Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Does anyone who claims to be a pantheist have a greater imagination or experience than any other religionist, or do they just claim to be special/different like every religionist does? How would one determine if there is a difference without knowing reality? Does God/G-0-D label itself or do theists apply a label to define God/G-0-D?
Can all that is, be defined and limited to an idea of what is?
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Site Introduction (2011): Despite several thousand years of failure to correctly understand physical reality (hence the current postmodern view that this is impossible) there is an obvious solution.
Simply unite Science (Occam's Razor / Simplicity) with Metaphysics (Dynamic Unity of Reality) and describe reality from only one substance existing, as Leibniz wrote:
"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another."

Problem: Science does not identify a source of all, and the dynamic reality of Unity becomes relative to imagination which varies from the very unenlightened religious superstitions to the scientific theories of unstable and changing values and its diverse experiences with the physical instruments of measure, which often separate themselves from human emotionally inspired value systems.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

DAWKINS, The more I read and listen to his videos, the more he SOUNDS LIKE A PANTHEIST

Everyone has an opinion, and wishful thinking often recruits comparative measures where the occasional phrase or paragraph fits into the personal agenda and belief system. Without Dawkins' making claims himself to specifically labeling himself as a Pantheist, it leaves you to your convenience in making that assertion in your favor.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Recently, doing some reading on the ideas of Richard Dawkins--a very bright and friendly kind of atheist, the kind with whom having a dialogue probably is a pleasure--

Or not.. (One can never know if one would simply accept an interest in ones ideals or vehemently counter with their own direct experience).
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I came across this quote: "God", says Dawkins, "either exists or he doesn't. It's a scientific question." I agree!

An assumption made from disinterest. I also agree that this conclusion is made from someone who does not insist on pursuing the experience or knowledge without an interest.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

So let us ask a science-based question: Are we listening to what modern pantheists really have to say?

First lets ask another scientific question. Do Pantheists base their sermons on scientific fact which is verifiable as truth for all? Or are you presupposing your question to apply to the combination of metaphysics and simplicity in your personal design as being scientific.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

As a panENtheist (or, unitheist) my respect for pantheism grows. I think of it, not as a different theology, but as pantheism plus.
Dawkins probably is a pantheist. So were, Einstein, Spinoza, Nicola Tesla, and many others past and present.

If we use what you call scientific determination.. "They were or they were not".. I'm sure it would be convenient to make the assumption to label them without having their direct feedback as to what you imply upon their own personal experiences and thoughts.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

However, I find it unnecessary to write about G-0-D as a person having a gender, as Dawkins does.

Not really understanding how Dawkins as an Atheist would lean toward defining what God is sans gender, but I'm sure that slipped your mind.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
This is why I use the special symbol "-0-" (Note the zero). It symbolizes all the no things, like faith, hope, love and the like, which bring things together, and help things happen and work for us.
Faith, hope, love and the like are very real subjective things which are experienced by most people. Not sure how they have become no things. And to say they have brought order to the things that work for us is debatable. The love of God and the faith in the beliefs in God being a subjective deity has brought many conflicts which tried to bring a type of order thru the persecution of innocent people that had their own ideas which went against the grain of those who decided what Gods order should look like. Some could say love in all of its twisting by fear and jealousy has inspired the faith in a jealous God to order the death of innocent human beings.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

G-0-D, then, is the totality of all the reality we call existence, which like nature is there to be explored by our scientists and used by our artists.
This necessarily limits G-0-D the known. Outside of the known G-0-D has yet to be included. Because your G-0-D is limited to the totality of one dimensional reality which we identify with. But I'm sure you are soon to amend that thought since it has been brought to your attention. You have a way with revising your sermons to include new ideas.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

This leads me to conclude that atheists, like Dawkins, and panentheists like me, have a lot in common.

A matter of conveience, yes I got that.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

We both, Dawkins and I, speak of the need for what he calls, "Enlightened Secular Values" and for a the kind of sacred secularism that generates Goodness, brings about good Order and delightful Design.

Are we enlightened yet? That would seem to be a prerequisite to enlightened value systems.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

We who ask "God" to speak up and demonstrate that "he" is here, or there, need to keep in mind:

Perhaps we choose to be deaf and blind.

That can be the outcome of unconscious determinations rallying around convenience to personal realities that are in fact illusions of belief, rather than stable truths within changing personal realities.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

For me, G-0-D--as in panENtheism--witnesses to his/her/its reality every time we use our senses to see, hear, smell, taste and touch anything--any kind of realty in keeping with the laws of nature.

With 7 billion different experiences, and an individual perspective of sight, touch, taste, smell in the co-creation of reality, is the witness objective or subjective? Mostly we are familiar with three states of consciousness, which are sleeping dreaming and waking. Many dream and sleep while awake, and few ever step outside of the three states of consciousness to discover or stabilize their awareness beyond those first three.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I always ask myself: Are you listening? smile
Could you really hear if you did listen.. or better yet, what do you think you are listening for? Do you listen for what you already know, or what you do not yet know, or what you believe in?
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!