Are atheists implying theists are delusional?

[doppelganger]

Oh, in that post i was talking about something - a force or particle - that could be measured, but that at this time we are unable to and therefore are unaware of its existance despite it being all around us.

What doesn't "exist"?

(This is the last post and then I've gotta go, really . . . hard to pull away from such an engaging dialogue . . .. must . .. get .. . things done . . .)

 

[Yerda]

Which brings me to the question i think atheists cannot answer;

Do you accept that there may well be forces, radiation and particles all around us that exist (as in they have a physical manifestation), but that at this moment in time science has yet to make the technological advancement necessary for their objective verification?...

...

...If the answer is yes, then the atheist must concede that there may be forces in existence that fulfil the role people ascribe to God or Tao or any other religious being/force, but that at this moment in time we simply cannot detect them using the current scientific methods.

I'm bewildered. Why should an atheist have to be in denial of things indiscovered?

 

[Willamena]

Is it reasonable to assume that someone who believes in the literal existence, as an object or being, of something for which there is no objective evidence, is operating under a confusion between a construct of their mind and the objectification of that construct?

I think part of the problem, a large part, is that people associate or equate literal with true, as in "the literal truth" (presumably being the tangible, and therefore only correct, one).

I know I did at one time.

Learning about non-literal values was a huge leap for me, and a very pleasant one because suddenly a lot of things made sense.

 

[doppelganger]

I think part of the problem, a large part, is that people associate or equate literal with true, as in "the literal truth" (presumably being the tangible, and therefore only correct, one).

I know I did at one time.

Learning about non-literal values was a huge leap for me, and a very pleasant one because suddenly a lot of things made sense.

Excellent! And therein lies the secret to understanding "God" and "exists."

 

[doppelganger]

The issue is: "what is someone referring to when they say 'God'"? I tried to clarify this in the "Evidence" thread with NetDoc but he didn't want to think about and instead just wanted to be condescending. That's his prerogative, but it doesn't make for a productive discussion.

"God" is a word. It is a linguistic symbol used to denote an association or collection of associations relative to our experiences. It could denote all manner of things, some of which might be confirmed to exist by reference to objective evidence. First an easy one. If I name my dog "God," we can easily have a discussion about whether "God" exists by comaring our sensory experiences of a particular friendly four-legged fuzzy animal and mutally associate "God" with it through culture (hat tip to Ozzie).

What if what I mean by "God" is the paradox of first cause? In other words, what if "God" is the name I give to a hole created in the logic of cause and effect? We approach the universe of our experience (whether we think about it or not) as a series of causes and effects. We store memories about what actions result in which effects. That every thing I experience is an effect of some cause is a central organizing principle of our language, whether it is objectively "accurate" to think about the universe that way or not. This organizing principle creates a paradox. If all things require a cause, then what is the cause of the first thing? As a paradox it is impossible to know. The experience of this not-knowing could be called a lot of things. One of those things might be "God." This is why NetDoc considers any "something" to be evidence that "God" exists. Because what he is really calling "God" is (in part) the experience of the paradox of "first cause," which does in fact exist as an objectively verifiable human experience.

But NetDoc refused to clarify when I asked him that what he called "God" was just a linguistic symbol representing the impossibility of solving the problem of "first cause." Indeed, as I explained on the "Evidence" thread, if we agreed that is what "god" means (and it is the meaning NetDoc is trying to base his argument on) I would actually agree wiht the proposition "God exists." But he refused to agree to that usage of the symbol "God". And the reason he refused to agree is because, for him, that symbol has been concretized as somethign other than a construct of language representing the paradox of not knowing. This creates two problems. First, it creates the inability to recognize imaginings about a thing I can never understand or imagine (by definition, because it cannot be a thing!). Thus, we take the experience of not knowing and dress it up with attributes. This causes us to confuse another set of experiences with the symbol. We perceive "god" as having a personality. I can talk to it. It can help calm and comfort me. It can give me meaning and instructions for my life.

I want to set aside these experiences (which are also very real experiences) for the time being (though if you can't wait, Godlike knows what they are). But suffice it to say, they are not the experience of not knowing or the paradox of first cause. These subjective experiences are mixed in with that as a second group of associated meanings for the symbol "God."

The second problem is that if we concretize "God" as a thing (or a being), it is yet another thing that has no first cause. Thus, by adding the secondary associations, we actually eliminate "not knowing" as a workable association with the symbol. It associates two meanings with the same symbol that inherently contradict one another. Perhaps this is why the Mosaic law says not to have any graven images. "Idolatry" need not be carved in stone or placed on a painting. After all, such things would just be objective manifestations of idols already created in my thoughts, wouldn't they?

A third problem is the emotional, psychological associations that are part of this secondary set of assocated experiences marked by the symbol "God" make it very, very, very difficult to rationally examine the nature of the symbol and the manner in which one uses it. When confronted by the logic of how language works with this particular symbol, many have no choice to respond emotionally to avoid having to confront the reality that is "not knowing." It can be a harsh one. But fear is the worm that eats the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[doppelganger]

So what doesn't "exist"?

And by what means do we sort things that "exist" from things that do not?

For example, if I hear God telling me through my dog to kill Jodie Foster, why shouldn't I listen?

 

[Willamena]

Ooo, go on, i'm all ears.

Now I have to remember what I was thinking yesterday.

As an agnostic theist, I consider myself on a par, in some cases identically, with the position of the soft atheist. God cannot be known. Any particles or forces we find are particles or forces, not god. To the soft atheist, too, they will always be that. God is only understood in the symbol 'Image of God' that we hold in our hearts.

The "no" answer that doesn't lead to the conclusion you gave is the one that says that those particles do not compare with god, and therefore non-acceptance of the premise, while delusional, is not an atheistic stance.

However, the whole point is that although God could exist in reality and can exert a physical presence or he could exist as fiction and exert an emotional presence, he could also exist in reality and exert an emotional presence. We can't know.

If we cannot know, then there is no difference at all between god and natural forces. That is not a theistic stance unless you move into symbolism, which takes you away from your objective verification stance.

 

[Random]

Now I have to remember what I was thinking yesterday.

As an agnostic theist, I consider myself on a par, in some cases identically, with the position of the soft atheist. God cannot be known. Any particles or forces we find are particles or forces, not god. To the soft atheist, too, they will always be that. God is only understood in the symbol 'Image of God' that we hold in our hearts.

The "no" answer that doesn't lead to the conclusion you gave is the one that says that those particles do not compare with god, and therefore non-acceptance of the premise, while delusional, is not an atheistic stance.

If we cannot know, then there is no difference at all between god and natural forces. That is not a theistic stance unless you move into symbolism, which takes you away from your objective verification stance.

All of which raises a question that often occurs to me: is there any meaningful difference between Atheism and Non-theism?

I do not believe in Deity or Deities, so I am a non-theist: but for some irrational reason I loathe the term atheism. It raises visions of arrogant conceited alleged "intellectuals" going around trying to upgrade people.

Are you really a "soft" atheist or simply a Non-theist like me, Patty?

 

[Willamena]

All of which raises a question that often occurs to me: is there any meaningful difference between Atheism and Non-theism?

I do not believe in Deity or Deities, so I am a non-theist: but for some irrational reason I loathe the term atheism. It raises visions of arrogant conceited alleged "intellectuals" going around trying to upgrade people.

Are you really a "soft" atheist or simply a Non-theist like me, Patty?

I am an agnostic theist.

 

[Halcyon]

I'm bewildered. Why should an atheist have to be in denial of things indiscovered?

They shouldn't, but they should acknowledge the possibility of future discoveries.

 

[Yerda]

They shouldn't, but they should acknowledge the possibility of future discoveries.

Of course. This doesn't affect the logical coherence of atheism.

 

[Halcyon]

Of course. This doesn't affect the logical coherence of atheism.

No. But it should give you pause before labelling a theist as delusional.

 

[Yerda]

No. But it should give you pause before labelling a theist as delusional.

Not that I think you run around doling out that judgement, but it should perhaps on the same note give you pause before labelling anyone delusional. This includes people who claim God/Satan speaks to them, people who believe the fairies in the garden will get them if they mow the lawn, people who see green men in elephant suits selling orange juice on every street corner etcetera etcetera.

For my part I was asking the question in the OP partly because I struggle to fit the brand of theism that claims divine communications into my worldview. Delusional is a word with strong, negative associations but fits the purpose and is sufficiently provocative to garner a response.

 

[Random]

I am an agnostic theist.

Yes, I can see that from your profile. However, might I suggest that being truly agnostic and a theist also is...well, hedging your bets?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, I can see that from your profile. However, might I suggest that being truly agnostic and a theist also is...well, hedging your bets?

Not at all. As an agnostic, I believe I cannot know god; yet, I do believe in god.

There are no "bets" to hedge.

 

[s2a]

The issue is: "what is someone referring to when they say 'God'"? I tried to clarify this in the "Evidence" thread with NetDoc but he didn't want to think about and instead just wanted to be condescending. That's his prerogative, but it doesn't make for a productive discussion.

"God" is a word. It is a linguistic symbol used to denote an association or collection of associations relative to our experiences. It could denote all manner of things, some of which might be confirmed to exist by reference to objective evidence. First an easy one. If I name my dog "God," we can easily have a discussion about whether "God" exists by comaring our sensory experiences of a particular friendly four-legged fuzzy animal and mutally associate "God" with it through culture (hat tip to Ozzie).

What if what I mean by "God" is the paradox of first cause? In other words, what if "God" is the name I give to a hole created in the logic of cause and effect? We approach the universe of our experience (whether we think about it or not) as a series of causes and effects. We store memories about what actions result in which effects. That every thing I experience is an effect of some cause is a central organizing principle of our language, whether it is objectively "accurate" to think about the universe that way or not. This organizing principle creates a paradox. If all things require a cause, then what is the cause of the first thing? As a paradox it is impossible to know. The experience of this not-knowing could be called a lot of things. One of those things might be "God." This is why NetDoc considers any "something" to be evidence that "God" exists. Because what he is really calling "God" is (in part) the experience of the paradox of "first cause," which does in fact exist as an objectively verifiable human experience.

But NetDoc refused to clarify when I asked him that what he called "God" was just a linguistic symbol representing the impossibility of solving the problem of "first cause." Indeed, as I explained on the "Evidence" thread, if we agreed that is what "god" means (and it is the meaning NetDoc is trying to base his argument on) I would actually agree wiht the proposition "God exists." But he refused to agree to that usage of the symbol "God". And the reason he refused to agree is because, for him, that symbol has been concretized as somethign other than a construct of language representing the paradox of not knowing. This creates two problems. First, it creates the inability to recognize imaginings about a thing I can never understand or imagine (by definition, because it cannot be a thing!). Thus, we take the experience of not knowing and dress it up with attributes. This causes us to confuse another set of experiences with the symbol. We perceive "god" as having a personality. I can talk to it. It can help calm and comfort me. It can give me meaning and instructions for my life.

I want to set aside these experiences (which are also very real experiences) for the time being (though if you can't wait, Godlike knows what they are). But suffice it to say, they are not the experience of not knowing or the paradox of first cause. These subjective experiences are mixed in with that as a second group of associated meanings for the symbol "God."

The second problem is that if we concretize "God" as a thing (or a being), it is yet another thing that has no first cause. Thus, by adding the secondary associations, we actually eliminate "not knowing" as a workable association with the symbol. It associates two meanings with the same symbol that inherently contradict one another. Perhaps this is why the Mosaic law says not to have any graven images. "Idolatry" need not be carved in stone or placed on a painting. After all, such things would just be objective manifestations of idols already created in my thoughts, wouldn't they?

A third problem is the emotional, psychological associations that are part of this secondary set of assocated experiences marked by the symbol "God" make it very, very, very difficult to rationally examine the nature of the symbol and the manner in which one uses it. When confronted by the logic of how language works with this particular symbol, many have no choice to respond emotionally to avoid having to confront the reality that is "not knowing." It can be a harsh one. But fear is the worm that eats the fruit of the Spirit.

I am barred from frubaling doppelgänger again without spreading some karmic love and appreciation elsewhere first. Well, to hell with mindless forum bots!

Herein I find perhaps my lost twin brother, we tragic two separated at birth.

Hence, I dare to buck the system, and invest unaccounted frubals on behalf this post by doppelgänger.

Stop me if you can, o' Lords of Karma!

I am surpassed, and pleased to witness the ripe passage in rapt humilty.

 

[Sunstone]

The issue is: "what is someone referring to when they say 'God'"? I tried to clarify this in the "Evidence" thread with NetDoc but he didn't want to think about and instead just wanted to be condescending. That's his prerogative, but it doesn't make for a productive discussion.

"God" is a word. It is a linguistic symbol used to denote an association or collection of associations relative to our experiences. It could denote all manner of things, some of which might be confirmed to exist by reference to objective evidence. First an easy one. If I name my dog "God," we can easily have a discussion about whether "God" exists by comaring our sensory experiences of a particular friendly four-legged fuzzy animal and mutally associate "God" with it through culture (hat tip to Ozzie).

What if what I mean by "God" is the paradox of first cause? In other words, what if "God" is the name I give to a hole created in the logic of cause and effect? We approach the universe of our experience (whether we think about it or not) as a series of causes and effects. We store memories about what actions result in which effects. That every thing I experience is an effect of some cause is a central organizing principle of our language, whether it is objectively "accurate" to think about the universe that way or not. This organizing principle creates a paradox. If all things require a cause, then what is the cause of the first thing? As a paradox it is impossible to know. The experience of this not-knowing could be called a lot of things. One of those things might be "God." This is why NetDoc considers any "something" to be evidence that "God" exists. Because what he is really calling "God" is (in part) the experience of the paradox of "first cause," which does in fact exist as an objectively verifiable human experience.

But NetDoc refused to clarify when I asked him that what he called "God" was just a linguistic symbol representing the impossibility of solving the problem of "first cause." Indeed, as I explained on the "Evidence" thread, if we agreed that is what "god" means (and it is the meaning NetDoc is trying to base his argument on) I would actually agree wiht the proposition "God exists." But he refused to agree to that usage of the symbol "God". And the reason he refused to agree is because, for him, that symbol has been concretized as somethign other than a construct of language representing the paradox of not knowing. This creates two problems. First, it creates the inability to recognize imaginings about a thing I can never understand or imagine (by definition, because it cannot be a thing!). Thus, we take the experience of not knowing and dress it up with attributes. This causes us to confuse another set of experiences with the symbol. We perceive "god" as having a personality. I can talk to it. It can help calm and comfort me. It can give me meaning and instructions for my life.

I want to set aside these experiences (which are also very real experiences) for the time being (though if you can't wait, Godlike knows what they are). But suffice it to say, they are not the experience of not knowing or the paradox of first cause. These subjective experiences are mixed in with that as a second group of associated meanings for the symbol "God."

The second problem is that if we concretize "God" as a thing (or a being), it is yet another thing that has no first cause. Thus, by adding the secondary associations, we actually eliminate "not knowing" as a workable association with the symbol. It associates two meanings with the same symbol that inherently contradict one another. Perhaps this is why the Mosaic law says not to have any graven images. "Idolatry" need not be carved in stone or placed on a painting. After all, such things would just be objective manifestations of idols already created in my thoughts, wouldn't they?

A third problem is the emotional, psychological associations that are part of this secondary set of assocated experiences marked by the symbol "God" make it very, very, very difficult to rationally examine the nature of the symbol and the manner in which one uses it. When confronted by the logic of how language works with this particular symbol, many have no choice to respond emotionally to avoid having to confront the reality that is "not knowing." It can be a harsh one. But fear is the worm that eats the fruit of the Spirit.

Of course, this renders absurd arguments over whose deity is the true deity.

Is it possible to argue on the basis of this that "God" is more appropriately a vehicle of spiritual awareness, or an aid to spiritual awareness, than an ontological category? That is, what my God refers to says much about my spiritual awareness. If I see my God as Love, that seems to indicated a different awareness than if I characterize my God as vengence. There is nothing that prevents me from making God a mirror of my spiritual awareness, since God has no ontological basis that I can test and refine my characterization of God against.

But what then, are we experiencing when we have what seems to be a direct experience of deity?

Just some thoughts before I've had enough coffee.

 

[doppelganger]

Is it possible to argue on the basis of this that "God" is more appropriately a vehicle of spiritual awareness, or an aid to spiritual awareness, than an ontological category?

It is more appropriate to think of "god" as a vehicle to transport one toward spiritual awakening than the destination itself.

That is, what my God refers to says much about my spiritual awareness. If I see my God as Love, that seems to indicated a different awareness than if I characterize my God as vengence. There is nothing that prevents me from making God a mirror of my spiritual awareness, since God has no ontological basis that I can test and refine my characterization of God against.

Excellent. This is what I was driving at in my blog post about states of spiritual awareness. Yours is a much more concise version though.

http://agnosticgnostic.blogspot.com/2006/10/theology-and-process.html

But what then, are we experiencing when we have what seems to be a direct experience of deity?

Several things, I think. First, we are experiencing moments of stepping outside the world we've constructed by language and self-identity and having a feeling of being a part of something much larger than just "me." For example, when one is awestruck by hiking over a mountain rise and looking at the sun setting over a serene mountain lake, the artificial constructs of language may drop into the background and my thoughts will be replaced by a momentary feeling of truly being at one with the universe. Something similar happens when we are moved by compassion for the plight of other organisms. Although our language tells us we are a separate thing, we do experience a connection through love to others. To experience "God" is to experience this feeling of connection and to feel some of the pain of someone else. I think this is where "God is Love" comes from and it the focus of the Pauline use of Christian symbology - e.g.., the "law" that is "written on the hearts" of the gentiles.

Why do we have these feelings of compassion? Why do we tend to be moved by the suffering of others? Does it matter how closely related we are to the one suffering?

Are some people simply not moved by the suffering of others? Or is it in degrees. Are some moved only by the suffering of their immediate family, while others are moved by the suffering of those who share their faith, some by the suffering of any human and still others moved by the suffering of anything that has a consciousness to experience suffering? Why the differences and can a person change from one level of awareness to another? How so?

 

[Willamena]

... It associates two meanings with the same symbol that inherently contradict one another. Perhaps this is why the Mosaic law says not to have any graven images. "Idolatry" need not be carved in stone or placed on a painting.

Just so.

 

[Willamena]

Not at all. As an agnostic, I believe I cannot know god; yet, I do believe in god.

There are no "bets" to hedge.

...I cannot in all honesty deny my belief in god, not and still be true to myself. What it is I am believing in is under review.