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

[`mud]

How many times do non-believers have to answer this ignorantly based question.
Most non-believers were once upon a time, believers. They grew up.
They stopped believing in santa clause, sand man, fairies, angels, or easter bunnies.
And of course Jesus, and the mighty spook in the sky called God.
WE also don't really believe in pink unicorns, lepricons, big foot, or flying pigs.
We were propigized to accept all that trash from unknowing elders,
those same people that only wanted to get rich off the back of worshippers.
These are the same people that enrich the false beliefs of un-educated followers.
~
An aside from this thread must announce that the sentence declaring that:
"Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists?" is improperly phrased,
non-believers don't believe in any creator, or god, or controller in the sky,
or anywhere !!!
They believe in the existance of the natural order of all that is,
or will forever be, with no need for creation, as we are evolving !
Pound on your bibles if you must, just let free minds alone.
~
'mud

 

[Windwalker]

So bringing up your past atheism o
It doesnt add credibility.and seems like your trying.to make a logical fallacy.

Let me explain it this way, technically, I am an atheist. I say technically because atheism really is a response to the traditional Christian deity form, or more specifically about belief it in the mythic-literal mode of interpretation. I don't believe in that either, or more specifically I don't think about the Absolute in those modes of thinking. I am an atheist to that belief, just like Dawkins is, and so forth. I don't believe in that either. And when I was in the process of jettisoning the holds on me from that system I had been indoctrinated to, I championed atheism, going to battle against the fallacies of those beliefs, debunking the Bible, and the whole lot. I was part of atheist organizations, and was a champion of the rational and the empirical sciences as the litmus test of all veracity of truth claims. My personal background does in fact add credibility to my point of view. I've been embedded as a strong voice and leader in some aspects in both sides of it and now I've come to take a perspective on both of those opposite perspectives. I am credible in what I am saying as I have a great deal of experience, knowledge, and insights into this.

And again you don't believe in.that anthropomorphic god, many still do.

And it's those that modern atheism targets and is defined by itself. That's my point.

And finding what you call God meaningless does not mean it wasn't considered just they see no value in it.

I have never said God is meaningless to them because I don't think in those terms. Of course it's meaningful to them. Otherwise, why would they believe it? And that goes to one of my points about atheism that seems to miss that. Many, if not most, assume it should all be about logical consistencies. It's bad logically, and therefore should not be believed in, or that those who do believe are only believing because it gives them emotional comfort. Such point's of view are extremely limited and exclude much broader and inclusive perspectives. It's pretty much the same true/false variable as the beliefs they reject.

EDIT: If you mean to say what I am calling God was considered, I'd be curious how you believe it was? Do you know how I think about these things? I sincerely, respectfully, doubt it.

Dawkins has a whole thing about pantheism being sexed up.atheism is a good response to more transcendent ideas.

Personally, it's crap. I've looked at it, and Dawkins' understanding of religion is at best like a Sunday School picture book understanding. His opinions are religion are about as authoritative as mine would be on nuclear physics. He's like the Rush Limbaugh's bombastic opinions on the world being taken seriously in a Political Science class. He's entitled to puff his chest, but buyer beware. He's an entertainer, not an authority.

You say you dont belive in that god.but.does.the one you do have intent?

To talk about my views will be challenging at this point. Anything I might say would likely be understood in ways I do not mean, or that require great clarification and a lot of foundational understanding. "Intent" is a loaded word, as is "God". Let's put if very high level here. Does a plant reaching to the sun have intention? Depending from what point of view you are looking at it from, you could say it does. It "intends" to receive nourishment. It "intends" to survive and reproduce. All of this really comes down to inclusive points of view, partial truth, partial perspectives, not true/false binary reality. That is itself, a partial truth.

I personally find the atheist/theist debate to be about that binary reality. So, it is to me basically flip sides of the same coin. But Truth itself is greater than that. It not therefore True and all else False. It's inclusive, not exclusive. My points of view are really not a matter of what I believe in, but HOW I believe, how I think, how I perceive, how I process, how I interpret, how I hold truth, how I approach truth, etc. That's entirely different in nature to the theist/atheist debate, hence why defining myself by these terms distracts from the reality of it for me.

 

[HonestJoe]

What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

Atheists don't believe in any gods by definition. Anything else an atheist thinks or believes is an individual matter not defined by their atheism in itself.

I think any complex and amorphous concepts such as the various gods people propose are extremely difficult to explain and describe and I'm not sure anyone really manages to get across their personal perception of their god(s) to anyone else, even others who nominally believe in the same thing. I suspect this is one of the reasons that so many discussions such as the ones we have here boil down to fairly specific characteristics or actions (such as the creation of life) that are somewhat less difficult to explain. Equally though it leads to some believers falling back on "you need faith" or "I just know it's true" because however strongly an individual feels that way, nobody else can feel what you feel.

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

Of course not. This is over-analyzing the matter, IMO. Disbelief is far less of a choice than a vocation.

More significantly, it is misleading to treat the situation as if there were established, well-defined, well-delimited gods to be accepted or disbelieved to begin with. An essential part of god beliefs is that they are malleable and vague, up to and including when it comes to how many gods any given god is.

 

[Laika]

The god I don't believe in [wow, what a phrase! ] is a form of disembodied consciousness which acts as the "first cause" or creator of the universe, and therefore as the source for nature and society and is the moral authority over mankind. This god generally degenerates into a fascist overlord who as the creator thinks he can gets anything he wants and is always right. It bears closet relation to the Abrahamic God due to the cultural christain influence, but is much more general because I'm working with a materialist philosophy that rejects supernatural pheneomena by default. I suppose implicit in that conception of god are cultural assumptions that god is a) human, b) male and c) asserts authority over me. I honestly don't care whether this god exists or not; he's still going to get it for trying to tell me how to live my life.

Dr Freud: "So, tell me about your father?"​

 

[Desert Snake]

arrogant, assumptive? I self-identified as an atheist. I moderated a site full of atheists for 10 years. I've read tons of literature on it. And it all comes down to this, by and large, not 100% of course, but many to most as I stated originally. I have an opinion that is not without considerable foundation. One example I love is where I heard the Christian scholar Elaine Pagels speak of Richard Dawkins, saying, "He's not talking about any God I believe in". That's my point. All I have ever heard is in reference to the God that modern theists themselves don't believe in.

You wouldn't know that by your posts. I would say, you are presenting a confusing message, at the very least.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Quoting @kepha31 from a DIR discussion




What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

I used to like the argumentative concept of "being an atheist in regards to "X" god" However recently I have changed my tune when I was debating against an agnostic who could not wrap their mind around the fact that "atheism" is a lack of belief in all god not just any particular god. Using this analogy can be useful at times but it needs to be addressed that it is two, usually totally different and distinct, functions of cognitive reasoning that help create this disbelief in gods.

On a theist side it is because of a logically contrasting constant that has already been accepted. There is only one god. God "A" is that god. Therefore all other gods are false gods or do not exist. Atheists however don't hold a logically conflicting constant (unless they are hard atheists that have a placeholder belief that there are no gods but this is a discussion for another day) and so the "lack of belief" or "disbelief" in any particular god isn't the same.

If A and B are conflicting propositions if anyone accepts A then they must reject B. However a person can reject both but the reasoning for doing so is different.

 

[`mud]

hey Red,
But you're still giving IT credence !
IT should be a memory, not an existence.
But I get your meaning, and I agree.
~
'mud

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't believe in the ''woowoo'' deity that people ''feeeeeeeeel after realigning their chakras. Doesn't exist.

 

[Windwalker]

You wouldn't know that by your posts. I would say, you are presenting a confusing message, at the very least.

Like if I were to say I am all religions, I am none? My hope is to maybe move ideas beyond black and white distinctions. It's not confusing to me from where I stand.

 

[Jumi]

I don't believe in the ''woowoo'' deity that people ''feeeeeeeeel after realigning their chakras. Doesn't exist.

I don't believe in New Age stuff either. Meditation is better than that though.

 

[Jumi]

Like if I were to say I am all religions, I am none?

IMO that would be confusing, having contradictory beliefs.

 

[`mud]

hey Monk,
That's a really big bush you dance around.
Hard to get to your point, but I feel you're right at heart.
Creator or not ?
~
'mud

 

[Desert Snake]

Like if I were to say I am all religions, I am none? My hope is to maybe move ideas beyond black and white distinctions. It's not confusing to me from where I stand.

Do you mean, you believe all religions, but only in the context of how you personally feel they should be believed? Because, yeah, then that statement actually is confusing. A lot of what religious people post is confusing as well, this isn't a theist/theism thing.

 

[Quintessence]

What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

Considering "god(s)" is a word used to describe several different entities or aspects of reality, and considering we use useless terms like "theist" and "atheist" which tell you absolutely nothing about what usage of "god(s)" that person is accepting or rejecting, yes, talking past each other on these issues is not only commonplace but routine.

It's doubly routine for someone like myself whose understanding of that word "gods" does not represent the image most people in my culture get inside their heads. If you're not a classical monotheist, you're pretty much $#@% out of luck with respect to people understanding your theological perspective. Or acknowledging that it exists, sometimes. It is definitely true that I have more in common with your typical "atheist" in my culture than your typical "theist" because I reject the same ideas about gods that they tend to.

 

[`mud]

hey Wind,
Same bush, I think, can't really tell !
~
'mud

 

[gsa]

The definition of "atheist" does not exist in any kind of social vacuum. There are different reasons that people self-identify as atheists, and there are people who are atheists that do not self-identify as atheists.

As an atheist there are some gods that I clearly reject. Namely, anthropomorphic ones. I don't see any evidence for a non-anthropomorphic distant first cause either, whether it is material or otherwise.

Where it becomes a difficult issue is the use of traditionally religious language to describe things that are not objectionable. The universe exists. If you call the universe god, then I am not an atheist. Obviously, the universe is there, I can observe it. I may, however, reject certain non-naturalist forms of pantheism, such as the idea that the universe is illusory and consciousness is its fundamental attribute.

The majority of the world at least nominally identifies with Abrahamic traditions, however, that make far more claims than a pantheist does. And that's the God that atheists in the West largely identify themselves as not believing in. And when people say that they are atheists, that's the god that most people believe they are denying.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For me, I dont believe in gods because, from an external view, it reminds me of a cartoon charactor or movie where God comes from the clouds with open arms of love. I find this external God humanized or not gives psychological comfort that believers dont have to depe depend on humans for their spiritual health. It gives them a sense of being important and purpose in life. I find that this is helpful, psycholically speaking, and I opt for seeing things as it is. I rather not associate my blessings etc to a being that, in abrahamic faiths, only exist by faith.

I dont believe in God defined as consciousness. It reminds me of metaphysical talk by new age persons to define something simple, the Law of cause and effect, and yet hard to live by. I find psychology a good term for describing God in a scientific way, if one likes, but using the "Language of thr Cosmos" helps with metaphirs and enlightened feeling, but it doesnt explain point blank the nature of God a part from this language.

I dont believe in multiple Gods of one God. it reminds me of trying to define our life by categories. Again, its going back to psychology not a literal god. This is especially seen in those who believe in gods of mythology like Thor and Ordin. Actually, that is more extreme in a psychological view because most i speak with dont consider Thor an external God but more a personality (sorry, guys, cant figure the words) of which they relate to. Kind of like finding a confirmation saint based on like interests. However, interestingly enough, this saint is only present in the persons life when they read about it. Likewise the bible.

I also believe the word god is just religous language wraped in culture and history to try to define the source of our existence as if we are the center of the universe. I dislike the word.

I do believe in spirits of the deceased, but unlike believers, I understand how my mind has a psychological need to hold on to those close to me. However, my external experiencez have shown me spirits exist. Just my family never considered them a part from life. My mother and aunt talks to them as regular everyday beings. So that is what I do.
--
That is basically why I dont believe in God. It is associated with an external God (as windwalker said) and i find that unrealistic. Also, god is wraped up in how we interpret him. Will he exist if we did not? Id say no. Its not like a tree falling and we werent there to hear it. We know the tree exists. With God, we are going by written works that cant be proven without interviewing the person who experienced god. (Which wouls probably be the same experiences you hear about god today), culture, and metaphorical language.

Take away that, and I honestly dont feel an extern god can exist a part from our interpretations.

Quoting @kepha31 from a DIR discussion




What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

 

[Desert Snake]

Let me explain it this way, technically, I am an atheist. I say technically because atheism really is a response to the traditional Christian deity form, or more specifically about belief it in the mythic-literal mode of interpretation. I don't believe in that either, or more specifically I don't think about the Absolute in those modes of thinking. I am an atheist to that belief, just like Dawkins is, and so forth. I don't believe in that either. And when I was in the process of jettisoning the holds on me from that system I had been indoctrinated to, I championed atheism, going to battle against the fallacies of those beliefs, debunking the Bible, and the whole lot. I was part of atheist organizations, and was a champion of the rational and the empirical sciences as the litmus test of all veracity of truth claims. My personal background does in fact add credibility to my point of view. I've been embedded as a strong voice and leader in some aspects in both sides of it and now I've come to take a perspective on both of those opposite perspectives. I am credible in what I am saying as I have a great deal of experience, knowledge, and insights into this.


And it's those that modern atheism targets and is defined by itself. That's my point.


I have never said God is meaningless to them because I don't think in those terms. Of course it's meaningful to them. Otherwise, why would they believe it? And that goes to one of my points about atheism that seems to miss that. Many, if not most, assume it should all be about logical consistencies. It's bad logically, and therefore should not be believed in, or that those who do believe are only believing because it gives them emotional comfort. Such point's of view are extremely limited and exclude much broader and inclusive perspectives. It's pretty much the same true/false variable as the beliefs they reject.

EDIT: If you mean to say what I am calling God was considered, I'd be curious how you believe it was? Do you know how I think about these things? I sincerely, respectfully, doubt it.


Personally, it's crap. I've looked at it, and Dawkins' understanding of religion is at best like a Sunday School picture book understanding. His opinions are religion are about as authoritative as mine would be on nuclear physics. He's like the Rush Limbaugh's bombastic opinions on the world being taken seriously in a Political Science class. He's entitled to puff his chest, but buyer beware. He's an entertainer, not an authority.


To talk about my views will be challenging at this point. Anything I might say would likely be understood in ways I do not mean, or that require great clarification and a lot of foundational understanding. "Intent" is a loaded word, as is "God". Let's put if very high level here. Does a plant reaching to the sun have intention? Depending from what point of view you are looking at it from, you could say it does. It "intends" to receive nourishment. It "intends" to survive and reproduce. All of this really comes down to inclusive points of view, partial truth, partial perspectives, not true/false binary reality. That is itself, a partial truth.

I personally find the atheist/theist debate to be about that binary reality. So, it is to me basically flip sides of the same coin. But Truth itself is greater than that. It not therefore True and all else False. It's inclusive, not exclusive. My points of view are really not a matter of what I believe in, but HOW I believe, how I think, how I perceive, how I process, how I interpret, how I hold truth, how I approach truth, etc. That's entirely different in nature to the theist/atheist debate, hence why defining myself by these terms distracts from the reality of it for me.

The what? That would make me an atheist as well, do you read the forums? The reason why i'm not an atheist, is because I have a very broad definition of theism. that still does not make me an atheist.

 

[Windwalker]

IMO that would be confusing, having contradictory beliefs.

What if you understood that all religions and all beliefs in general, are partial views of the Absolute from a relative position, and that the Absolute exists in full in every partial view? That no relative view is Absolute, and that anything that anyone can say is both true and untrue from another partial view?

At the Absolute, God neither exists nor do not exist. From the nondual there are no contradictions, rather they are unproblematic. Such questions are relative and therefore partial truth. Does God exist? Sure. Does God not exist. Sure. Does the question matter? Yes. Does the question not matter? Yes. It all really comes down to how one approaches reality.