've found, so far, about three *wildly
varying definitions of this term "panatheism."

One site defines it as:

"the belief that because there is no God, nothing can properly be termed
sacred or holy."

An Islamic site claims it means:

"Pantheism is the belief that Allah and the universe constitute one being,
as opposed to the fundamental belief of the Oneness of Allah and the
separateness of His creations, as stressed by Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah."

I found a Unitarian claming:

"But there are also the Celts who have leaned towards what we might call
panatheism, which is a term for the belief that everything is alive (like
pantheism) but with the further notion that all life merges into one
greater life force, much like what the Hindus believe. And because
'all-that-is' is alive, there is a reverence for life itself. Thus, all
nature is alive, and holy. In fact, you and I are also incarnations of the
divine."

Finally, the Positive Atheism site:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9590.htm

Says it's just "strong atheism."


Simply put, there is no such term. Obviously it's performance error.
People attempting to refer to "pantheism" that screw up and spew out a
word that doesn't exist. Maybe a couple that are floating new term that
didn't get off the ground.
The word just doesn't have a coherent definition and is not only not in
"common" use but appears to have only actually been used a handful of
times.

It sure as hell doesn't make much of an appearance on Google. Out of over
4 *billion pages, 29 hits.
Compare with the 744,000 the term "atheism" produces.

(Also, "panatheist" produces 11 hits, "atheist" produces 844,000)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:54:51 +0000 in episode
<cfbqor$jq6$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu> we saw our hero
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell):

These `pan-atheists' must be rarer than Loch Nessies. Has one ever been
conclusively sighted on camera?

By the way...

A Google search turns up a *total of 29 references for "panatheism." Yes.
29.

"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."

Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote in news:hc0jh0t1155o8o51bdilpfgag3fv5fufc4@
4ax.com:

By pan-atheism.

"Creators of the term "pan-atheism" maintain that it is a
pseudo-pantheism because "pan-atheists" do not adhere to the
definition of pantheism which states that "All in God and God in All";
rather their beliefs are better encapsulated by the definition: "All
is Nature" and "Nature is All"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-atheism

When has anyone ever shown anything exists that isn't "nature"? (Except
perhaps the various figments of human imagination.)

Their "god" is nature, i.e. the goddess Mother Earth A.K.A "Gaia".

Why would an atheist need a "mother earth goddess"? How is this god any
less imaginary than the rest of the ones people believe in?

(snip quotes)

------------------ The "Earth Charter" ------------------

"The Earth Charter is a declaration of international values and
principles thought to be a necessary for building a just, sustainable,
and peaceful future. The idea of a Charter originated in 1987, when
the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
called for a new charter regarding fundamental principles for
sustainable development. In 1992, the need for a charter was urged by
then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali at the Rio Earth Summit.
In 1994, the Earth Charter Initiative was formed by Maurice Stong,
secretary general of the Earth Summit and chairman of the Earth
Counsel, Mikhail Gorbachev, who was then president of Green Cross
International, with support with the government of The Netherlands."

"In the United States, members of the Religious Right have found the
document alarming, in part because it is secular, and therefore
contains no reference to the doctrines of Judeo-Christianity.
In addition, some conservatives cite a statement by Gorbachev that the
document is "a kind of Ten Commandments", and the fact that at the
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South
Africa, a copy of the document was placed symbolically in an "Ark of
Hope" which resembles the Ark of the Covenant.
Thus, some see the Charter as a proposed replacement for the Ten
Commandments, and part of a conspiracy to establish a New World
Religion that replaces Christianity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Charter

Science has found that Christianity is responsible for killing the
ancient Goddess (whom they are in the process of resurrecting).

Yes, xianity has done a great injustice to our cultural heritage by
trying to eliminate many of the ancient gods and even their historical
record.

"Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion
comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial
sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the
notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous throughout much of the
world until the antecedents of today's religions - most of which still
have a distinctly masculine orientation - swept out of India and the
Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige
of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity" - Al Gore
(Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit)

Now you see why so many pagans and atheists vehemently support the
the ACLU. They are slowly becoming brainwashed into thinking that
their goddess gave birth to the earliest of religions.... (and even to
Jesus himself)...

Bwahahahahahahahahaha. Damn, this is one incredible step to go from a
discussion of the "mother earth goddess" to badmouthing the ACLU.
Besides, most atheists realize that human imagination gave birth to all
the gods and goddesses.