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

[Ouroboros]

Mestemia,

One more thing. Don't think that because I'm presenting my views of these terms that I think somehow I must be right about them. I'm just sharing what I think of them, and I understand you think of them differently. And that's the point. It's not about who is right or wrong about these words. The topic is about that we do have differences, and it's causing conflicts at times when people in reality are talking about the same things. I've been in many discussions where I thought my counterpart was in disagreement, but later realized that we talked about the same thing, just used different words or used them in different ways.

(Also, do know that I respect you and your views. I've read many of your posts, and many times we've been in agreement, and I haven't posted anything, so don't take this thread and these conflicting views as any judgement from me that you're wrong in some way. It's a discussion. Not a "I have to win" debate.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm hesitant to use the term "believe in".

Interesting that you weren't hesitant before when I wasn't calling attention to the implications of your answer.

I suppose you could say I would better state is as a provisional belief. And yes, when I choose to it is a certain concept (panentheistic to be specific), but I think the term mental image is a better term because it's role is more relational than cognitive, if that makes sense.

Not at all.

I have a mental image of plenty of gods. What I don't have is belief in their literal existence, which is what makes me an atheist.

Most often it's much more spontaneous manifestation of a certain "vision", if you will, an impression of a deeply felt, profound 2nd person presence of infinite depth that the mind symbolizes that through various cultural symbols. But as far as just sitting around thinking about "God", in this sense, though it is conceptual, it's also not held as a "belief", but rather more like fingers pointing to the moon. It's a way to talk about that very real firsthand experience.

You aren't the first person I've heard describe God as an experience or an impression, and I don't buy it.

If, hypothetically, we figured out a way to induce this experience artificially, would you still call it "God"?

I think what's really going on is that you're trying to make the leap from some experience to some presumed cause without justifying it.

At a certain point you move beyond even that and "God" ceases to be.

Now you could say, "That's atheism!", but no, not really. It's neither theism nor atheism, as designations like this both dissolve.

"Theism" and "atheism" form a MECE set. It's logically impossible to be in neither.

"God beyond God," as Eckhart referred to that. In a very real sense atheism is in fact a belief. It is non-theistic conception of ultimate reality, and as a conception, is is a belief. It's inescapable. Anything we think about ultimate reality is a belief, whether it's theistic or nontheistic.

As a thinking human being, I have many beliefs - for instance, I believe that this argument you're making is a load of baloney - but merely not believing in gods is no more of a belief in and of itself than not collecting stamps is a hobby. I have a belief system - everyone does - but atheism only describes one aspect of what it isn't, not what it is.

Then you move beyond that and beliefs are understood not as anchors of the mind, but honestly more just like ways to talk about Ultimately reality, holding them lightly. So, hence why I say my "belief" in God is really just a way to talk about Ultimate Reality. I can just as well speak of it without a deity form, or an "atheistic belief". As I said to you before, I believe in the fluidity of truth in a dynamic reality. It's not a fixed point of focus for me. I just fancy the image of God in a panenthiest sense as a way for me to relate my human experience "in the flesh", to the divine within through a 2nd person visualization, in an incarnation, nondual sort of way It's just the way I flow. It's how I like to express the dance with my body and mind.

In that case, maybe it would just be best to say that I don't so much reject your conclusions (since I'm not sure you're actually making any) but I more dismiss your approach as irrelevant to me... at least until you start caring about what is true.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

We know G-d from His attributes, the attributes define Him.
In this very sense another definition of G-d (further to post #243 in the thread)
could be ascertained from the following verse:

[2:256]Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
Quran : Chapter 2: Al-Baqarah​

Regards

 

[Izdaari]

My question was more mythically geared; that deity description sounds like possibly some European deity that was labeled as a Biblical one.

Yes, it does. But I don't know which one it might be based on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And this yet another example underscoring what I said back in post #9, "In my many years of experience within the ranks, it's been my observation [atheists] 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." The response it's "nothing but semantics", is another example of this.

And what's wrong with that, exactly? There are plenty of "gods" that I believe in, but what separates me from the theists is that they consider them gods and I don't.

Rastafarians and I don't disagree on the existence of Haille Selassie; we disagree on whether Haille Selassie is God.

Is it really just semantics?

It's often presented that way, but no, it usually isn't. More often than not, it's a basketful of unsubstantiated claims masquerading as word choice.

Are you speaking of the Ultimate Concern in your atheism, using whatever non-theistic lingo you choose to use? Are you even looking at that? Is that even the question, or is simply about finding out what's true about the natural world, it's atoms and molecules and whatnot, rejecting questions of Ultimate Concern? Does it deal with any existential concerns? Does it ask any deeper questions, or just jettisoning all of that in favor of a Positivist approach to truth and reality? If not, then no, it's not "nothing but semantics", but degrees of concern and finding a language appropriate to it. God is not just another word to describe a stellar constellation if the meaning is to be limited to just cosmology.


Your assumptions of others' motives are showing.

... though they're vindicated by your "Ultimate Concern" nonsense, which is one of the msin examples I had in mind.

I doubt that really reflects the reality of it, which in essence is saying they're just closet atheists who haven't been brave enough to let go of the God pacifier yet.

Not really, because I don't doubt their sincerity, usually. "Closeted" implies that they know that they're atheists; I don't think they're atheists at all.

 

[Shad]

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.

No I never said this. If a person does not understand what they are talking about they can not guarantee the conclusion they make is true as their premises may not be sound. They could be right but not due to their vague arguments and ideas.

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.

If a theist presents an idea without details and leave this flawed argument open to criticism it is not the fault of the atheist. The theist could refrain from presenting the argument until they "flesh out" their ideas before hitting the submit button. Your argument only works when the atheist is bring up the topic outside of a dialogue as per Dawkins. He is not addressing a specific argument nor a dialogue. This is why he is all over the map in his books as he is not addressing an actual argument but pieces of arguments which may not be compatible nor even part of the same dialogue.

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.

Only because the gnomist didn't supply details for their argument in the first presented claims. Hence why the gnomist argument is fallacious as it leads to this very issue. The lack of details force a conclusion. No one is obligated to address unformed ideas otherwise we would spend unnecessary time on bad ideas rather than evaluating good ideas. Just as no professor is obligated in understand a students answer of 14+14= a number. The lack of details make the answer inconclusive and a waste of time.

 

[Orbit]

Nice strawman.

*Scratches head*. How is this a strawman? I know Windwalker, too, and he is a sincere poster.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's exactly right. Atheism doesn't. And that's what atheism is, it's something that puts everything at point zero, and the bottom level, starting point. From there, a person has to somehow build a worldview, naturalistic, humanistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, progressive theism, etc. If they don't, they still somehow do. Most outspoke atheists on this website have strong inclinations to science, rationality, and essentially naturalism. It comes as a result of atheism, even though it isn't equal to. Atheism is the first parameter or term of thought. The next is ... up to the person.

Always risky jumping into a thread that's been trundling along for a while. Let me declare I've only been skim reading, so apologies in advance.
Isn't the point that we ALL start from point zero?
Some of us build on top of this with a viewpoint that includes a God concept (theists) and some of us don't (atheists).
I don't need to reject every God concept in existence to be an atheist, simply rely on a worldview that doesn't include one.

 

[Ouroboros]

No I never said this. If a person does not understand what they are talking about they can not guarantee the conclusion they make is true as their premises may not be sound. They could be right but not due to their vague arguments and ideas.

And I'm saying it's on both sides to ensure an understanding by both sides.

If a theist presents an idea without details and leave this flawed argument open to criticism it is not the fault of the atheist. The theist could refrain from presenting the argument until they "flesh out" their ideas before hitting the submit button. Your argument only works when the atheist is bring up the topic outside of a dialogue as per Dawkins. He is not addressing a specific argument nor a dialogue. This is why he is all over the map in his books as he is not addressing an actual argument but pieces of arguments which may not be compatible nor even part of the same dialogue.

When an atheist presents a rejection of a God that the theist doesn't believe in, it's up to the atheist to explain it. It's not the theist's fault that the atheist is trying to debunk a non-theist version of God.

Only because the gnomist didn't supply details for their argument in the first presented claims. Hence why the gnomist argument is fallacious as it leads to this very issue. The lack of details force a conclusion. No one is obligated to address unformed ideas otherwise we would spend unnecessary time on bad ideas rather than evaluating good ideas. Just as no professor is obligated in understand a students answer of 14+14= a number. The lack of details make the answer inconclusive and a waste of time.

We could easily turn the story around and have the agnomist start the argument, and it then it becomes the agnomist's responsibility to explain what he's debunking.

 

[Ouroboros]

Always risky jumping into a thread that's been trundling along for a while. Let me declare I've only been skim reading, so apologies in advance.
Isn't the point that we ALL start from point zero?

We usually don't. We start from culture, family, upbringing, school, TV, tradition, and so on.

The problem with many atheists, and I consider myself part of it, tend to assume that they're talking about a specific type of God which they (and I) are debunking. It's not always the same God the respondent is considering.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We usually don't. We start from culture, family, upbringing, school, TV, tradition, and so on.

Oh, I agree with that.

The problem with many atheists, and I consider myself part of it, tend to assume that they're talking about a specific type of God which they (and I) are debunking. It's not always the same God the respondent is considering.

That's a little different to what I meant, though. All of us have beliefs and structures, and the nature of those structures is what indicates our theism, or lack thereof.
I am an atheist regardless of the fact that there are God concepts I have no heard of, and other God concepts I simply don't recognise as Gods (eg. The Sun). This is not related to me debunking anything. Atheism isn't (in my opinion) a rejection of theism. It is a lack of theism.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

... though there's also the issue of approach: from my perspective, it seems like a lot of "non-traditional" theisms are a matter of rejecting traditional theism while staying desperate to apply the label "God" to something without regard to whether it really fits. I think this approach is unreasonable.

I do wonder about that, it sometimes looks like a need to hang on to something while not really believing it any more, sort of theism-lite.

 

[Windwalker]

Interesting that you weren't hesitant before when I wasn't calling attention to the implications of your answer.

I have no idea what you image you were seeing. In all my years on this forum I am usually very precise in my language, in the sense of saying what I intend to convey, whether or not someone "gets it". I am and always have been hesitant to use terms such as "I believe in" anything. I am simply using terms that I feel conveys the experience of something vastly beyond the mundane, beyond the ordinary. It begins with firsthand experience, and from there I choose a word I like to talk about it. It doesn't begin with a concept you "believe in". It begins with experience. So we are at the outset talking across each other.

I have a mental image of plenty of gods. What I don't have is belief in their literal existence, which is what makes me an atheist.

Then by your definition, I am an atheist. I do not either. I've been saying that in every post, yet you seem unable to see it. That is and has been my point from the very beginning of this thread! You make my case each time you post.

You aren't the first person I've heard describe God as an experience or an impression, and I don't buy it.

Because why? Because you haven't ever experienced something like this, therefore others are lying? You do understand the absurdity of such a statement? "I don't buy it". Why don't you buy it? Let's be specific. I'll bet it boils down to one simple thing. It doesn't fit within the worldview you have adopted for yourself for whatever reason. It "can't be true", because it doesn't fit what you believe in.

If, hypothetically, we figured out a way to induce this experience artificially, would you still call it "God"?

Yes, and yes. We already are able to "induce" this experience, more or less. Take up various meditation practices designed to put you into these various states of "altered consciousness". Do so, and then when you have these sorts of experience, come back and talk from a position of some actual firsthand experience and we can compare notes and then discuss the merits of using terms like God or not. Now, considering I meditate an hour every morning and I continue to use the word God provisionally, then the answer is a definitive yes! I do call it an experience of "God". Not everyone needs to or does. There are lots of words that convey it. Self, the Absolute, the Divine, Infinity, All, Oneness, Spirit, the Ineffable, etc. I use all those words too. I like to use God sometimes for all of those, or more specifically when the impression is that of the Infinite Personal. It's just a word. But a good one.

I think what's really going on is that you're trying to make the leap from some experience to some presumed cause without justifying it.

All along, from the outset, you and a host of other neo-atheists are the ones stuck on this thing about causation. Never once have I ever said anything about causation. That is your mode of thought, not mine. You have it stuck in your mind I'm talking about the God of the the Sunday School idea of God. It's the only one you can see in your mind, and therefore anyone who speaks of God is talking about that! Again, you make my point I have been throughout this thread. The only leaping going on is yours.

I have only and ever said this, "God is the face we put upon the Infinite". It's a symbol we look at in order for us to be able to relate ourselves to the experience of the Infinite. I think is may take you a long time to unwrap that, as apparently you are still stuck thinking in terms of cause and effect.

As a thinking human being, I have many beliefs - for instance, I believe that this argument you're making is a load of baloney - but merely not believing in gods is no more of a belief in and of itself than not collecting stamps is a hobby. I have a belief system - everyone does - but atheism only describes one aspect of what it isn't, not what it is.

And you think theism defines the totality of a belief system for theists? But the role theism plays for them in their theistic systems, whatever those are, plays the same role it plays for you in your atheistic systems, whatever those are. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is still a fundamental, foundational belief upon which all other believes arise. If it is for them, it is for you.

In that case, maybe it would just be best to say that I don't so much reject your conclusions (since I'm not sure you're actually making any) but I more dismiss your approach as irrelevant to me... at least until you start caring about what is true.

This is rich. "Until you start caring about what is true". True, according to the world defined by Mr. Penguin, according to how he sees and interprets reality. And that is my point, simply. You did hit upon the truth of the matter however incidentally in saying my approach is irrelevant to you. Indeed it is! It is not how you think, and therefore sounds like gibberish to you. It is not speaking of the world in the terms in which you think. It's in effect, and entirely different language.

It is the same reality we are looking at, but you see it filtered through a certain set of truth-criteria that everything must fit within, these "boxes" I've referenced many times. Anything that does not, is interpreted as false, a lie, a fiction, a madness, and so forth. You are unable to conceive that intelligent humans can possibly be looking at the same thing as you and think differently than you do. It's really a common thing, so don't take that as a put down, that I'm saying you're full of baloney or some other insult because I don't "get" what you see. I do get what you see. The opposite however cannot be said at this point for you. It's not a mode of thought you know yet, one where the world is not sharply defined lines of black and white definitions, ones full of nothing but cause and effect, and the rest as mere side-distractions to otherwise logical binary processing machines we are .

 

[`mud]

Geeee...it's all olives and no salad !
~
'mud

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then by your definition, I am an atheist. I do not either. I've been saying that in every post, yet you seem unable to see it. That is and has been my point from the very beginning of this thread! You make my case each time you post.

If you really don't claim any gods, then you have your answer to the OP: if there's no god-claim to reject, then atheists can never reject your god-claim.

Because why? Because you haven't ever experienced something like this, therefore others are lying? You do understand the absurdity of such a statement? "I don't buy it". Why don't you buy it? Let's be specific. I'll bet it boils down to one simple thing. It doesn't fit within the worldview you have adopted for yourself for whatever reason. It "can't be true", because it doesn't fit what you believe in.

In your case, it can be true because it is true. In this very same post, you describe this "experience" in terms that go well beyond just an experience:

There are lots of words that convey it. Self, the Absolute, the Divine, Infinity, All, Oneness, Spirit, the Ineffable, etc. I use all those words too. I like to use God sometimes for all of those, or more specifically when the impression is that of the Infinite Personal.

 

[Windwalker]

*Scratches head*. How is this a strawman? I know Windwalker, too, and he is a sincere poster.

Have you ever seen the movie Phenomena? There's a scene in it where the character Doc played by Robert Duval finally has had enough of hearing the people of the town at the bar trying to dismiss George Malley's experiences, making up all sorts of "rational" reasons for what happened. He's finally had enough, and slams his beer glass crashing into the others and launches off into this,

Why do ya have to tear him down? What are ya so afraid of? What have you got to lose? He wasn't selling anything! He didn't want anything from anybody! He wanted nothing from nobody! Nothing! And you people have to tear him down so you can sleep better tonight! So ya can prove that the world is flat and ya can sleep better tonite! Am I right? Am I right?... I'm right... The Hell with all of ya. The Hell with everyone of ya.
​

It's just what people do when they feel uncomfortable with points of view which challenge the world they have found comfortable for themselves. I don't take it personally. I could list out a long string of these things in this thread alone, telling me to take my head out of my ***, I'm arrogant and assuming, full of baloney, speaking word salad, deliberately trying to confuse others, and on and on. In all of this I hear Robert Duval's speech "So ya can prove that the world is flat and ya can sleep better tonight!". It's fine. I don't take it personally.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are lots of words that convey it. Self, the Absolute, the Divine, Infinity, All, Oneness, Spirit, the Ineffable, etc. I use all those words too. I like to use God sometimes for all of those, or more specifically when the impression is that of the Infinite Personal. It's just a word. But a good one.

When talking about altered states of consciousness I avoid words like God, Divine and Spirit because I think most people associate these strongly with monotheism - and that isn't what we're really talking about.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

​

It's just what people do when they feel uncomfortable with points of view which challenge the world they have found comfortable for themselves.

Interesting change of approach. Before, you were claiming that atheists actually accept your worldview without realizing it. Now it's so different that it causes us discomfort to thinj about changing?

I don't take it personally. I could list out a long string of these things in this thread alone, telling me to take my head out of my ***, I'm arrogant and assuming, full of baloney, speaking word salad, deliberately trying to confuse others, and on and on. In all of this I hear Robert Duval's speech "So ya can prove that the world is flat and ya can sleep better tonight!". It's fine. I don't take it personally.

For this analogy to work, the people who disagree with you would have to be factually wrong (like a flat-earther). Do you have any justification for this?

 

[Orbit]

When talking about altered states of consciousness I avoid words like God, Divine and Spirit because I think most people associate these strongly with monotheism - and that isn't what we're really talking about.

It's simply a language of convenience to describe the transcendent. Yes, the words are also used by Sunday School believers but they don't refer to the same thing when I say them. So I think the atheist contingent needs to realize that not only is there more than one kind of theist, there's more than one kind of atheist, and for practical purposes some ambiguity in between. The ambiguity comes from the mystic vocabulary used to describe experience.

Ask any American on the street, and upon hearing I reject the God of the Bible they will call me atheist. Post here, and they call me theist. Me? I just meditate and experience what I experience, and try to describe it using the words my culture gave me. I don't "believe" anything, I experience. I fit no one's "articles of faith".

I think this thread has made it clear that not all who are being called theist believe in the Sunday School fundamentalist God that most atheists assume they do. So no, theists and atheists don't always disbelieve the same God, to paraphrase the OP.

 

[Orbit]

Interesting change of approach. Before, you were claiming that atheists actually accept your worldview without realizing it. Now it's so different that it causes us discomfort to thinj about changing?


For this analogy to work, the people who disagree with you would have to be factually wrong (like a flat-earther). Do you have any justification for this?

Well, if they are denying that he experiences what he experiences, then yes, they are factually wrong.