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. Shad

    Shad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    9,767
    Ratings:
    +2,275
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    This is one of the issues I was hitting on. Often terms we used only identify a majority view and lump minority views, which are similar but different, due to parallelism.
     
  2. Disciple of Jesus

    Disciple of Jesus Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,644
    Ratings:
    +1,544
    Yep, I was relating it to the previous topics presented in the thread.
     
  3. Disciple of Jesus

    Disciple of Jesus Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,644
    Ratings:
    +1,544
    Agreed there, but it seems unavoidable.
     
  4. Windwalker

    Windwalker Integralist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,412
    Ratings:
    +3,576
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    "Where there is neither Jew nor Gentile by all are one in Christ". That sounds pretty world centric and pluralistic to me.

    As I said before, it's not entirely chaotic. Traditional theism does have certain earmarks of inherited lineages, which are themselves based on interpretation. Adhering to the traditional view, follows that channel of thought, that groove as it were. Traditionally, it is a mythic mode of thought that has been inherited.

    This is not true at all. You are familiar with the Perennial Philosophy? If you factor in the frameworks, the lenses through which we filter and interpret the world, it does in fact bring them together.

    I look at verses like the temper-tantrum God of the OT, and I see a particular "God's blog", expressed by the eyes of humans in their development, expressing their own ethnocentric, mythic frameworks. One then can take that understanding and integrate it into a "higher" understanding which sees and acknowledges the developmental pattern seen in the Bible. The interpretation in this case, has a difference lens it's looking through. It's therefore not incompatible with an evolutionary perspective. Right?

    I don't think you follow. "Revelation" is understood different from a 'higher' perspective (one which includes but transcends the previous mode of thought). What "revelation" means to the mythic-literal mind is not what it means to the rational and pluralistic mind. Traditional theism is mythic in nature. It very literally understands "revelation" as a dictation, a direct oration by the god. It can't see shades of grey or nuanced understandings.

    You were a moment ago speaking of all the world's religions. Now you are speaking of Christianity. Which is it? It can't be the former, since that doesn't fit what you just said. Scripture is not the common variable in all the world's religions that are traditional theism. The mode of thought is, however. Unless you think the world's religions are defined by the Abrahamic traditions?

    You're really putting the cart before the horse in these arguments.

    You do understand that interpretation of anything is always filtered through the general lens of cultural that reads it? This is something that try as well as one can attempt to articulate it is simply impossible for some to see as they assume what they see with their own eyes tells them the truth of the thing? This is in fact their core blindspot. I'm never less that surprised every time I see this, even though I know it intellectually.

    Except in all the religions of the world where they are not based on prophets and revelation. I'm sure Orbit could offer an extensive list of these for you. :)

    Philosophical theism. I don't think anything I'm talking about has anything to do with that. But if you wish to talk about that, that would be a purely rational mode of thought approach to questions about God. That too is a particular framework, just like the mythic framework is one. Not the same of course, but the same inasmuch as they are the particular filters through which ones sees and interprets truth and reality.

    If all one sees is rational arguments then that is the rational conclusion. So, you are in essence, and atheist in regard to rationalist theologies. Now we're getting to what I was saying. "Neo-atheism" is really anti-mythic-literal theism. Your atheism is anti-rational 'philosophic theism". Two different levels of atheism there. But like the previous level, the "neo-atheist" sees only the mythic god, are you seeing that there is nothing beyond the mythic and philosophical god?

    This is kind of what I have been arguing for all along. When I hear most atheists proclaim "I don't believe in any concept of God", I hear those who project their understanding is the understanding of everyone in the world! :) No, they are only rejecting the mythic-literal God and any near-fit surrounding it. That's the only God they "believe" exists in people's beliefs. That's the only God to them, as it is to the mythic believer. I'm just saying you've added one recognition beyond it. And it may be valid to espouse of course. But it's like the only saying, everyone is an atheist to which ever god they don't believe in! :) That too is kind of pointless self-identification. The Christian is a Brahman atheist. Richard Dawkins is a Pat Robertson's God atheist.

    Goodness gracious! Why not just say what we believe, not what we don't believe in? Much simpler and meaningful. :)

    Yeah, well, I think you overestimate the stone you hold. :) Good thoughts overall though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. gsa

    gsa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,830
    Ratings:
    +1,650
    Religion:
    Infidel
    We do not know if infinity exists really. And even if existence is in some sense infinite or the "ultimate reality" is infinite, that doesn't mean we have any sensory experience of it.



    In general atheists are concerned with the god that believers refer to. That doesn't mean that they are not also atheists with respect to the "god" of the mystics, whether labeled god, ultimate reality, Platonic forms, etc. Undoubtedly, some are, some aren't. But atheism can most certainly assert itself beyond the Abrahamic god.
     
  6. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    It would be. Why don't you tell us what you believe in? It's not at all clear.
     
  7. Shad

    Shad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    9,767
    Ratings:
    +2,275
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    My bad, sorry context was missing and I was never directed at a post in question. However I will take a look through the thread to see if I come across something which resembles the idea you are talking about. I say resembles more as a disclaimer in case I misunderstood a point made by you.
     
  8. Windwalker

    Windwalker Integralist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,412
    Ratings:
    +3,576
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    I believe in the fluidity of truth. I believe in timeless present in each moment. I believe in being. I believe in finitude of form as an ever-unfolding expression of Reality. I believe in the Absolute. I believe in the relative.

    What specifically are you wanting to know?
     
  9. Shad

    Shad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    9,767
    Ratings:
    +2,275
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    No that is just that people are diverse. The key lack of pluralism is how one is saved which is through Christ alone. To be plural in a religion sense one does not need to be saved or even acknowledge Christ. Hinduism is another path to god which is just as valid as by Christ.


    No it is the mythic mode that is the default with the philosophical idea which are borrowed and passed on. Ideas which are not founded in any of the mainstream theistic religions except for Hinduism. Everything else is interpreted as a augmentation of the mythic mode thinking. The virtual absence of philosophical work from the 3 Abrahmaic religions prior to it's contact with Greek philosophy shows this to be true. With Hinduism developed it's philosophy along with it's mythic mode


    Which is not found in ideologies which require acknowledgement of Christ for salvation. Acknowledgement of Islam's prophet to be saved. To have an singular feature in a religion in which all faith must be placed is not pluralism. The very idea is grounded in Platonism not any theistic religion except for a few, certainly not the 3 Aberahamic religions. More so the shared concept is really just the idea of a creator. After this idea vary drastically as pointed out above. I find Perennial Philosophy untenable and grounded in parallelism


    Interesting idea of the "blog". However your point is not addressing the key idea I was talking about. The key idea is an emotional god is an anthropomorphic god. One can read whatever they like into this display of emotions but the emotion still stands in plain ink. Interpretation which ignore these emotion are just doing post hoc rationalization while the writers of scripture were using emotion based views as depictions of their god(s).

    Revelation is not hard to understand since we are talking about theological ideas. It is this revelation which is not used by philosophical arguments for god. Revelation of scriptures, revelation of prophets, of sages, of oracles, middle-men of god. You idea of revelation has nothing to do with theism thus is not part of traditional theism while the revelation I am talking about is what I described it as.

    I was giving examples to identify how the parallelism used for the term traditional theism is flawed. I do so by pointing out once the parallelism is removed there is little in common let along agreed upon.

    Sorry you are wrong as traditional theism is grounded in scripture based religions of Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism. Again you are conflating philosophical theism with traditional theism.


    No I am just identifying the difference between what you think is traditional theism is and what it actually is. I do so by examples.


    Yes, this is what make interpretation almost useless outside of said cultures. Yet I am talking about the meaning of terms not the flawed interpretations of scripture. There is no interpretation of traditional theism which does not use scripture regardless of interpretations of scripture. To do so to redefine the term into something it is not. Hence traditional theism divorces from scripture is philosophical theism not a different form of traditional theism.


    True but then these religions are not part of or use the concept traditional theism. Thus have nothing to do with the category. Hence why I address religions which are while not mentioning religions which are not. So this comment makes no point as I am not talking about other religions outside the definition at hand


    You are conflating it with traditional theism by not taking into account the required scripture based views which are the foundation of traditional theism. If scripture and god given revelation is not counted as supportive then you are not talking about traditional theism. It is not a different framework nor different model within the same category of traditional theism. It is the framework for a completely different category.

    If we are talking about traditional theism then stick with it's definition. If not then clarify how your view of tradition theism is not the standard definition. Otherwise I will continue to think you either do not understand the term at hand or conflate the term with another.


    I am an philosophical atheist. There is no need to really address a particular religion once the philosophical ideas fail or are refuted. It is not anti-rationalist as my views are based on reason and logic not the rejection of either. I do not address theology since it is already using philosophy as the backbone of it's arguments. Counter the philosophy and the theology fails as well without even needing to bring it up

    I do agree that neo-atheism or new atheism is directed at individual religions as many individuals only address religions which are within their culture as those which are not. In some cases religions which the media loves to talk about.

    I see nothing of meaning beyond the mythic or philosophical god. Without philosophical arguments there is no rational reason to even entertain such a concept as it will be either an appeal to emotions, god of the gaps or circular logic.


    You hit the nail on the head when it comes to New Atheists such as Dawkins. People only identify the concept of god from the religions around them. Few rarely talk about the philosophical concept since these ideas are only taught in theology and philosophy course. Neither of which is a course load required for the majority of career paths. People are just ignorant of these ideas since they either do not have the time or motivation to learn.

    The problem is the concepts which are addressed are far more complex than the average person understands. So strict answers as do you believe or not become buried in complexity many are not prepared to address. This is true both for many believers and unbelievers. However I feel the problem has it's source in the believer more than the unbeliever. The unbeliever can simply reject the very concept of god, philosophical and save time. The believer responds by putting forward ever increasingly complex, or pure sophistry, augment in an attempt to hammer out justification for their own view of god. All in an attempt at producing a "Gotcha, that is not THE god I am talking about" Dawkins and co fall for the gotcha trap rather than sticking to the philosophical objections as I would.


    It is the only stone which is worth the time in addressing.
     
    #129 Shad, May 8, 2015
    Last edited: May 8, 2015
  10. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    Do you believe in God?
     
  11. Windwalker

    Windwalker Integralist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    7,412
    Ratings:
    +3,576
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    Define God according to what you believe God to be and let's see how I feel about it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Pyrphóros ⚡ Lux Aeterna
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    26,182
    Ratings:
    +12,127
    Religion:
    Olympianism (Greco-Roman polytheism) / Left-Hand Path
    I've noticed that the concept of God that atheists/antitheists tend to rail against the most is a fire and brimstone fundamentalist Protestant caricature of God. It's so different from the God I believe in that it might as well be another deity.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Disciple of Jesus

    Disciple of Jesus Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,644
    Ratings:
    +1,544
    Does anyone on the forums present that view? Especially the ''protestants'', they don't present that view at all. Actually I notice that more among ex-catholics, perhaps ex-xians.
    may as well be a myth, it's never literal, on the forums at least.
     
  14. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Pyrphóros ⚡ Lux Aeterna
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    26,182
    Ratings:
    +12,127
    Religion:
    Olympianism (Greco-Roman polytheism) / Left-Hand Path
    What do you mean? In terms of actually believing in that concept of God? I guess because there have been wacky Christians on here.
     
  15. Disciple of Jesus

    Disciple of Jesus Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    18,644
    Ratings:
    +1,544
    Okay..............
     
  16. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Pyrphóros ⚡ Lux Aeterna
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    26,182
    Ratings:
    +12,127
    Religion:
    Olympianism (Greco-Roman polytheism) / Left-Hand Path
    It's not even just here, there's plenty of wacko fire and brimstone fundamentalist Protestants in real life. Catholicism doesn't really have an analogue to them because our form of fundamentalism is quite different.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I meant do you believe in God as you understand the term?
     
  18. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    52,743
    Ratings:
    +12,058
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    One of the many gods I don't believe in was the one that was presented to me during the several years I attended a Catholic Church.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Ouroboros

    Ouroboros Coincidentia oppositorum

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    9,050
    Ratings:
    +2,497
    Religion:
    Reality's Fool / Dual-aspect pantheist
    How about the naturalistic pantheistic God?
     
  20. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Pyrphóros ⚡ Lux Aeterna
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    26,182
    Ratings:
    +12,127
    Religion:
    Olympianism (Greco-Roman polytheism) / Left-Hand Path
    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.
     
Loading...