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

[`mud]

hey Windy,
From where did the expression "angry at god" exist before you used it ?
I can see the comparisons there, but the expression seems to be original.
I apologize if I read that wrongly, but a little clarity would be helpful.
~
'mud

 

[Looncall]

You're trying to reduce this to a semantics argument? Let's look at what I said again, "To express the inexpressible, in whatever inadequate way that is, is not without value or merit." It's a metaphoric way to say no amount of expression can fully express what is felt our experienced. It's really not so hard to grasp what this means. The paradoxical expression of "to express the inexpressible" means all expressions at their very best are partial and limited in expressing what is limitless. My god, if anyone has ever experienced such a thing, none of this is a problem for their minds. For those who haven't, I'm sure it just sound like so much 'woo'. "If I haven't experienced such a thing, it's not real for others".

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
​

"To know what is impenetrable to us really exists", is the same paradoxical expression as saying to "express the inexpressible". "How can you know something you cannot penetrate with the mind??", Mr. Penguin challenged the Mr. Einstein with his logic of words. You know, in reading what Mr. Einstein wrote above, I think he's saying exactly everything I am saying. As I said, being rational is not the criteria for hearing the music of the spheres.


Yes, you only see the night sky with the dull faculties of the mind and reason. You don't have a 3rd option or beyond available to you.

All this is nice and poetic and all that. Very decorative. I am sure it shows something profound about human psychology.

I am not at all sure it shows anything about anything external (like gods etc).

I am really not sure it leads to saying that this whatever cares about what my sweetie and I do at night etc.

I find that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is something profound that deserves more attention.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're trying to reduce this to a semantics argument? Let's look at what I said again, "To express the inexpressible, in whatever inadequate way that is, is not without value or merit." It's a metaphoric way to say no amount of expression can fully express what is felt our experienced. It's really not so hard to grasp what this means. The paradoxical expression of "to express the inexpressible" means all expressions at their very best are partial and limited in expressing what is limitless. My god, if anyone has ever experienced such a thing, none of this is a problem for their minds. For those who haven't, I'm sure it just sound like so much 'woo'. "If I haven't experienced such a thing, it's not real for others".

If all you're saying is that verbal communication is limited, then all you're doing is describing something that applies to any use of language.

The word "cat" doesn't express the entirety of my cat, but this doesn't mean we can't use it.

And I haven't said that your experiences aren't real; so far, you haven't even said what those experiences are. All you've done - apparently - is slap the label "God" on them, told us that this label doesn't actually express anything, and expected us to find this meaningful.

Yes, you only see the night sky with the dull faculties of the mind and reason. You don't have a 3rd option or beyond available to you.

Well, at least you've admitted that your position isn't reasonable. Have fun with whatever experiences you like; I'll treat them as meaningful to me once I have reason to.

If you wish to focus on the form of the dance, you miss the meaning of the dance. You are fixated on the mechanics, not the soul behind the dance, nor behind the music, nor behind the words of poets and mystics. If you are fixated on the form, then you miss the meaning. Don't blame the dancer because you can't hear what they are saying.

I'm sure all the ballerinas reading this will be thrilled to know that you think their countless hours perfecting their form disqualify them from knowing the meaning of dance.

 

[Ouroboros]

hey Windy,
From where did the expression "angry at god" exist before you used it ?

I've seen it many times, used by some religious people trying to argue with atheists. They want it to become an issue of that the atheist somehow believe in God anyway and are just angry with God and that's why they're atheists. Which is all bs, of course. You might not have seen it as much on this website. You can see this on other websites though.

 

[Orbit]

This really isn't about the OP anymore, it's about anti-theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because something is inexpressable doesn't mean we don't try to express it. Art, music, poetry all result from attempts to express the inexpressable emotions that are only imperfectly approximated by the expressive arts. It's not "failure" to try and do so.

I think you're conflating two different issues as well. The time to ask about the feelings that the Emperor's clothes elicit in you is *after* it's been established that the Emperor is not naked. If what's being elicited fron the Emperor's clothes is genuine, establishing that they're real should be a trivial task.

Mystics across different traditions have tried to express the inexpressable and the result is if we look across traditions, a remarkable similarity of concepts.

... and a similar lack of justification for tying "the inexpressable" to "God".

If you mean "inexpressable", then why don't you just say "inexpressable"? The term "God" has baggage with it that may or may not be appropriate. I'm not talking about the "bearded man on a cloud" imagery that was alluded to early in the thread, but just basic things like, for instance, the idea that a God is a real entity and an object of worship.

Slapping the label "God" on a thing carries these sorts of connotations with it, and makes it ridiculous to apply it to "the unknown" or "the inexpressable": "I can't begin to say what this is, but I CAN say that it's God"?! Is that even supposed to make sense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This really isn't about the OP anymore, it's about anti-theism.

What do you mean by "theism"?

 

[`mud]

The OP does say "dis-believe" !
But.....what with my strokes and all....
I'll have to be forgiven, and that's not a prayer !
~
'mud

 

[Desert Snake]

This really isn't about the OP anymore, it's about anti-theism.

Not really. If someone tells me what they think 'god' is, in any capacity, they aren't an atheist. Right?

 

[Iti oj]

This really isn't about the OP anymore, it's about anti-theism.

How so? Because us atheist didn't agree? Or that we dont like mystics speaking on behalf of us. Or that we dont find word salad meaningful.

But.the just means we didn't get it not that we just disagree.

Calling this thread anti theism is a cop out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This really isn't about the OP anymore, it's about anti-theism.

Actually, it's gone off into ignosticism: the idea that we can't answer the question "do you believe in God?" without an answer to "what do you mean by 'God'?"

 

[Shad]

Let's take a higher level perspective of this. It's based on a particular mindset that interprets what it reads within a certain framework. That's a little more accurate a description. So a mythic-mode of thought is going to read scripture in a way that reflects and concludes things to fit within that framework. A magic-mode thought will interpret a magical Jesus. A rational-mode thought will interpret a rational Jesus. A pluralist-mode thought will interpret a pluralistic Jesus, and so forth. We have to factor in how someone thinks in general, using their general interpretive frameworks.

True in some ways. A pluralistic Jesus is nonsensical based on the NT claims back by OT verses used to bolster the NT version of God. One can think of this Jesus all they want but it does not match anything from scripture. However I do see the point you are trying to make. Hence traditional theism is really a nonsensical term since each version is based on scripture and interpretation. The only agreement common to the traditional concept is that god was present before creation and is the creator. Beyond this this is little shared between all religions. Once we begin by factoring in others "framework" based interpretation the common term of traditional theism loses meaning.

Which is reflective of the mythic frameworks.

No. In many forms of scripture god's emotions are in plain ink. To interpret verse of emotion outside of the given passage is to use a different framework. The mythic framework is the default one in this case not one imposed on the text.

Which are reflective of the rationalist frameworks.

Philosophical arguments for god do not use revelation as a source for the argument. So it is not a framework of interpretation but borrowing of supporting arguments which is not sourced in the scripture used for traditional theism. Thus this framework does not apply to the concept at hand. It is conflating two different concepts as one. So no I completely disagree.

Accepts, within which framework? Accepting scripture to a rationalist means accepting its human origins and valuing its symbolic content. Accepting scripture to the mythic mind means it's the actual, literal words of God that much be believed exactly as they read it. Accepting scripture to the magic believer thinks the words themselves have power, and the book has magical properties.

Traditional theism, again, uses scripture as it's basis. Regardless of the origin of the text the idea of revelation to an individual or set of individuals is still present and core concept of traditional theism. You can not divorce revelation from traditional theism. So reason is only involved after revelation has been accepted thus reason is only implode as a supportive argument rather than a method for the whole idea. Preconception or presuppositions are already accepted as true, which are found in scripture. The other concepts of god use neither. The other concepts use reason as a method not a supportive argument. Thus it is not as rational as you would believe it to be.

Deism is actually just a rationalistic interpretation of theism. It's primary motive was to basically defrock church authority. It removes God from entering into the world, and thus any claims the church speaks for God. It still however leaves in place the transcendent God of theism. It just says no special interventions, and we're left to use reason. It's really not about God, but about making Reason the ultimate light of mankind, endowed upon him by the Creator.

No its against theism as it does not use revelation or scripture. It is not an interpretation, it is a counter-position to core concepts of theism. Again you conflate the two concepts as interpretation when one is the complete rejection of two of the very sources theism uses. Revelation and scripture.

Traditional theism is just the mythic-mode mindset, that supernatural forces outside you control everything. All that follows are just interpretations that fit with that overall framework of worldview. The magic-mode mindset, which comes before the mythic-mode, interprets the deity form magically, that if you incant the magical words, "Jesus, Jesus, I believe, I believe", that it affect the forces of nature coming from them, "through faith". They very much are part of the church as well. But they are not the "traditional theism" modes. They are more like the "prosperity Gospel" folks, or the "words of faith". "speak the word" folks. They are the magic believers, as opposed to the traditional mythic believers. They don't agree with each other, as you can suspect.

Traditional theism, again, is still based on scripture and revelation. The creator concept, first cause, is philosophical theism not traditional theism. Again it is the borrowing of an argument as augmentation rather than the basis of the argument for traditional theism. Even the first cause argument is a philosophical theistic concept rather than scripture based thus not traditional theism. This concept is based on Platonism first and borrowed by later theist of mainstream religions to bolster their religion. Again certain concepts are already accepted as true rather than argued as true from logic and reasoning divorced from scripture and revelation as the first cause argument is. So "Traditional theism is just the mythic-mode mindset" is no different than the doctrine and dogma, which is also based on scripture, you think is different. Traditional theism is based on weak parallelism and borrowed ideas. Keep in mind the very authors we base the idea of traditional theism on all borrowed from a mix of Platonism and Aristotelianism concept which are now defined as philosophical theism rather than traditional theism. Again an augmentation for the position rather than the foundation of the argument.

So with that all laid out, I am saying that what atheism is rejecting is really not far from that apple tree. It's all centered around that mythic view of God, such as deism itself was. You could call deism, "atheism lite", I suppose. I'll have to think about that.

Just I think traditional theism is a flawed term I think atheism is becoming a flawed term. I have covered theism already so let me address atheism. My issue is an atheist's justification varies from individual to individual. For some individual their atheism is strictly addressing different gods based on current religions; Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. For others like myself I first deal with the borrowed philosophical concepts. Once these concepts are removed from the argument all that is left is circular reasoning. So perhaps a new subset is required to identify an atheist which an philosophical atheists from those that are religion based atheists. Am atheist which uses justification which is based solely on religion is not addressing the philosophical concept of god but individual religious concepts with all the doctrine, dogma and other baggage included. This requires far more work as every new idea or modification of each religion needs to be addressed as time progress. While a philosophical atheist only needs to address philosophical arguments rather than each individual religion. Thus using "one stone" to take out a "flock of birds".

 

[Windwalker]

All this is nice and poetic and all that. Very decorative. I am sure it shows something profound about human psychology.

Indeed it does!

I am not at all sure it shows anything about anything external (like gods etc).

Ah, bingo! Let's come full circle back to the OP. The "external" God is the one defined by traditional theism, the God that atheism rejects. I am not speaking of an external God. I tried to put this in words in another recent post, that if "God" is infinite, then how can it be external to you? Infinite does not have a location. It is not outside you or isolated in you. Everything I'm speaking about with the metaphor of dance, is dancing out who you are, your infinite Self! And being infinite, it is limitless. That limitlessness exists in you, outside you, and is you. Words define the world outside of you. Expressiveness, speaks of the world as felt and experienced inside, outside, and everywhere. It's not the ideas of an observer, it's the voice of the Subject.

I am really not sure it leads to saying that this whatever cares about what my sweetie and I do at night etc.

Do you care? Then God cares.

I find that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is something profound that deserves more attention.

Indeed. Opening the eyes of the Beholder is where the magic of it all resides.

 

[Desert Snake]

True in some ways. A pluralistic Jesus is nonsensical based on the NT claims back by OT verses used to bolster the NT version of God. One can think of this Jesus all they want but it does not match anything from scripture. However I do see the point you are trying to make. Hence traditional theism is really a nonsensical term since each version is based on scripture and interpretation. The only agreement common to the traditional concept is that god was present before creation and is the creator. Beyond this this is little shared between all religions. Once we begin by factoring in others "framework" based interpretation the common term of traditional theism loses meaning.



No. In many forms of scripture god's emotions are in plain ink. To interpret verse of emotion outside of the given passage is to use a different framework. The mythic framework is the default one in this case not one imposed on the text.



Philosophical arguments for god do not use revelation as a source for the argument. So it is not a framework of interpretation but borrowing of supporting arguments which is not sourced in the scripture used for traditional theism. Thus this framework does not apply to the concept at hand. It is conflating two different concepts as one. So no I completely disagree.




Traditional theism, again, uses scripture as it's basis. Regardless of the origin of the text the idea of revelation to an individual or set of individuals is still present and core concept of traditional theism. You can not divorce revelation from traditional theism. So reason is only involved after revelation has been accepted thus reason is only implode as a supportive argument rather than a method for the whole idea. Preconception or presuppositions are already accepted as true, which are found in scripture. The other concepts of god use neither. The other concepts use reason as a method not a supportive argument. Thus it is not as rational as you would believe it to be.



No its against theism as it does not use revelation or scripture. It is not an interpretation, it is a counter-position to core concepts of theism. Again you conflate the two concepts as interpretation when one is the complete rejection of two of the very sources theism uses. Revelation and scripture.




Traditional theism, again, is still based on scripture and revelation. The creator concept, first cause, is philosophical theism not traditional theism. Again it is the borrowing of an argument as augmentation rather than the basis of the argument for traditional theism. Even the first cause argument is a philosophical theistic concept rather than scripture based thus not traditional theism. This concept is based on Platonism first and borrowed by later theist of mainstream religions to bolster their religion. Again certain concepts are already accepted as true rather than argued as true from logic and reasoning divorced from scripture and revelation as the first cause argument is. So "Traditional theism is just the mythic-mode mindset" is no different than the doctrine and dogma, which is also based on scripture, you think is different. Traditional theism is based on weak parallelism and borrowed ideas. Keep in mind the very authors we base the idea of traditional theism on all borrowed from a mix of Platonism and Aristotelianism concept which are now defined as philosophical theism rather than traditional theism. Again an augmentation for the position rather than the foundation of the argument.



Just I think traditional theism is a flawed term I think atheism is becoming a flawed term. I have covered theism already so let me address atheism. My issue is an atheist's justification varies from individual to individual. For some individual their atheism is strictly addressing different gods based on current religions; Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. For others like myself I first deal with the borrowed philosophical concepts. Once these concepts are removed from the argument all that is left is circular reasoning. So perhaps a new subset is required to identify an atheist which an philosophical atheists from those that are religion based atheists. Am atheist which uses justification which is based solely on religion is not addressing the philosophical concept of god but individual religious concepts with all the doctrine, dogma and other baggage included. This requires far more work as every new idea or modification of each religion needs to be addressed as time progress. While a philosophical atheist only needs to address philosophical arguments rather than each individual religion. Thus using "one stone" to take out a "flock of birds".

''Chrisitianity'' is not a monolythic belief system. There were ''christians'' of various beliefs from the get go. There are many xians, probably even on the forums,that would not consider me a Xian. This, however, has nothing to do with me being a theist. Theism is any deity concept, even very vague or pantheistic ideas.

 

[Orbit]

How so? Because us atheist didn't agree? Or that we dont like mystics speaking on behalf of us. Or that we dont find word salad meaningful.

But.the just means we didn't get it not that we just disagree.

Calling this thread anti theism is a cop out.

The disagreement is now about theism itself, not the topic of the op. That's not a cop out, it's stating the obvious. Everyone here speaks for themselves. No one has purported to speak for you. Not all atheists are the same.

 

[Shad]

''Chrisitianity'' is not a monolythic belief system. There were ''christians'' of various beliefs from the get go. There are many xians, probably even on the forums,that would not consider me a Xian. This, however, has nothing to do with me being a theist. Theism is any deity concept, even very vague or pantheistic ideas.

Pluralism in religion is that there are many paths to god. This is not something Jesus endorsed according to the NT. This is the point I made. However you are right that there are other views. However we are talking about a term based on mainstream religions so it is not out of order to use this mainstream idea. Now if your view is that Jesus is not the son of god or something interpretive avatar form of god then the term Christian would only apply to the concept of salvation via Christ.

Theism is not a pantheistic idea since theism is based on Platonism. That objects exist outside of physical universe. Pantheism is that the physical universe is the divine itself thus is part material.

 

[Desert Snake]

Pluralism in religion is that there are many paths to god. This is not something Jesus endorsed according to the NT. This is the point I made. However you are right that there are other views. However we are talking about a term based on mainstream religions so it is not out of order to use this mainstream idea. Now if your view is that Jesus is not the son of god or something interpretive avatar form of god then the term Christian would only apply to the concept of salvation via Christ.

Theism is not a pantheistic idea since theism is based on Platonism. That objects exist outside of physical universe. Pantheism is that the physical universe is the divine itself thus is part material.

Actually, I worship Jesus as God. My crosses that I wear do not denote a Roman crucifixion device, either. So, neither, nor, and not explicitly, to your explanation of what adhering to Jesus would actually mean. Mainstream ideas, is not the best way to delineate religious concepts, either. That would only be applicable in a very strict religious paradigm, which ''Xianity'' isn't.

 

[Desert Snake]

Pluralism in religion is that there are many paths to god. This is not something Jesus endorsed according to the NT. This is the point I made. However you are right that there are other views. However we are talking about a term based on mainstream religions so it is not out of order to use this mainstream idea. Now if your view is that Jesus is not the son of god or something interpretive avatar form of god then the term Christian would only apply to the concept of salvation via Christ.

Theism is not a pantheistic idea since theism is based on Platonism. That objects exist outside of physical universe. Pantheism is that the physical universe is the divine itself thus is part material.

This could be, however it doesn't seem very appropriate or accurate to be labeling peoples beliefs as 'atheistic', when they have deity concepts. That's my opinion on that.

 

[Looncall]

Indeed it does!


Ah, bingo! Let's come full circle back to the OP. The "external" God is the one defined by traditional theism, the God that atheism rejects. I am not speaking of an external God. I tried to put this in words in another recent post, that if "God" is infinite, then how can it be external to you? Infinite does not have a location. It is not outside you or isolated in you. Everything I'm speaking about with the metaphor of dance, is dancing out who you are, your infinite Self! And being infinite, it is limitless. That limitlessness exists in you, outside you, and is you. Words define the world outside of you. Expressiveness, speaks of the world as felt and experienced inside, outside, and everywhere. It's not the ideas of an observer, it's the voice of the Subject.


Do you care? Then God cares.


Indeed. Opening the eyes of the Beholder is where the magic of it all resides.

This looks like a case for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Language.

Something could certainly be infinite and external. Consider a line that starts in front of you and extends infinitely far in some direction.

When someone drags in infinity, one can be sure that they they need to get out the word salad dressing.

My comment about beauty being in the mind of the beholder was to point out that if we say that a tree, for example, is beautiful, it does say something about us, but nothing at all about the tree.

 

[Shad]

This could be, however it doesn't seem very appropriate or accurate to be labeling peoples beliefs as 'atheistic', when they have deity concepts. That's my opinion on that.

I never labelled it an atheistic. I clearly defined it as something different than theism. Yes both share the concept of a deity but how the deity is view is different thus can not be classified by Platonic principles used by theism.