Bad Chihuahua! (An Inability To Separate God From Religion)

[PureX]

Theism doesn't do anything because it's an abstract concept, and it's one that can't really exist in isolation (just like atheism in that way).

Theism a proposition. And what it proposes is a simple reality construct, not a religion. Some of the people that accept the reality construct then turn it into a religion, so they can adhere to the construct as they choose to envision it.

The problem for most of the atheist here is that they have no understanding whatever of the logical philosophical framework that supports the proposal. They are not aware of the construct, only of the result. So all they can disagree with are the many individual religious manifestations they've ancountered from people that happen to agree with the philosophical construct. But that never addresses the construct itself. So although they call it atheism, it's really just a-religiosity.

Nobody proposes just theism, ...

The proposal is the result of the philosophical process. It doesn't matter who verbalizes interjects it any more then it natter who verbalizes the theory of evolution. They are both the proposed solution derived from a specific explorative process. One philosophical, the other scientific.

that there is something that exists, but without any explanation of it's nature or characteristics. Every proposed god is distinct (often even when they're proposed by people of nominally the same faith).

What exists is a mystery. But it's a mystery that we can logically conclude to exist. No one knows what happens inside a black hole, either. It's a mystery. Or what exists apart from or beyond the boundaries of the universe. It's a mystery. And yet the mysteries are real. They exist because logic dictates that they must. Even though they remain a mystery in terms of content.

You can only go through one door at a time though, and if you leave that door, you don't need to automatically choose another one, immediately or ever. If someone believes in a specific god but then looses their belief in that one god, they move to believing in zero gods. Even if they quickly shift to believing in a different god, the "no gods" step is still there.

Actually this is not so. We humans do not have one-dimensional minds. We are capable of holding more than one idea at a time, and they can and often do conflict or oppose each other. And there are many theists that adhere to multiple religions and multiple god images simultaneously. There are many theists that are also agmostic, for example. They would have no problem adopting any one or another religious god-image of theology.

Because you can't understand why people do things if you don't understand what they're actually doing.

I don't really care that much why people do things. I have absolutely no control over that, nor should I ever. I think it's far more important that THEY know why they do the things they do. And me, too.

Also, I want you to focus on the real human beings you're talking about, rather than an amorphous blob of "others" to criticise.

That would be inappropriate. It's not how criticism works.

"No evidence" is a pretty good reason not to believe something .

What anyone believes is irrelevant to anyone but that believer. And what one does not believe is not even relevant to that unbeliever. The whole "unbelief" thing is nonsensical gibberish. Atheism asserts that the theist proposition (that God/gods exist) is invalid. And that assertion is what defines it. Not anyone's "unbelief".

A religion being "bad" isn't necessarily, but if the proposal is that the religion is fundamentally good because of the god which inspired it (as many do), that religion being bad would raise significant challenge to it's validity.

Religions are both good and bad, simultaneously. Every thinking person understands this.

You're also missing the point that just because someone identifies their experiences of a religion as the reason for their becoming atheist, it won't be the sole or singular factor (even if they don't realise it themselves), and it will have inevitably have been a long mental journey over time (even if it was with one of more key moments of revelation).

I don't care what THEIR reasons are. Or what THEIR beliefs are. That's their own business. I want to know what the logical reasoning is supporting their assertion that the theist proposal is invalid. And if they are not asserting that, they are not "atheists".

What do you imagine is the theist proposal (remembering that we're now beyond just monotheism, but covering polytheism and pantheism too)?

I don't have to imagine anything. The theist proposal is that God/gods exist. The reasoning in support of that proposition is based on the logical necessity for it to be so. There is, however, some logical support for the counter-assertion that this proposition (that God/gods exist) is not valid. But so far, I have seen almost no self-proclaimed atheists offering it. Instead, they are focused onasserting and battling individual beliefs.

 

[siti]

I agree. But the problem here is that they want to define God by their belief, instead of by logical reasoning (philosophical process). So they never actually address the philosophical proposition at all. They merely argue over their respective personal conclusions.

It's worse than that...they define God, as you say, by their belief, and then deny that they have done so.

In this very thread I have been told that the "god" I want to talk about is not god because it is not supernatural, not "outside this world", doesn't have "characteristics worthy of deification"...and all by people who have then said they don't define God or they leave the definition of God to theists.

How is saying something is not god because it lacks certain attributes not defining god?

I was even told that it was not god because I wasn't using the accepted definition of the word...despite an earlier claim that the word was not clearly defined.

Please don't take this wrongly...I'm not calling them out...it's an observation in line with the topic of the OP...

...but it seems to me that the argument against theism (as a philosophical proposition) in this thread boils down to:

There is no standard definition of the word God

Therefore there is no God

That falls into the category of "not even wrong" IMO.

 

[Alien826]

It's worse than that...they define God, as you say, by their belief, and then deny that they have done so.

In this very thread I have been told that the "god" I want to talk about is not god because it is not supernatural, not "outside this world", doesn't have "characteristics worthy of deification"...and all by people who have then said they don't define God or they leave the definition of God to theists.

How is saying something is not god because it lacks certain attributes not defining god?

I was even told that it was not god because I wasn't using the accepted definition of the word...despite an earlier claim that the word was not clearly defined.

Please don't take this wrongly...I'm not calling them out...it's an observation in line with the topic of the OP...

...but it seems to me that the argument against theism (as a philosophical proposition) in this thread boils down to:

There is no standard definition of the word God

Therefore there is no God

That falls into the category of "not even wrong" IMO.

Where that refers to me, it is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. There's no point stating why as I have already responded to it, and you show no sign of having read that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where that refers to me, it is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. There's no point stating why as I have already responded to it, and you show no sign of having read that.

The post refers to no particular post, but alludes
to all atheists here. Then it reaches the conclusion
of atheists deducing there is no God....not simply
no "gods" or un-named god, but the name of the
Christian god....the one named "God".
It smells of straw.

 

[Koldo]

It's worse than that...they define God, as you say, by their belief, and then deny that they have done so.

In this very thread I have been told that the "god" I want to talk about is not god because it is not supernatural, not "outside this world", doesn't have "characteristics worthy of deification"...and all by people who have then said they don't define God or they leave the definition of God to theists.

How is saying something is not god because it lacks certain attributes not defining god?

I was even told that it was not god because I wasn't using the accepted definition of the word...despite an earlier claim that the word was not clearly defined.

Please don't take this wrongly...I'm not calling them out...it's an observation in line with the topic of the OP...

...but it seems to me that the argument against theism (as a philosophical proposition) in this thread boils down to:

There is no standard definition of the word God

Therefore there is no God

That falls into the category of "not even wrong" IMO.

Since I recognize my words in your post, let me clarify: I do have a definition for the word 'God'. It is literally the same definition I used back when I was a theist.

 

[Alien826]

The post refers to no particular post, but alludes
to all atheists here. Then it reaches the conclusion
of atheists deducing there is no God....not simply
no "gods" or un-named god, but the name of the
Christian god....the one named "God".
It smells of straw.

Actually it, in parts, very clearly refers to my posts, though it doesn't name anyone obviously. Let's see how he responds.

 

[HonestJoe]

Atheism asserts that the theist proposition (that God/gods exist) is invalid. And that assertion is what defines it. Not anyone's "unbelief".

Well that throws everything up in the air, and demonstrates why I don't like using the label in the first place.

Whether you like it or not, the word "atheist" is commonly used to mean a range of different things, including general lack of belief right through to a definitive denial of the possibility of any kind of deities. Since you're talking about other people in the context of those posting to explain why they consider themselves atheists, what they mean by the word is the only relevant factor, not what you'd like it to mean.

Again, you can't make up a strawman group, declare what they believe and why, then criticise them for it (well, you can, but it's less than meaningless). If you want to talk about actual real people or groups, you need to understand from them what they believe and why (which isn't necessarily the same as what they say they believe or why).

I don't have to imagine anything. The theist proposal is that God/gods exist.

What is a god though? Could something exist (or have once existed) to meet the logical necessity without it meeting the definition of "god"? And don't the proposals from different theists fundamentally contradict each other (sometimes intentionally)?

Even without the complexities of religion, I don't think theism can be presented as a definitively singular concept (just like atheism again).

 

[siti]

Where that refers to me, it is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. There's no point stating why as I have already responded to it, and you show no sign of having read that.

It doesn't refer to you at all...you did say that the concept of god I was proposing was "not clearly defined" - but that wasn't what I was referring to...in any case you were right, my concept of god (as I have presented it in this thread) is not clearly defined.

 

[siti]

The post refers to no particular post, but alludes
to all atheists here. Then it reaches the conclusion
of atheists deducing there is no God....not simply
no "gods" or un-named god, but the name of the
Christian god....the one named "God".
It smells of straw.

No - I was referring to the general gist of some of the responses in "this thread" - as I quite clearly indicated twice - I was not referring to "all atheists" - for all intents and purposes I am also atheist - especially if the definitions provided by the non-definers - i.e. "supernatural", "out of this world"...etc. - are what we are talking about...and the god/God thing, that was a genuine error caused by the autocorrection thing on my phone - which I used to type that post - I did not intend to capitalize it and the Christian "God" is not what either I or any of the posters who denied the existence of my proposed (small g) god(s)/no god(s) were talking about so I have no idea why you would leap to the conclusion that I had created a non-existent straw god...unless...perhaps its your own straw you can smell?

 

[Revoltingest]

No - I was referring to the general gist of some of the responses in "this thread" - as I quite clearly indicated twice - I was not referring to "all atheists".....

Hence the term "alludes".

....for all intents and purposes I am also atheist - especially if the definitions provided by the non-definers - i.e. "supernatural", "out of this world"...etc. - are what we are talking about...and the god/God thing, that was a genuine error caused by the autocorrection thing on my phone - which I used to type that post - I did not intend to capitalize it and the Christian "God" is not what either I or any of the posters who denied the existence of my proposed (small g) god(s)/no god(s) were talking about so I have no idea why you would leap to the conclusion that I had created a non-existent straw god...unless...perhaps its your own straw you can smell?

It seems that spelling "God" was your error.
My inference from your specific choice of
word was cromulent.

I'm curious.

for all intents and purposes I am also atheist

What does that mean?

 

[Alien826]

It doesn't refer to you at all...you did say that the concept of god I was proposing was "not clearly defined" - but that wasn't what I was referring to...in any case you were right, my concept of god (as I have presented it in this thread) is not clearly defined.

That's odd, because I clearly recognized my own words being referred to, if not actually quoted. Nevertheless, I have no wish to take this any further other than to continue the discussion, if you so wish.

 

[siti]

That's odd, because I clearly recognized my own words being referred to

You're right...I was mixed up about who said what - it was, in part, your comments I was referring to...

Where that refers to me, it is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.

How exactly am I misrepresenting this sequence of comments?

Universe-god: Just an idea at this stage, not defined, not fitting the descriptions of many gods as believed in (that is, not "outside the universe" in some way)

atheists don't define gods.

I leave it to theists to supply the definitions.

 

[siti]

for all intents and purposes I am also atheist

What does that mean?

I have no religion and I do not "believe" in the existence of any god/gods...I proceed with my life exactly as if there were no god/gods...

but, like you, I'm curious - as I said in an earlier post:

My hunch is that there has to be something physically real behind such a persistent illusion (just has there has to be something physically real behind the inexplicable and possibly illusory phenomena of consciousness and free will etc.).

Anybody can object to a story...its not the stories themselves, or the labels and definitions...its the reality - is it all mere imagination - but how does such an imaginary "entity" hold the imaginations of whole swathes of humanity captive at once and generation after generation so persistently?

Something so almost innately human and so culturally pervasive and persistent deserves a bit more than summary dismissal IMO.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no religion and I do not "believe" in the existence of any god/gods...I proceed with my life exactly as if there were no god/gods...

but, like you, I'm curious - as I said in an earlier post:

I'd say you're an atheist.

One of us!
One of us!
Gooble gobble gooble gobble!
One of us!

 

[PureX]

Well that throws everything up in the air, and demonstrates why I don't like using the label in the first place.

Whether you like it or not, the word "atheist" is commonly used to mean a range of different things, including general lack of belief right through to a definitive denial of the possibility of any kind of deities. Since you're talking about other people in the context of those posting to explain why they consider themselves atheists, what they mean by the word is the only relevant factor, not what you'd like it to mean.

They can explain why they think they are elephants. But that still doesn’t make them elephants. Atheism is not a person. Nor is it an identity. It’s a philosophical assertion in relation to the theists proposition. So someone claiming to be an atheist and then denying the philosophical assertion is being illogical and/or dishonest.

Again, you can't make up a strawman group, declare what they believe and why, then criticise them for it (well, you can, but it's less than meaningless). If you want to talk about actual real people or groups, you need to understand from them what they believe and why (which isn't necessarily the same as what they say they believe or why).

You seem to be having great difficulty grasping that I don’t care what anyone believes, because it has nothing to do with defining theism or atheism as philosophical positions.

What is a god though?

Philosophically, god is a necessary existential mystery.

Could something exist (or have once existed) to meet the logical necessity without it meeting the definition of "god"?

Not within this context. Within this context the term god refers to the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

And don't the proposals from different theists fundamentally contradict each other (sometimes intentionally)?

This doesn’t matter. Theism is not defined by theists. Theists are defined by theism.

Even without the complexities of religion, I don't think theism can be presented as a definitively singular concept (just like atheism again).

I just did so.

 

[Alien826]

You're right...I was mixed up about who said what - it was, in part, your comments I was referring to...

How exactly am I misrepresenting this sequence of comments?

Universe-god: Just an idea at this stage, not defined, not fitting the descriptions of many gods as believed in (that is, not "outside the universe" in some way)

atheists don't define gods.

I leave it to theists to supply the definitions.

The rest is your words, in italics.

It's worse than that...they define God, as you say, by their belief, and then deny that they have done so.

Not sure if that involved me.

In this very thread I have been told that the "god" I want to talk about is not god because it is not supernatural, not "outside this world", doesn't have "characteristics worthy of deification"...and all by people who have then said they don't define God or they leave the definition of God to theists.

That's definitely me. I didn't say it was not god, just that it fell outside most definitions of god. And yes, they are definitions made by theists. As theists are the ones putting forward the idea/s of gods, where else would I get the descriptions.

How is saying something is not god because it lacks certain attributes not defining god?

It is defining god, but they are not my attributes. The problem is that atheists, like all of us, are awash in an ocean of god belief. When talking about gods to theists, we tend to use their definitions on the assumption that they will understand our disbelief, rather that doing an endless repetition of "I don't believe this, but assuming your belief to be true ....".

I was even told that it was not god because I wasn't using the accepted definition of the word...despite an earlier claim that the word was not clearly defined.

That's me too. I tried to point out that "having multiple conflicting definitions", which was what I had said, was not the same as "not clearly defined". Most gods are very clearly defined ... in many different ways.

Please don't take this wrongly...I'm not calling them out...it's an observation in line with the topic of the OP...

...but it seems to me that the argument against theism (as a philosophical proposition) in this thread boils down to:

There is no standard definition of the word God

Therefore there is no God

That falls into the category of "not even wrong" IMO.

That may be the way some argue, but I would say that the conflicting descriptions are evidence for most, even all, the descriptions being inaccurate but to go on to say that means there are no gods is a conclusion too far.

 

[siti]

Since I recognize my words in your post, let me clarify: I do have a definition for the word 'God'. It is literally the same definition I used back when I was a theist.

So that's the 'god' that you issued your summary dismissal to then? Not mine, which is explicitly not supernatural - but then I suppose we have to define clearly what we mean by 'supernatural' as well...

Deification of rulers is strictly connected to supernaturalism. A common theme is being the son of a god, if my memory is serving me right.

OK

Can you be more specific?
There are multiple reasons to venerate the dead. Quite often it involves supernatural beliefs.

E.g. in Fijian culture/religion the original settlers (whether they were real people or mythological I don't know - to the Fijians they were real) such as Degei and Lutunasobasoba who first arrived in the islands and founded the various clans in different parts of the country are deified as the Kalou-vu (Ancestor gods) - they were, according to the stories, extraordinary but fallible people - e.g. their boat (a traditional double hull canoe) on which they arrived was holed and they lost their "treasure" in the sea...

They 'manifest' as real physical entities - such as birds or whirlwinds - usually to pass a message of the impending death of a clan member...etc.

Why what? Why religion is ingrained in culture? Because religion is a cultural phenomenon.

Well that doesn't answer the question at all - why is religion a cultural phenomenon...as opposed to say, an entirely individual one or as opposed to not existing at all?

For the actual existence of deities.

What are you talking about?

A confirmed event that necessitates a supernatural explanation would be evidence of gods.

And there it is again - of course it is impossible to provide a "supernatural explanation" and by so defining 'god' and requiring "supernatural explanation" you dismiss the entire idea of 'god' without any intellectual effort whatsoever. That's precisely what I was referring to earlier:

Atheists: let's define god in such a way that its existence can easily be refuted without any intellectual effort on our part

 

[siti]

Universe-god: Just an idea at this stage, not defined

This ^^^^ is what you actually said (my bold)

That's me too. I tried to point out that "having multiple conflicting definitions", which was what I had said, was not the same as "not clearly defined". Most gods are very clearly defined ... in many different ways.

You did say this as well - but this is not the same as "not defined"...

I'm not sure how you can say that "Universe-god" (the idea I was proposing for discussion at that point) is "not defined" - Spinoza summed it up as deus sive natura - that seems as adequate a definition as we need to have a discussion about it.

Anyway, my slightly frustrated outburst at least seems to have allowed some clarification of what some of us meant - even if its not exactly what we said.

 

[Koldo]

So that's the 'god' that you issued your summary dismissal to then? Not mine, which is explicitly not supernatural - but then I suppose we have to define clearly what we mean by 'supernatural' as well...

Not quite. I have never come across a god concept that I both accepted the label as proper and that I haven't concluded it doesn't exist.

As for supernatural, suffices to say for now that I count Eywa (Avatar movie's deity) as supernatural.

OK

E.g. in Fijian culture/religion the original settlers (whether they were real people or mythological I don't know - to the Fijians they were real) such as Degei and Lutunasobasoba who first arrived in the islands and founded the various clans in different parts of the country are deified as the Kalou-vu (Ancestor gods) - they were, according to the stories, extraordinary but fallible people - e.g. their boat (a traditional double hull canoe) on which they arrived was holed and they lost their "treasure" in the sea...

They 'manifest' as real physical entities - such as birds or whirlwinds - usually to pass a message of the impending death of a clan member...etc.

Thus supernatural. I can elaborate on what I mean by the term if necessary. But if you are thinking on terms of superhero powers, that's supernatural territory.

Well that doesn't answer the question at all - why is religion a cultural phenomenon...as opposed to say, an entirely individual one or as opposed to not existing at all?

That's like asking why music is not an individual phenomenon. Why wouldn't religion specifically be passed down through generations when so many other things are?

And there it is again - of course it is impossible to provide a "supernatural explanation" and by so defining 'god' and requiring "supernatural explanation" you dismiss the entire idea of 'god' without any intellectual effort whatsoever. That's precisely what I was referring to earlier:

What? No, it is trivial to provide a supernatural explanation to anything. There is nothing impossible about it. The actual hard part is to make a case for a situation that necessitates a supernatural explanation.

 

[siti]

Not quite. I have never come across a god concept that I both accepted the label as proper and that I haven't concluded it doesn't exist.

Again you're just restating the same idea - if it doesn't correspond to your definition of a 'god' then it's not a 'god'.

Thus supernatural. I can elaborate on what I mean by the term if necessary. But if you are thinking on terms of superhero powers, that's supernatural territory.

I'm not thinking in terms of anything, its not my belief I was referring to...my point was that there is a physical reality behind the believer's idea of the 'god'.

That's like asking why music is not an individual phenomenon. Why wouldn't religion specifically be passed down through generations when so many other things are?

No its not...and in any case, I was not originally referring to 'religion' but to 'belief in god' - and your comments are merely proving the OP's argument:

As to a person, some religion or other was being allowed to define God, without doubt or exception, so that in rejecting that religion's 'God', the entire concept of and gamut of alternative possibilities was being dismissed, en total.

What? No, it is trivial to provide a supernatural explanation to anything. There is nothing impossible about it. The actual hard part is to make a case for a situation that necessitates a supernatural explanation.

Oh I see - you mean the old "goddunnit" god of the gaps thing - not a proper explanation of how something was done supernaturally - well that's an even weaker argument - there will always be things that lack a satisfactory natural explanation - and there will always be things that we used to resort to supernaturalism to answer that we now know is perfectly natural - none of that is evidence either for or against either theism or atheism...it just means we don't (at least yet) know how it happened.