I know right?! Those thin crust infidels can kick rocks!

I'm also confounded by your statment, but genuinely intrigued. If you have the time, could you please elaborate?

@contravalid & @Gwendolyn2018
I see it as a form of shell gaming the 'god of the gaps' tactic. Religion guides, answers questions, provides a moral framework, and comforts...each in their own way and often at the direction of an divine ethereal figure(s). As society matures we find errors, contradictions, and new/logical answer's to our questions. When this happens it becomes increasingly easy to chip away at whole notion built around these divine ethereal figures. The unexplained bits are clung to even more tightly to preserve their narative. Those (yet) unexplained bits tend to be the very big, very small, very old, or very extreme.

Pantheism, to me, (and very generally) does two things to very artfully insulate itself... 1) it removes the specific divine ethereal figure. So, there can be no error or contradictions. 2) it takes those (yet) unexplained bits tend to be the very big, very small, very old, or very extreme and suggests that there is where the god resides.

Pantheism suggests the contradiction that the supernatural is natural.

I am just not wired to settle for explaining what we don't understand with a supernatural explanation...even as a last resort. We may never get the answers we look for but we should certainly keep looking

@Teter wow... Beutifully said! Couldn’t agree more with your words.

@Teter I totally get what you're saying. I was just confused and still am as to how monotheism can be closer to atheism than pantheism. Ok, your "god of the gaps" argument is sound with the way you constructed it. But, I'm curious if it really comports with my understanding. I'm in no way accusing you of "strawmanning," it's much more likely do to the media of our engagement. There is so much to be discovered and better understood. But, I'm not advocating that science will one day render any supernatural claim natural phenomena. What I'm suggesting is that, perhaps, science will one day reveal such a marvelous, inspiring, structure that will evoke a fundamental paradigm shift, which may provide the evidence required to seriously cause even the most ardent atheist to concede the likelihood of some sort of teleology. As a corollary to this discussion, I'm assuming that you also believe that "atheistic" types of Buddhism are likewise theistic as well. Again, thank you. If I'm completely missing something, I'm counting on you guys to straighten me out. I'd much rather be wrong then remain ignorant.

Sorry, but I may be operating under the false assumption that our Dear Supreme Leader has freed us from the absurdity of truth. Anyway, I sincerely appreciate your responses. However, I believe this is a discussion worth having.

See above. Thanks

See above. Thanks

@KissedbySun Then they don't understand what words mean.
One cannot call themself an atheist if they are calling themself a pantheist.
That's just not how it works.
Get a dictionary, and quit making up your own definitions for things.

@KissedbySun From my understanding, the universe itself is god.

@KissedbySun is this like the belief in "What the bleep do we know?" I didn't read the book, but I watched the movie.

@KissedbySun there were some interesting things in the movie about the "observer", and I guess some pretentious things too. I'm just curious, I don't think I've heard the word or belief before. Do you have books or sources you recommend?

@KissedbySun Thanks for defending my point. Right after posting, things came up. Anyway, it appears we might be on the same page--a minority amongst a minority. Don't you think this site is in desperate need of a few true "gadflies?" The "echo-chamber" here is deafening. Fortunately, like you, I have better ways to spend my time. However, it would be a noble cause nonetheless. Maybe, we should find others who are similarly predisposed and take shifts. Perhaps, a perfect follow up question should be: Is free-thinking and antitheism compatible? I'm game, if you are.

@KissedbySun I was being kind of tongue-in-cheek and wordplay got the best of me. I'm not at all some sort of passive aggressive contrarian. Like you, instead of trying to make a point, I'm by far more interested in what others with similar proclivities have discovered. I don't have any reason to believe in reincarnation, therefore I'm inclined to expedite my curiosity by soliciting those like yourself to perchance provide me with the "cliff notes" of your endeavors. I'm not sure why we are more agreeable to the "belief" component you speak of and have no issue with accommodating what is commonly referred to as "spiritual." While I know I am far from alone in my affinity to this unique philosophical hybrid, I have yet to run into anyone who flirts with such a philosophical contradiction as I. I have been using pantheism as convenient identifier. Nevertheless, it is quite deficient. Anyhow, I was wondering do you see any merit in teleology? Also, when you were more involved in pantheism, how did you pursue it? Since I'm more inclined to Shamanism than Taoism. I've taken a sort of cultural anthropological/method acting type of approach. I believe that there is power in belief, and I want to tap into it. As I'm sure you know, placebos are ironically potent; but the only way they work is for you to not know that they are placebos. Hence, I've learned to temporarily become sort of schizophrenic. Then, I'm open to receive all the value and insight that any religion and their respective god(s) have to offer. Please, if you find the time, I would love to here your take on the insanity I'm spewing. Thanks.