Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, I know you're an atheist. Your opinion of the Catholic Church hasn't been a secret to me since I've been on this site.

My opinion of the Catholic Church might not be positive, but you can't say it's uninformed.

In any case, just like the non-traditional theists at the start of the thread, yes: this atheist really does reject your god, too.

It's kind of funny - there's been a running theme in this thread of theists saying, effectively, "MY god-belief is special and different - those atheists can't possibly reject what I believe!" Actually, yeah: odds are we can.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My opinion of the Catholic Church might not be positive, but you can't say it's uninformed.

In any case, just like the non-traditional theists at the start of the thread, yes: this atheist really does reject your god, too.

It's kind of funny - there's been a running theme in this thread of theists saying, effectively, "MY god-belief is special and different - those atheists can't possibly reject what I believe!" Actually, yeah: odds are we can.

That's nice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about the naturalistic pantheistic God?

What do you mean by "the naturalistic pantheistic God" (and is there only one?)?

 

[Ouroboros]

What do you mean by "the naturalistic pantheistic God" (and is there only one?)?

In Naturalistic Pantheism, God is the Universe and nature. Everything that exist is one, and that one is considered God (pan-theos, All-God).

 

[Willamena]

Wise atheists do.

 

[gsa]

Define God according to what you believe God to be and let's see how I feel about it.

You previously have said that this god thing is beyond definition. That defining this "god" does in fact render it "not god" in some way. So any definition you would reject presumably. How can skeptics even engage you?

 

[dust1n]

What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

I reject all possible combination of deity traits or the existence of anything anyone might ever call a deity... so, yes.

 

[Desert Snake]

I reject all possible combination of deity traits or the existence of anything anyone might ever call a deity... so, yes.

Do you have a definition for deity?

 

[dust1n]

Do you have a definition for deity?

Do you have one in mind?

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you have one in mind?

Not sure yet. I might....however, I haven't really analyzed this word.

 

[dust1n]

Not sure yet. I might....however, I haven't really analyzed this word.

If it acts like a human, but it ain't a human, I suspect it's a myth.

 

[`mud]

Does one's god ever cause death,
or does one's god just accept it ?
Explain the difference, as to babies.
OT vs NT and the Koran.
Or are they all the same ?
I'll be back later.
~
'mud

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I haven't yet come across a conception of God that I find convincing.

 

[Windwalker]

I meant do you believe in God as you understand the term?

As I understand the term, sure, to a point where the term is relevant. But that doesn't help you because what I say isn't clear to you. I doubt if you define the term God it bears much resemblance to the way I approach it. I think the key difference would be how it is held in my mindspace versus the way you hold it. So, that's why I suggest we start with how you perceive it. I think it's probably safe to say I agree with your disbelief only up to a certain point.

 

[Sabour]

Quoting @kepha31 from a DIR discussion




What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

The idea that I used to subscribe to is that atheists don't believe in the aspects of God that they dealt with. I mean an ex Christian doesn't believe in the God as Christianity describes God.

So I do think that atheists reject the attributes of God that I for example believe in.

 

[Windwalker]

You previously have said that this god thing is beyond definition. That defining this "god" does in fact render it "not god" in some way. So any definition you would reject presumably. How can skeptics even engage you?

Good point. I don't think that's where I was going with this though. Anytime I would chose to say the word God I am making a positive statement about "something", which in the truest sense is not God. So when I speak of God, I realize that is not God. There is however usefulness to speak positively of God in a dualistic sense. How useful that is is a matter of degrees. How well does it serve to point beyond someone beyond itself? So it's not that speaking of or understanding and relating to God as this or that is without value. It's just that we need to understand our positive states are not absolute. They are relative, and as such they hold relative value.

The limitation of the atheist argument is that it understands all these ways of talking about the divine as factual definitions. This is what the mythic-mode of thought does. "God is just what the Bible says God is. Period". Well, that may be true in the reality of a world defined in strictly dualistic terms. But what about in a world that is not defined in terms of a radical dualism? What is God then? How is God perceived, held, and understood? In that same radical binary sense of words, "this and not that"? Or are the words held more consistently with the worldview that sees reality is far more relative, and words like God (as opposed to words like rock, or car), are far less definitive as expressive, or relevant to the questions asked within that worldspace dealing with matters of one's ultimate concern?

So it's not that I'm going to say you can't say anything. You certainly can. What my response would be is really how I either see it is relevant or not relevant to understanding. But ultimately I will say that the limits of any definitions have to be transcended, including views or perceptions held about God. "God beyond God," as Eckhart calls it. We can certainly talk about God in the meantime, understanding that ultimately it has to be let go of.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In Naturalistic Pantheism, God is the Universe and nature. Everything that exist is one, and that one is considered God (pan-theos, All-God).

What's the difference between "the Universe and nature" that is God and "the Universe and nature" that isn't God?

 

[Windwalker]

I haven't yet come across a conception of God that I find convincing.

An interesting question to pose here is your statement really about finding it "convincing", or is it that you've found none that is useful to you? I would argue it's the latter. This ties into my post before this one a few minutes ago. What does someone really mean when they say they "don't believe in God"? I would say they find that as a concept, which is what God is when one attempts to define God, it has no utility for them. It doesn't help advance a spiritual understanding of themselves or the world. Hence in this sense, the atheist position regarding rejection of the mythic-literal definition of God is actually in service of spiritual advancement. I very much understand and support that understanding. As a "concept", as a word-sign, the referent of the anthropomorphic deity of traditional theism is a hinderance to their growth in the modern world. One cannot lobotomize themselves in the interest of a spiritual life.

This can get a lot more detailed and complex from here, such as how one relates to the world predominantly in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, masculine versus feminine approaches and so forth. To me God is an archetypal form of one's own highest Self. As such, images such as deity forms have legitimate value and therefore "truth" to them. This goes a little deeper than what shell I'm trying to crack in my current arguments.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

An interesting question to pose here is your statement really about finding it "convincing", or is it that you've found none that is useful to you? I would argue it's the latter.

Both really. I would have to find something convincing to find it useful.

 

[Windwalker]

Both really. I would have to find something convincing to find it useful.

Yes, that was my point. If you can't relate to it, than it has no usefulness. And now, next step, to those who can and do, even if it is the mythic-literal God, then that God is God to them. It serves the function of God in their belief, in how they currently approach the world, in the mythic-mind mode.