-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone
- Thread starter Jumi
- Start date
I have something similar to this in a different way. The God that the atheist rejects is the anthropomorphic form of God of traditional theism. To say one is an atheist, is to start and end with that imagining of God as the great being in the sky who looks down up his creation, who acts upon it with either grace and compassion or disciplines and judgments, the way a parent would with a child. In other words, the atheist rejects this mythic-literal interpretation of God, what really boils down to a mode of interpretation of reality. In a sense, God is still a symbol, even to them.
So atheism is only atheism to that definition of God, the only one many if not most seem to believe exists. Do all theists imagine God this way? No, of course not. Therefore, is atheism relevant to them? No, because they already don't believe in the same form of God the atheist doesn't. So then, is an atheist, really an atheist?
So atheism is only atheism to that definition of God, the only one many if not most seem to believe exists. Do all theists imagine God this way? No, of course not. Therefore, is atheism relevant to them? No, because they already don't believe in the same form of God the atheist doesn't. So then, is an atheist, really an atheist?
You don't speak for atheist.I have something similar to this in a different way. The God that the atheist rejects is the anthropomorphic form of God of traditional theism. To say one is an atheist, is to start and end with that imagining of God as the great being in the sky who looks down up his creation, who acts upon it with either grace and compassion or disciplines and judgments, the way a parent would with a child. In other words, the mythic-literal interpretation of God. So atheism is only atheism to that definition of God, the only one many if not most seem to believe exists. Do all theists imagine God this way? No, of course not. Therefore, is atheism relevant to them? No, because they already don't believe in the same form of God the atheist doesn't. So then, is an atheist, really an atheist?
Last edited:
WTF??? I most certainly can speak for being an atheist, as I self-identified as one for the past 10 years. I dropped the title, simply because I realized what I said above was true. Sorry this hits you sorely. Care to take back your foul attack on me?
So let's discuss my points like rational adults. What, in what I said is inaccurate?
Let's start here:
Let's start here:
- Atheism is a response to the traditional theist view of God which is an anthropomorphic imagining of the Absolute. True or false?
- Modern theists don't think of God in that way either. True or False?
- If a modern theist doesn't believe in the God that the atheist does not, then are they not disbelieving the same together? True of False?
- If the atheist and the modern theist share the same rejection of that mode of thought, then is atheism about the God they believe in? Yes or no?
Last edited:
Most atheist were theist.
I would say atheist probably know more kinds of theism then your average theist. That's just my opinion and its anecdotal.
This is a classic strategy. The atheist just doesn't understand.
You speak for your self and your self only that regard. You didn't consider other forms of theism. Not what I.did, not what other atheist, just you.
That's not been my exposure. In my many years of experience within the ranks, it's been my observation they are specifically targeting the anthropomorphic, mythic-literal view of God. When presented with other understanding, the typical response is, "Well, that's not God". I think after 10 years I get the pattern pretty well.
BTW, your comment to me was absolutely foul and offensive. Why the need to insult if you have a difference of opinion?
Marisa
Well-Known Member
I have never been asked if I believe in god from anyone who accepts the possible existence of more than one god. It's often made painfully clear to me that when I am asked that question, it's often by one who has never considered the possibility that other believers of other gods might have an equally strong "reason" to believe in their god as the one currently asking me the question. For instance, I was once asked by a baptist christian if there were "any other religions I found more compelling, you know, like methodist or catholicism?" So when I'm asked if I believe in god, I typically respond with "which one?"
What do you mean I didn't consider other forms of theism? I'm not talking about just another anthropomorphic deity, exploring being this or that form of theism. I realized that atheism as a blanket term for all belief in the Absolute, or the Divine, is like saying all forms are transportation are cars. It's limiting oneself to define the parameters in such a way, which is what to me, in my experience, and in my observation and interaction with others atheism does.
And I find your arrogant assumptions offensive.
arrogant, assumptive? I self-identified as an atheist. I moderated a site full of atheists for 10 years. I've read tons of literature on it. And it all comes down to this, by and large, not 100% of course, but many to most as I stated originally. I have an opinion that is not without considerable foundation. One example I love is where I heard the Christian scholar Elaine Pagels speak of Richard Dawkins, saying, "He's not talking about any God I believe in". That's my point. All I have ever heard is in reference to the God that modern theists themselves don't believe in.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I think theists all believe in their own interpretation of god, so I suppose that's true.
If there are a billion theists, then there are a billion gods. Recognition of that, among many other things, is what makes an atheist.
If there are a billion theists, then there are a billion gods. Recognition of that, among many other things, is what makes an atheist.
I don't think it's quite that chaotic. I think there are general categories under which the millions of individual interpretations fall. It's really the categories that I speak to, the one in particular of mythic-literal interpretation.
So bringing up your past atheism o
It doesnt add credibility.and seems like your trying.to make a logical fallacy.
And again you don't believe in.that anthropomorphic god, many still do.
And finding what you call God meaningless does not mean it wasn't considered just they see no value in it.
Dawkins has a whole thing about pantheism being sexed up.atheism is a good response to more transcendent ideas.
You say you dont belive in that god.but.does.the one you do have intent?
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I'll answer my own questions:
Why? I see all of this explainable on random processes over large periods of time and it's far more likely that this happened.
2. I don't believe in human-like gods either who would be interested in how we act. These are human concerns and morality is useful for our long-term survival. We can reason together and create morality that allows for individual freedom and happiness as well as survival of the species and life on the planet.
3. I don't believe gods incarnating as human beings. I think these are the superheroes of ancient humans. They make for good stories and I can see how someone would have a soft-spot for them or how they would serve as role models to some extent.
I think this happens sometimes, but not always.
1. I don't believe in any conscious intelligence referred to as God controlling or creating the universe or life.
Why? I see all of this explainable on random processes over large periods of time and it's far more likely that this happened.
2. I don't believe in human-like gods either who would be interested in how we act. These are human concerns and morality is useful for our long-term survival. We can reason together and create morality that allows for individual freedom and happiness as well as survival of the species and life on the planet.
3. I don't believe gods incarnating as human beings. I think these are the superheroes of ancient humans. They make for good stories and I can see how someone would have a soft-spot for them or how they would serve as role models to some extent.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
This is interesting... before I start, let me just say that my "official" belief is that none of us knows the truth of any spiritual realm that does or does not exist - least of all myself.
An apple - each of us who have experienced an apple would relate, more or less, the same details of our understanding of an apple. Sweet, juicy with a firm outer skin - watch out for the funky bits near the core. In that way, an apple can be, sort of, quantified. Not perfectly, of course, but perhaps to within a 90% confidence that people will describe mostly the same things when exhausting their knowledge/understanding of an apple - but probably not exact.
To an even sharper degree, I feel that each and every one of us has a different conception of God. If we were all to "define" God, none of us would give the same answer. Similar, perhaps, in some cases, but very different on at least some levels from person to person. Some believe though they have not "heard" or "seen" God - others claim that they have. Some believe He should be feared in a reverent way, others believe He is made of love. Some do not believe at all - and for wide and varying reasons on that score as well.
From that perspective, I don't believe any of us even truly believe in the same God. We are all "trapped" within our own minds, and restricted to interpretations of our own circumstances and sensory inputs - how can we truly "share" a single concept of God? Especially when (even at 90%) we don't necessarily share the same concept of an "apple"?
My ultimate belief is that, as God cannot be specifically quantified to any degree of confidence - all believers (to whatever degree, however minute) disbelieve the God of every other person, and believe only in the one they have built for themselves.
An apple - each of us who have experienced an apple would relate, more or less, the same details of our understanding of an apple. Sweet, juicy with a firm outer skin - watch out for the funky bits near the core. In that way, an apple can be, sort of, quantified. Not perfectly, of course, but perhaps to within a 90% confidence that people will describe mostly the same things when exhausting their knowledge/understanding of an apple - but probably not exact.
To an even sharper degree, I feel that each and every one of us has a different conception of God. If we were all to "define" God, none of us would give the same answer. Similar, perhaps, in some cases, but very different on at least some levels from person to person. Some believe though they have not "heard" or "seen" God - others claim that they have. Some believe He should be feared in a reverent way, others believe He is made of love. Some do not believe at all - and for wide and varying reasons on that score as well.
From that perspective, I don't believe any of us even truly believe in the same God. We are all "trapped" within our own minds, and restricted to interpretations of our own circumstances and sensory inputs - how can we truly "share" a single concept of God? Especially when (even at 90%) we don't necessarily share the same concept of an "apple"?
My ultimate belief is that, as God cannot be specifically quantified to any degree of confidence - all believers (to whatever degree, however minute) disbelieve the God of every other person, and believe only in the one they have built for themselves.
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Speaking for myself...... I don't believe in any type of god or gods or whatever the hell you want to call them/it, anthropomorphic or otherwise.
I reject them all with reckless abandon.
Even the concept of a pantheistic god is little more than faith-pandering, in my humble opinion. Why say that "everything is god" and not just say that "everything is." Period?
Why does any part of deity even have to be part of it? There's certainly no evidence that there's any such thing as the supernatural. Why enlightened and otherwise very intelligent people give into make-believe is beyond me.
Now, saying that, I can understand and appreciate people's need to find or feel spiritual fulfillment. But adding the concept of deity, or designer, or design, or any supernatural element at all seems like reaching to me. It's just unnecessary. It's nonexistent.
... I don't believe in any type of god or gods or whatever the hell you want to call them/it, anthropomorphic or otherwise. I reject them all with reckless abandon.
Even the concept of a pantheistic god is little more than faith-pandering, in my humble opinion. Why say that "everything is god" and not just say that "everything is." Period?
Why does any part of deity even have to be part of it? There's certainly no evidence that there's any such thing as the supernatural. Why enlightened and otherwise very intelligent people give into make-believe is beyond me.
Now, saying that, I can understand and appreciate people's need to find or feel spiritual fulfillment. But adding the concept of deity, or designer, or design, or any supernatural element at all seems like reaching to me. It's just unnecessary. It's nonexistent.