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

[McBell]

Uh. No. ???

Which part was a strawman?

I said I can reject....
Not I have to reject.

I reject the notions of soul simply because even though some people talk to great lengths about it, they cannot give a useful nor meaningful definition of it.
Same with god.
same with spirit.

 

[Koldo]

Then you haven't talked to many progressive theists or pan(en)theists.

I have no idea on how statistically significant they are. I haven't come across many.

 

[Ouroboros]

I said I can reject....
Not I have to reject.

Oh, Sorry! My mistake.

I reject the notions of soul simply because even though some people talk to great lengths about it, they cannot give a useful nor meaningful definition of it.
Same with god.
same with spirit.

Sure. And that's your prerogative.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have no idea on how statistically significant they are. I haven't come across many.

Well, you have the chance. There's a couple of us here. Actually, there's quite a few on this website, so it's surprising that you haven't discovered them yet.

 

[Koldo]

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

Where I live, Hinduism and Taoism are statistically insignificant.

 

[Koldo]

Well, you have the chance. There's a couple of us here. Actually, there's quite a few on this website, so it's surprising that you haven't discovered them yet.

Of course I have "discovered" them.
I am not saying they don't exist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Where I live, Hinduism and Taoism are statistically insignificant.

But you have people on this website.

As a naturalistic pantheist (I'm in reality many things and many labels, and this is just one of them) I consider the Universe to be God. Nature, energy, matter, existence, reality, life, thoughts, ideas, consciousness, time, space, all of it is God. All things that do exist, all of it, that's God.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course I have "discovered" them.
I am not saying they don't exist.

I didn't say that you said that either.

But you said that the majority of the people you talk that are believers of some sort all believe in an external sentient entity God. Which means, you haven't talked to many pantheists, since they don't believe that.

 

[Koldo]

I didn't say that you said that either.

But you said that the majority of the people you talk that are believers of some sort all believe in an external sentient entity God. Which means, you haven't talked to many pantheists, since they don't believe that.

Or that the majority of people aren't pantheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Or that the majority of people aren't pantheists.

Fair enough. I see your point.

 

[Shad]

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.

The assumption was only made due to the vagueness of the gnomist's claim. This is why the proponents argument is fallacious as it lead to the very assumption due to the fallacy. The error is still with the gnomist which could have been avoided by providing the one detail which clarifies what type of gnome they are talking about. This is the burden of the proponent not opponent and the failure in meeting it. There is not fault with the agnomist due to the fallacy involved.

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?)

Exactly. However understanding of an idea comes after an idea has been communicated properly so there is a basis for a discussion. Vague ideas have no basis.

 

[Jumi]

I'm not sure I would say that exactly. I think what I was getting at is that God is a positive symbol (as opposed to a negation). It points to "something" which has the effect of directing the mind towards something. Again, I am speaking of Ultimate Reality in all of this. The symbol of God in positive terms is termed within Christian terms as Cataphatic theology, but is applicable to Buddhism and HInduism as well. You can read about it here: Cataphatic theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I get the idea sort of, but Buddhists and Hindus don't call this "God", but something different. Unless they are discussing with an Abrahamic religionist maybe?

On the other side of that you have Apophatic theology. It attempts to describe God, or Ultimate Reality by deconstructing all ideas about God and leaving you with nothing but bare experience. When man sticks his idea out there as describing God, his is looking at his idea. This is what Nagarjuna pushed at in realizing the nondual. To borrow from the Wiki article on it,

I see non-dualism as an experience or useful as an idea in some type of meditation, but I don't think our reality is really non-dual.

The above quote speaks to what I was saying earlier in response to St. Frankenstein in this thread. In a cataphatic or positive approach, one cultivates the qualities and attributes of the divine through mental focus, and that can happen through deliberate symbolism or a spontaneous mystical state. The apophatic approach can be done deliberately through deconstruction and lead to expanding one's awareness beyond mere definitions of both the world and Ultimate Reality, and it can also happen spontaneously in a mystical state unfolding into the nondual.

I don't see a need to think the attitude towards mystical states necessarily needing to be divine. As far as I can see, having either a divine or irreverent approach are both counterproductive.

Where does atheism fit into the above? If someone is hoping to know Ultimate Reality, then to negate all notions of deity can in fact open oneself up to this. But again, is it truly a negation, or simply an opposite idea?

I think it can be either. I notice that when I'm meditating the thought of god or divine doesn't enter my mind. I think either thought would distract from the task at hand.

Is atheism as a thing concerned with matters of Ultimate Concern, with questions of Ultimate Reality? I suspect some might retort, "Of course it is! That's why we use things like science to discern truth from fiction." But if you stop to think about this, all that is doing is creating a positive mental model of reality based upon observation and reason and the suppression of other forms of knowledge as inferior and unreliable, or "unreal". It concludes only the material world and the laws of nature are real.

In my case that is true. I don't think there exists a world that is not natural and regarding the natural world we usually go to science for answers when they exist.

In the end it is not a negation, which it would need to take itself and all of scientific inquiry itself as illusory in order to be that. It is instead an alternative positive assertion to the nature of Ultimate Reality: only the natural world is real. It is in this sense, a theology, not "simply a lack in belief". If it were truly a lack in belief, it would not assert any truth.

Well here's a problem. I think you are confusing naturalism with atheism. While they often go hand in hand, they don't have to. Atheism itself makes no claims about "ultimate reality" and it would be hard to imagine a theology based on just that.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

Post 181: Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone | Page 10 | ReligiousForums.com

Post 194: Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone | Page 10 | ReligiousForums.com

You may call this "dancing around" or "double talk" but it is not at all. It's being very straight forward. It may not be the easy black and white, clearly defined boundaries you would prefer it in, but I'm sorry I don't see anything like that. Like I say in those posts, anything even remotely approaching the Absolute, which "God" points to, of necessity begins to break down into all manner of paradoxes. I know it's a temptation to try to ascribe all sorts of conspiratorial ulterior motives to this for some reason, but that's not the case. It's more like the difficulty one would have trying to describe three-dimensional objects to a two-dimensional world. It sounds like "dancing around the answer" to not answer straightforwardly if a "hand" is or is not 5 circles. Yes, from one perspective it is, but is it the reality of a hand?

 

[Ouroboros]

Atheism itself makes no claims about "ultimate reality" and it would be hard to imagine a theology based on just that.

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.

 

[Ouroboros]

Post 181: Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone | Page 10 | ReligiousForums.com

Post 194: Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone | Page 10 | ReligiousForums.com

You may call this "dancing around" or "double talk" but it is not at all. It's being very straight forward. It may not be the easy black and white, clearly defined boundaries you would prefer it in, but I'm sorry I don't see anything like that. Like I say in those posts, anything even remotely approaching the Absolute, which "God" points to, of necessity begins to break down into all manner of paradoxes. I know it's a temptation to try to ascribe all sorts of conspiratorial ulterior motives to this for some reason, but that's not the case. It's more like the difficulty one would have trying to describe three-dimensional objects to a two-dimensional world. It sounds like "dancing around the answer" to not answer straightforwardly if a "hand" is or is not 5 circles. Yes, from one perspective it is, but is it the reality of a hand?

Or dividing by zero. Approaching zero with x values starting from the negative side, we're approaching -∞ but never arriving at a number. Starting with x values from positive side, we're approaching +∞. Both reaching for the same impossible point, but both taking completely different directions.

 

[Ouroboros]

I reject the notions of soul simply because even though some people talk to great lengths about it, they cannot give a useful nor meaningful definition of it.

Oh, and by the way, my definition of soul is consciousness or mind. Nothing mysterious about it. So to me, rejecting the "soul" is to reject that we're aware, conscious, thinking beings. Rejecting the soul is to say that we don't exist, we don't think, there's nothing going on at all. Or like saying that computer is dead and not working, even though I'm currently using it. The mind arises from natural order and processes, but it does exist, and mind=soul, not a problem. The soul exists, even in animals to different degrees. (just like the difference of complexity level of programming languages from µC, to Ehrlang, and all the way up to Unreal Blueprint and beyond.)

 

[McBell]

Oh, and by the way, my definition of soul is consciousness or mind. Nothing mysterious about it. So to me, rejecting the "soul" is to reject that we're aware, conscious, thinking beings. Rejecting the soul is to say that we don't exist, we don't think, there's nothing going on at all. Or like saying that computer is dead and not working, even though I'm currently using it. The mind arises from natural order and processes, but it does exist, and mind=soul, not a problem. The soul exists, even in animals to different degrees. (just like the difference of complexity level of programming languages from µC, to Ehrlang, and all the way up to Unreal Blueprint and beyond.)

To you.
Well that settles it, doesn't it?

I cannot help but wonder though, why not say consciousnesses or mind?
Why all the use of the word "soul"?

Is it to sound more mystical?
Is it to better appeal to other users of the word soul?

Or is it perhaps to so easily attack strawmen?

So to you, I reject the mind and consciousness?
Sad really.

 

[Izdaari]

Who/what deity is that, btw. I wasn't aware of that deity until someone mentioned him in a conversation, and of course after I joined RF, there were notations indicating this idea. *If it is the Xian deity, then where is Jesus?


*for some xians, I suppose.

For some Xians is right. Xians who do believe in that one have it all wrong. So atheists who disbelieve in that one, have that much right at least.

 

[Ouroboros]

To you.
Well that settles it, doesn't it?

That's the point of this thread. We have different ideas of how we use the think of the words. You said you haven't every seen any definition of the term "soul" that was useful. Now, you reject my definition, not because it doesn't make sense, but because it was I who presented it.

I cannot help but wonder though, why not say consciousnesses or mind?
Why all the use of the word "soul"?

They're synonymous. Just like road, street, way, path, all have similar or same meanings. Language is that way.

Is it to sound more mystical?
Is it to better appeal to other users of the word soul?

Not to me. Maybe to other people, but I don't see the soul as mysterious.

Or is it perhaps to so easily attack strawmen?

Did I?

So to you, I reject the mind and consciousness?
Sad really.

To me, yes, you would based on how I use the term.

And again, that's what this thread is about. People use terms differently, so if you come to me and tell me you reject the existence of the soul, to me it most definitely sound like you're saying that you reject the existence of the mind, because that's how I see the term soul. And of course it works the other way around. When I use the term soul to you and say that it does exist, you think of soul as something mysterious, magical, supernatural that doesn't exist, so we'll end up in a conflict because of the simple difference in how we see these words.

Yes, it is sad that people don't understand the problem of language and that it's only a flawed and vague carrier of ideas, and not the perfect system at all. Language is ultimately tautological (learned that from a linguist) and is very abstract in nature. It's a semaphoric system that only points to ideas and thoughts. Ideas and thoughts we have learned through life and experience to connect to certain words. And depending on our background and experience, which differs, we'll have difference concepts of those words. And it is sad that a lot of people can't see this and try to work around it to avoid the pitfalls. Instead (me included) we jump in and assume that we talk the same virtual language.

--edit

And to give you a little meat to the bone regarding the connection between soul and mind, the Platonic soul was "psyche" (from were we get psychology, psychiatry, etc), and consists of three parts: logos (mind, reason), thymos (emotions), and eros (appetitie, desire). My point is, I'm not alone in this view.

 

[Desert Snake]

For some Xians is right. Xians who do believe in that one have it all wrong. So atheists who disbelieve in that one, have that much right at least.

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