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

[McBell]

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

How about you define god as what you believe it to be?

Otherwise you are merely dancing around it to save face.

 

[Windwalker]

How about you define god as what you believe it to be?

Otherwise you are merely dancing around it to save face.

I've addressed all this in subsequent posts. Keep reading.

 

[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.
Some of the attributes of G-d that define Him are given below:

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

Regrds

 

[McBell]

I've addressed all this in subsequent posts. Keep reading.

Please point the post where you actually address it.
I have not found one where you spell it out in easy to understand terms.

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

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

 

[Shad]

The story shows that people are using words with different meanings and context, and as an atheist, I've learned over the years that you better understand what the other person is talking about first before you try to tell them their wrong (or right, for that matter). The details from the gnomist is only lacking because the agnomist insisted on the non-existence of gnomes before he made the attempt of understanding what the gnomist was talking about. I've been there a few hundred times myself, on both sides.

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

Basically, it confirms the question this thread was opened with. Atheists (sometimes, not always, but sometimes) can try to disprove a God which the theist they're talking to isn't the one the theist believes in, simply because they talk different languages, i.e. mean different things with their words. Vagueness is inherent in language. No way around it.

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

 

[Ouroboros]

What I consider a god is my choice.

Yes. Exactly. It is.

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

I suppose that if you believe in nothing beyond what I believe in but choose to use the label "God" for some of those things, then yes, our disagreement is nothing but semantics, sort of... though I'd have the same sort of "semantic" disagreement with someone who refers to the celebrity he stalks as his "girlfriend".

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

... 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.

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

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

 

[Shad]

It's not an object, it's a subject. And yes it is vague and ambiguous, and apophatic. You can't provide details for that which cannot be known.

The object in this case was the garden gnome but without the clarification that it was a garden gnome rather just a "gnome" as per the example. Details could have been provided but were not until the argument was already taking place. Likewise the term god can be clarified between a limited concept of god, Zeus, against a more complex god such as the Platonic or Prime Mover, etc.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

Also, the agnomist wasn't clear that he was thinking of living green-hat gnomes underground. The unclarity was done on both sides.

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

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

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

 

[Ouroboros]

The object in this case was the garden gnome but without the clarification that it was a garden gnome rather just a "gnome" as per the example. Details could have been provided but were not until the argument was already taking place. Likewise the term god can be clarified between a limited concept of god, Zeus, against a more complex god such as the Platonic or Prime Mover, etc.

Both parties had two different views of gnomes. The gnomist actually defined his gnome earlier than the agnomist. The duty to explain lies on both parties. In the example, the fault was just as much with the agnomist for not expressing what kind of gnomes he was dispelling as it was the gnomist's duty to explain the kind he believed in.

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

 

[Shad]

Also, the agnomist wasn't clear that he was thinking of living green-hat gnomes underground. The unclarity was done on both sides.

The counter sides lack of clarity was solely due to the lack of clarity with the idea. It is a byproduct of a flawed idea or failure in communicate an idea with details.

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

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

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

Which is still a failure with the gnomist's argument. The agnomist is still coming to a conclusion based on a a flawed argument/idea from the gnomist. It is not the fault of the agnomist if the gnomist can not be clear in their arguement/idea.

 

[Ouroboros]

How about you define god as what you believe it to be?

Otherwise you are merely dancing around it to save face.

That's what every atheist should do in a discussion. That's the first step each time.

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

 

[Shad]

Both parties had two different views of gnomes. The gnomist actually defined his gnome earlier than the agnomist. The duty to explain lies on both parties. In the example, the fault was just as much with the agnomist for not expressing what kind of gnomes he was dispelling as it was the gnomist's duty to explain the kind he believed in.

Which can be avoided with detailed ideas rather than vague terms. The burden is solely on the proponent not the opponent. There is no need for the agmomist to clarify their concept as they are an opponent against the idea of the gnomist.

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

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

 

[Ouroboros]

The counter sides lack of clarity was solely due to the lack of clarity with the idea. It is a byproduct of a flawed idea or failure in communicate an idea with details.

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

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.

Which is still a failure with the gnomist's argument. The agnomist is still coming to a conclusion based on a a flawed argument/idea from the gnomist. It is not the fault of the agnomist if the gnomist can not be clear in their arguement/idea.

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.

 

[McBell]

That's what every atheist should do in a discussion. That's the first step each time.

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

In all honesty, I flat out suspect that Windwalker is intentionally being vague and using double talk in order to always have a reason to claim that what the atheist disbelieves is not god.

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

God
Soul
Spirit​

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

 

[Ouroboros]

Which can be avoided with detailed ideas rather than vague terms. The burden is solely on the proponent not the opponent. There is no need for the agmomist to clarify their concept as they are an opponent against the idea of the gnomist.

Well. I think you're wrong. The agnomist made assumptions and didn't bother to learn, and didn't even bother to accept the answer. The agnomist in the end rejects the existence of gnomes, but only the gnomes he thinks of, while also rejecting the alternative use of the term gnome, used by the gnomist. So really, the agnomist did a double fault.

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

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

 

[Ouroboros]

In all honesty, I flat out suspect that Windwalker is intentionally being vague and using double talk in order to always have a reason to claim that what the atheist disbelieves is not god.

No. I know he's not. I've known him for 10 years. I actually do know quite a bit of what he thinks and believes.

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

God
Soul
Spirit​

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

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

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

 

[McBell]

No. I know he's not. I've known him for 10 years. I actually do know quite a bit of what he thinks and believes.


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

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

Nice strawman.

 

[Koldo]

So let's discuss my points like rational adults. What, in what I said is inaccurate?

Let's start here:

• Atheism is a response to the traditional theist view of God which is an anthropomorphic imagining of the Absolute. True or false?
• Modern theists don't think of God in that way either. True or False?
• If a modern theist doesn't believe in the God that the atheist does not, then are they not disbelieving the same together? True of False?
• If the atheist and the modern theist share the same rejection of that mode of thought, then is atheism about the God they believe in? Yes or no?

The vast majority of 'god' concepts I come across ( from believers ) involve at very least a conscious invisible entity with an existence completely independent from matter.
I don't believe that such a thing exists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nice strawman.

Uh. No. ???

Which part was a strawman?

 

[Ouroboros]

The vast majority of 'god' concepts I come across ( from believers ) involve at very least a conscious invisible entity completely independent from matter to exist.

Then you haven't talked to many progressive theists or pan(en)theists. Or Advaita for that matter. Or Taoism. Or Stoics. Or ...