1. 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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Jumi, May 7, 2015.

  1. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    42,607
    Ratings:
    +7,312
    How about you define god as what you believe it to be?

    Otherwise you are merely dancing around it to save face.
     
  2. Windwalker

    Windwalker Integralist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,412
    Ratings:
    +3,576
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    I've addressed all this in subsequent posts. Keep reading.
     
  3. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    14,689
    Ratings:
    +1,373
    We know G-d from His attributes, the attributes define Him.
    Some of the attributes of G-d that define Him are given below:

    [112:1]In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
    [112:2]Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
    [112:3]‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
    [112:4]‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
    [112:5]‘And there is none like unto Him.’

    Regrds
     
  4. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    42,607
    Ratings:
    +7,312
    Please point the post where you actually address it.
    I have not found one where you spell it out in easy to understand terms.

    You do an awful lot dancing around it, but I have not seen you directly address it.

    So please be so kind as to point out the post where you directly address it that is not a bunch of double talk.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Shad

    Shad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    9,767
    Ratings:
    +2,275
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    It is up to the one putting forward a claim or idea to provide details. No one is obligated to get someone to hammer out their vague ideas they provide no details for in the first place. Otherwise the opponent is forcing the proponent to do work they should have completed before presenting the idea. A clear "garden gnomes exist" as the first claim would have rendered the entire counter-argument moot before it the counter-argument would be made. Hence why hiding details in fallacious reasoning and lack of proper construct ideas is still the failure of the proponent not the opponent.

    This is only true if a detailed idea is presented and the atheist ignores it. This is false when details are absent as per your example. Vagueness is countered by detailed explanation so there is a way around it. However many never bother to do.
     
  6. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    Yes. Exactly. It is.

    Which means that when you talk to someone else, who also have their own choice of what to consider God, and the two choices are different. Then you're talking about two different concepts, hence the misunderstanding. That's why sometimes atheists (who has decided that God is only defined as X) can't convince the theist (how has decided that God is not defined X, but rather Y) that his God doesn't exist, because they're talk different things. So the first step is... understand each other's definitions, if possible (which isn't always possible to do).

    Sure. But I'm quite sure that if you start analyzing your own vocabulary and use of words in your daily routine, that you are using alternate words for the same things to carry alternate meanings. For instance, you might say you're "happy". Well, happy is only a subjective description of a mental state that you are in at a moment. It's just chemicals, signals, neurons firing and misfiring, and really nothing else. And someone else might even experience is somewhat different, because we're not the same and we don't know how it feels for another person. We can only study the signals. So the word happy, makes sense, but only on a subjective level. And it's a word that describe something that doesn't really exist. From now on, maybe no one should use words like happy, sad, angry, anxious, tired, and such, but replace them with the chemical imbalance descriptions. "I'm B12 deficient today." or "My endorphins are raging". Or "I feel heart palpitations and euphoric." But, of course, it needs to be expanded since there are more chemicals and states of the neural system that has to be accounted for.

    That's your choice. What you find pleasing to your mind or not is your side of the coin. If things are to be fair, the choice, the values, the feelings, the whatever subjective thing we can think of apply to your side, then they have to be allowed on the other as well.

    You think it's unreasonable. I think it's not. I actually think it's more reasonable, because not only as a pantheist can I fully embrace a proper and leveled understanding of atheism, I can also build a positive and constructive worldview out from that point. Atheism is not a religion or value system. It's not a worldview. Atheism is only the CLR button on the calculator. Atheism is the Reset on the computer. It's the eraser on the drawing board. But what then? After you have erased everything, don't you want to start over and now paint a picture with something move valuable? Atheism is only the step of starting over. Pantheism is one way of going forward (and probably not the only option, there are many ways of painting a painting).
     
  7. Shad

    Shad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    9,767
    Ratings:
    +2,275
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    The object in this case was the garden gnome but without the clarification that it was a garden gnome rather just a "gnome" as per the example. Details could have been provided but were not until the argument was already taking place. Likewise the term god can be clarified between a limited concept of god, Zeus, against a more complex god such as the Platonic or Prime Mover, etc.
     
  8. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    Also, the agnomist wasn't clear that he was thinking of living green-hat gnomes underground. The unclarity was done on both sides.

    The duty to understand each other lies on all parties, not just the gnomist.

    Even if the term of God is vague and a person's definition of it is unclear, then that's what you have to work with. If the gnomist doesn't know what kind of gnome they're thinking of, then the agnomist is still rejecting a specific kind of gnomes and not all possible definitions (vague or otherwise) of gnomes.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    Both parties had two different views of gnomes. The gnomist actually defined his gnome earlier than the agnomist. The duty to explain lies on both parties. In the example, the fault was just as much with the agnomist for not expressing what kind of gnomes he was dispelling as it was the gnomist's duty to explain the kind he believed in.

    The key here is, if you don't know or don't understand what kind-of gnomes the other person are talking about, you can't say from get-go that it exists or not. You have to get to gnow first.... :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Shad

    Shad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    9,767
    Ratings:
    +2,275
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    The counter sides lack of clarity was solely due to the lack of clarity with the idea. It is a byproduct of a flawed idea or failure in communicate an idea with details.

    No when an argument is flawed to begin with. No one is obligated to understand an underdeveloped idea which is vague nor ideas which employ fallacious reasoning. The proponent should rephrase their argument from the start.

    Which is still a failure with the gnomist's argument. The agnomist is still coming to a conclusion based on a a flawed argument/idea from the gnomist. It is not the fault of the agnomist if the gnomist can not be clear in their arguement/idea.
     
    #210 Shad, May 10, 2015
    Last edited: May 10, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    That's what every atheist should do in a discussion. That's the first step each time.

    What you're displaying here is a confirmation of the question in the OP. You have now come to a point with Windwalker where you don't understand Windwalker's version of God. So even before you understand it, does this God exist or not? Can you reject something before you even know what it is? It's a mistake all of us make. We think we know what the other person is talking about, and we reject our own mental image of what we think it is, but we don't take the time to try to understand that the mental image the other person has is different.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Shad

    Shad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    9,767
    Ratings:
    +2,275
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    Which can be avoided with detailed ideas rather than vague terms. The burden is solely on the proponent not the opponent. There is no need for the agmomist to clarify their concept as they are an opponent against the idea of the gnomist.

    If the claim is vague one can point this out, simple as that no more is required. The proponent must rephrase their argument. However many do not, they use the fallacy as a gotcha when the only gotcha is fallacious reasoning of the proponent.
     
  13. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    Which is the problem of the issue of God. Basically, you're suggesting that if we don't understand, then it must be wrong. That's not a productive view. It doesn't help a person to grow knowledge or understanding.

    Sometimes it's impossible to argue or phrase anything because the first issue to discuss isn't the definition, but if it exists. Every discussion between atheist and theist is about "Does God exist?" Not, "how do you define God." or "What is God to you". Which means that the failure is on both parties. The theist for not explaining, and the atheist for not giving the theist a chance.

    It was the agnomist who assumed he knew what they were talking about. I'd say the failure is on both parties. You can't blame the gnomist for the assumptions by the agnomist. The agnomist has a duty to first at least try to understand what kind of gnomes the gnomist was talking about. I still maintain they both failed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    42,607
    Ratings:
    +7,312
    In all honesty, I flat out suspect that Windwalker is intentionally being vague and using double talk in order to always have a reason to claim that what the atheist disbelieves is not god.

    Yes, I can reject things that cannot be explained in a useful and or meaningful way.
    God
    Soul
    Spirit​

    Just to name a few right off the top of my head.
     
  15. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    Well. I think you're wrong. The agnomist made assumptions and didn't bother to learn, and didn't even bother to accept the answer. The agnomist in the end rejects the existence of gnomes, but only the gnomes he thinks of, while also rejecting the alternative use of the term gnome, used by the gnomist. So really, the agnomist did a double fault.

    Sure. Because people in general aren't serious or honest about what they do know and what they do not know, or serious and honest about how they learn about things or discuss with people. Internet forums are mostly 99% "Hah! I got yah! I'm right, and you're wrong! Nah nah nah nah!" discussions and not "Hmm.. let's see if I can understand what you're saying." It's rare to have an exchange of ideas and respect for differences. Most of the time it's only, "No! You're wrong because X, Y, Z. Change what you think, and think like me, or I think you're stupid!!!" That's how most discussions ends. :D (And I'm not saying you are. We are truly exchanging ideas right now, right?)
     
  16. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    No. I know he's not. I've known him for 10 years. I actually do know quite a bit of what he thinks and believes.

    Sure. You can reject them, but it's important to know what you're rejecting if it's possible.

    Love. It's also a vague expression. I kind'a know what it is, but in reality, it's mostly just some random chemicals causing euphoria. It's just an illusion, and it's very unclear what purpose it has. What do we need it for? Nah. We should reject it at all costs and at all times. Really, it doesn't exist because we can't believe something that exists that's this vague. And when there's a proper scientific term to use instead, then we should use the proper and exact term instead. Love does not exist. ;)
     
  17. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    42,607
    Ratings:
    +7,312
    Nice strawman.
     
  18. Koldo

    Koldo Incredible Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    9,485
    Ratings:
    +1,173
    The vast majority of 'god' concepts I come across ( from believers ) involve at very least a conscious invisible entity with an existence completely independent from matter.
    I don't believe that such a thing exists.
     
  19. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    Uh. No. ???

    Which part was a strawman?
     
  20. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    Then you haven't talked to many progressive theists or pan(en)theists. Or Advaita for that matter. Or Taoism. Or Stoics. Or ...
     
Loading...