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

[Shad]

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.

This is one of the issues I was hitting on. Often terms we used only identify a majority view and lump minority views, which are similar but different, due to parallelism.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Yep, I was relating it to the previous topics presented in the thread.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is one of the issues I was hitting on. Often terms we used only identify a majority view and lump minority views, which are similar but different, due to parallelism.

Agreed there, but it seems unavoidable.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

"Where there is neither Jew nor Gentile by all are one in Christ". That sounds pretty world centric and pluralistic to me.

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.

As I said before, it's not entirely chaotic. Traditional theism does have certain earmarks of inherited lineages, which are themselves based on interpretation. Adhering to the traditional view, follows that channel of thought, that groove as it were. Traditionally, it is a mythic mode of thought that has been inherited.

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.

This is not true at all. You are familiar with the Perennial Philosophy? If you factor in the frameworks, the lenses through which we filter and interpret the world, it does in fact bring them together.

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.

I look at verses like the temper-tantrum God of the OT, and I see a particular "God's blog", expressed by the eyes of humans in their development, expressing their own ethnocentric, mythic frameworks. One then can take that understanding and integrate it into a "higher" understanding which sees and acknowledges the developmental pattern seen in the Bible. The interpretation in this case, has a difference lens it's looking through. It's therefore not incompatible with an evolutionary perspective. Right?

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.

I don't think you follow. "Revelation" is understood different from a 'higher' perspective (one which includes but transcends the previous mode of thought). What "revelation" means to the mythic-literal mind is not what it means to the rational and pluralistic mind. Traditional theism is mythic in nature. It very literally understands "revelation" as a dictation, a direct oration by the god. It can't see shades of grey or nuanced understandings.

Traditional theism, again, uses scripture as it's basis.

You were a moment ago speaking of all the world's religions. Now you are speaking of Christianity. Which is it? It can't be the former, since that doesn't fit what you just said. Scripture is not the common variable in all the world's religions that are traditional theism. The mode of thought is, however. Unless you think the world's religions are defined by the Abrahamic traditions?

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.

You're really putting the cart before the horse in these arguments.

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.

You do understand that interpretation of anything is always filtered through the general lens of cultural that reads it? This is something that try as well as one can attempt to articulate it is simply impossible for some to see as they assume what they see with their own eyes tells them the truth of the thing? This is in fact their core blindspot. I'm never less that surprised every time I see this, even though I know it intellectually.

Traditional theism, again, is still based on scripture and revelation.

Except in all the religions of the world where they are not based on prophets and revelation. I'm sure Orbit could offer an extensive list of these for you.

The creator concept, first cause, is philosophical theism not traditional theism.

Philosophical theism. I don't think anything I'm talking about has anything to do with that. But if you wish to talk about that, that would be a purely rational mode of thought approach to questions about God. That too is a particular framework, just like the mythic framework is one. Not the same of course, but the same inasmuch as they are the particular filters through which ones sees and interprets truth and reality.

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.

If all one sees is rational arguments then that is the rational conclusion. So, you are in essence, and atheist in regard to rationalist theologies. Now we're getting to what I was saying. "Neo-atheism" is really anti-mythic-literal theism. Your atheism is anti-rational 'philosophic theism". Two different levels of atheism there. But like the previous level, the "neo-atheist" sees only the mythic god, are you seeing that there is nothing beyond the mythic and philosophical god?

So perhaps a new subset is required to identify an atheist which an philosophical atheists from those that are religion based atheists.

This is kind of what I have been arguing for all along. When I hear most atheists proclaim "I don't believe in any concept of God", I hear those who project their understanding is the understanding of everyone in the world! No, they are only rejecting the mythic-literal God and any near-fit surrounding it. That's the only God they "believe" exists in people's beliefs. That's the only God to them, as it is to the mythic believer. I'm just saying you've added one recognition beyond it. And it may be valid to espouse of course. But it's like the only saying, everyone is an atheist to which ever god they don't believe in! That too is kind of pointless self-identification. The Christian is a Brahman atheist. Richard Dawkins is a Pat Robertson's God atheist.

Goodness gracious! Why not just say what we believe, not what we don't believe in? Much simpler and meaningful.

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".

Yeah, well, I think you overestimate the stone you hold. Good thoughts overall though.

 

[gsa]

Well, we can speak of the world in terms of definitions too, but is that really the reality of it? No, not really. It's a mental model, not the reality itself. When you speak of matters approaching Infinity or the Absolute, concepts begin to break down. It doesn't matter what you are talking about. So the best you can do is point to it. "God", by use of the word itself points to the Ultimate, or the Absolute, so contradictions will be inevitable. If you can define the Infinite, it's not infinite because you placed yourself outside of it to look at it in order to define it. If it doesn't include you within it, it's not infinite. So you're left fumbling with words to describe what is inherently, inclusively beyond definition. It's like the sound of one hand clapping this way.

But if we understand that we ourself are part of that which we are trying to describe, and if we see it is infinite, then it of necessity is infinite within us. So we are that infinite itself, asking and looking to see and know itself. And now the whole thing of definitions breaks down. An infinite that is not infinite at all times in all ways, in all things, is not infinite. It can only be expressed and known as yourself. It's not reduced to dance, but it is the only language that is less constrained by the boundaries of subject/object dualities. We can certainly discuss in logical terms, but they must be held as pointers, not boxes. Words have meaning beyond definitions.

We do not know if infinity exists really. And even if existence is in some sense infinite or the "ultimate reality" is infinite, that doesn't mean we have any sensory experience of it.

Bingo! You just made my point others seemed to object to. I said in post #9, "it's been my observation [atheists] are specifically targeting the anthropomorphic, mythic-literal view of God. When presented with other understanding, the typical response is, "Well, that's not God". I think after 10 years I get the pattern pretty well." This just supported what I said at the outset of this discussion which someone took great offense at me for saying. So then to that original point, atheism is defined in relation only to the anthropomorphic deity, and as such is not relevant beyond that. It cannot assert itself beyond that, as it doesn't recognize God outside that definition.

In general atheists are concerned with the god that believers refer to. That doesn't mean that they are not also atheists with respect to the "god" of the mystics, whether labeled god, ultimate reality, Platonic forms, etc. Undoubtedly, some are, some aren't. But atheism can most certainly assert itself beyond the Abrahamic god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is kind of what I have been arguing for all along. When I hear most atheists proclaim "I don't believe in any concept of God", I hear those who project their understanding is the understanding of everyone in the world! No, they are only rejecting the mythic-literal God and any near-fit surrounding it. That's the only God they "believe" exists in people's beliefs. That's the only God to them, as it is to the mythic believer. I'm just saying you've added one recognition beyond it. And it may be valid to espouse of course. But it's like the only saying, everyone is an atheist to which ever god they don't believe in! That too is kind of pointless self-identification. The Christian is a Brahman atheist. Richard Dawkins is a Pat Robertson's God atheist.

Goodness gracious! Why not just say what we believe, not what we don't believe in? Much simpler and meaningful.

It would be. Why don't you tell us what you believe in? It's not at all clear.

 

[Shad]

Yep, I was relating it to the previous topics presented in the thread.

My bad, sorry context was missing and I was never directed at a post in question. However I will take a look through the thread to see if I come across something which resembles the idea you are talking about. I say resembles more as a disclaimer in case I misunderstood a point made by you.

 

[Windwalker]

It would be. Why don't you tell us what you believe in? It's not at all clear.

I believe in the fluidity of truth. I believe in timeless present in each moment. I believe in being. I believe in finitude of form as an ever-unfolding expression of Reality. I believe in the Absolute. I believe in the relative.

What specifically are you wanting to know?

 

[Shad]

"Where there is neither Jew nor Gentile by all are one in Christ". That sounds pretty world centric and pluralistic to me.

No that is just that people are diverse. The key lack of pluralism is how one is saved which is through Christ alone. To be plural in a religion sense one does not need to be saved or even acknowledge Christ. Hinduism is another path to god which is just as valid as by Christ.

As I said before, it's not entirely chaotic. Traditional theism does have certain earmarks of inherited lineages, which are themselves based on interpretation. Adhering to the traditional view, follows that channel of thought, that groove as it were. Traditionally, it is a mythic mode of thought that has been inherited.

No it is the mythic mode that is the default with the philosophical idea which are borrowed and passed on. Ideas which are not founded in any of the mainstream theistic religions except for Hinduism. Everything else is interpreted as a augmentation of the mythic mode thinking. The virtual absence of philosophical work from the 3 Abrahmaic religions prior to it's contact with Greek philosophy shows this to be true. With Hinduism developed it's philosophy along with it's mythic mode

This is not true at all. You are familiar with the Perennial Philosophy? If you factor in the frameworks, the lenses through which we filter and interpret the world, it does in fact bring them together.

Which is not found in ideologies which require acknowledgement of Christ for salvation. Acknowledgement of Islam's prophet to be saved. To have an singular feature in a religion in which all faith must be placed is not pluralism. The very idea is grounded in Platonism not any theistic religion except for a few, certainly not the 3 Aberahamic religions. More so the shared concept is really just the idea of a creator. After this idea vary drastically as pointed out above. I find Perennial Philosophy untenable and grounded in parallelism

I look at verses like the temper-tantrum God of the OT, and I see a particular "God's blog", expressed by the eyes of humans in their development, expressing their own ethnocentric, mythic frameworks. One then can take that understanding and integrate it into a "higher" understanding which sees and acknowledges the developmental pattern seen in the Bible. The interpretation in this case, has a difference lens it's looking through. It's therefore not incompatible with an evolutionary perspective. Right?

Interesting idea of the "blog". However your point is not addressing the key idea I was talking about. The key idea is an emotional god is an anthropomorphic god. One can read whatever they like into this display of emotions but the emotion still stands in plain ink. Interpretation which ignore these emotion are just doing post hoc rationalization while the writers of scripture were using emotion based views as depictions of their god(s).

I don't think you follow. "Revelation" is understood different from a 'higher' perspective (one which includes but transcends the previous mode of thought). What "revelation" means to the mythic-literal mind is not what it means to the rational and pluralistic mind. Traditional theism is mythic in nature. It very literally understands "revelation" as a dictation, a direct oration by the god. It can't see shades of grey or nuanced understandings.

Revelation is not hard to understand since we are talking about theological ideas. It is this revelation which is not used by philosophical arguments for god. Revelation of scriptures, revelation of prophets, of sages, of oracles, middle-men of god. You idea of revelation has nothing to do with theism thus is not part of traditional theism while the revelation I am talking about is what I described it as.

You were a moment ago speaking of all the world's religions. Now you are speaking of Christianity. Which is it? It can't be the former, since that doesn't fit what you just said. Scripture is not the common variable in all the world's religions that are traditional theism. The mode of thought is, however. Unless you think the world's religions are defined by the Abrahamic traditions?

I was giving examples to identify how the parallelism used for the term traditional theism is flawed. I do so by pointing out once the parallelism is removed there is little in common let along agreed upon.

Sorry you are wrong as traditional theism is grounded in scripture based religions of Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism. Again you are conflating philosophical theism with traditional theism.

You're really putting the cart before the horse in these arguments.

No I am just identifying the difference between what you think is traditional theism is and what it actually is. I do so by examples.

You do understand that interpretation of anything is always filtered through the general lens of cultural that reads it? This is something that try as well as one can attempt to articulate it is simply impossible for some to see as they assume what they see with their own eyes tells them the truth of the thing? This is in fact their core blindspot. I'm never less that surprised every time I see this, even though I know it intellectually.

Yes, this is what make interpretation almost useless outside of said cultures. Yet I am talking about the meaning of terms not the flawed interpretations of scripture. There is no interpretation of traditional theism which does not use scripture regardless of interpretations of scripture. To do so to redefine the term into something it is not. Hence traditional theism divorces from scripture is philosophical theism not a different form of traditional theism.

Except in all the religions of the world where they are not based on prophets and revelation. I'm sure Orbit could offer an extensive list of these for you.

True but then these religions are not part of or use the concept traditional theism. Thus have nothing to do with the category. Hence why I address religions which are while not mentioning religions which are not. So this comment makes no point as I am not talking about other religions outside the definition at hand

Philosophical theism. I don't think anything I'm talking about has anything to do with that. But if you wish to talk about that, that would be a purely rational mode of thought approach to questions about God. That too is a particular framework, just like the mythic framework is one. Not the same of course, but the same inasmuch as they are the particular filters through which ones sees and interprets truth and reality.

You are conflating it with traditional theism by not taking into account the required scripture based views which are the foundation of traditional theism. If scripture and god given revelation is not counted as supportive then you are not talking about traditional theism. It is not a different framework nor different model within the same category of traditional theism. It is the framework for a completely different category.

If we are talking about traditional theism then stick with it's definition. If not then clarify how your view of tradition theism is not the standard definition. Otherwise I will continue to think you either do not understand the term at hand or conflate the term with another.

If all one sees is rational arguments then that is the rational conclusion. So, you are in essence, and atheist in regard to rationalist theologies. Now we're getting to what I was saying. "Neo-atheism" is really anti-mythic-literal theism. Your atheism is anti-rational 'philosophic theism". Two different levels of atheism there. But like the previous level, the "neo-atheist" sees only the mythic god, are you seeing that there is nothing beyond the mythic and philosophical god?

I am an philosophical atheist. There is no need to really address a particular religion once the philosophical ideas fail or are refuted. It is not anti-rationalist as my views are based on reason and logic not the rejection of either. I do not address theology since it is already using philosophy as the backbone of it's arguments. Counter the philosophy and the theology fails as well without even needing to bring it up

I do agree that neo-atheism or new atheism is directed at individual religions as many individuals only address religions which are within their culture as those which are not. In some cases religions which the media loves to talk about.

I see nothing of meaning beyond the mythic or philosophical god. Without philosophical arguments there is no rational reason to even entertain such a concept as it will be either an appeal to emotions, god of the gaps or circular logic.

This is kind of what I have been arguing for all along. When I hear most atheists proclaim "I don't believe in any concept of God", I hear those who project their understanding is the understanding of everyone in the world! No, they are only rejecting the mythic-literal God and any near-fit surrounding it. That's the only God they "believe" exists in people's beliefs. That's the only God to them, as it is to the mythic believer. I'm just saying you've added one recognition beyond it. And it may be valid to espouse of course. But it's like the only saying, everyone is an atheist to which ever god they don't believe in! That too is kind of pointless self-identification. The Christian is a Brahman atheist. Richard Dawkins is a Pat Robertson's God atheist.

You hit the nail on the head when it comes to New Atheists such as Dawkins. People only identify the concept of god from the religions around them. Few rarely talk about the philosophical concept since these ideas are only taught in theology and philosophy course. Neither of which is a course load required for the majority of career paths. People are just ignorant of these ideas since they either do not have the time or motivation to learn.

Goodness gracious! Why not just say what we believe, not what we don't believe in? Much simpler and meaningful.

The problem is the concepts which are addressed are far more complex than the average person understands. So strict answers as do you believe or not become buried in complexity many are not prepared to address. This is true both for many believers and unbelievers. However I feel the problem has it's source in the believer more than the unbeliever. The unbeliever can simply reject the very concept of god, philosophical and save time. The believer responds by putting forward ever increasingly complex, or pure sophistry, augment in an attempt to hammer out justification for their own view of god. All in an attempt at producing a "Gotcha, that is not THE god I am talking about" Dawkins and co fall for the gotcha trap rather than sticking to the philosophical objections as I would.

Yeah, well, I think you overestimate the stone you hold. Good thoughts overall though.

It is the only stone which is worth the time in addressing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe in the fluidity of truth. I believe in timeless present in each moment. I believe in being. I believe in finitude of form as an ever-unfolding expression of Reality. I believe in the Absolute. I believe in the relative.

What specifically are you wanting to know?

Do you believe in God?

 

[Windwalker]

Do you believe in God?

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

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've noticed that the concept of God that atheists/antitheists tend to rail against the most is a fire and brimstone fundamentalist Protestant caricature of God. It's so different from the God I believe in that it might as well be another deity.

 

[Desert Snake]

I've noticed that the concept of God that atheists/antitheists tend to rail against the most is a fire and brimstone fundamentalist Protestant caricature of God. It's so different from the God I believe in that it might as well be another deity.

Does anyone on the forums present that view? Especially the ''protestants'', they don't present that view at all. Actually I notice that more among ex-catholics, perhaps ex-xians.
may as well be a myth, it's never literal, on the forums at least.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Does anyone on the forums present that view? Especially the ''protestants'', they don't present that view at all. Actually I notice that more among ex-catholics, perhaps ex-xians.
may as well be a myth, it's never literal, on the forums at least.

What do you mean? In terms of actually believing in that concept of God? I guess because there have been wacky Christians on here.

 

[Desert Snake]

What do you mean? In terms of actually believing in that concept of God? I guess because there have been wacky Christians on here.

Okay..............

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay..............

It's not even just here, there's plenty of wacko fire and brimstone fundamentalist Protestants in real life. Catholicism doesn't really have an analogue to them because our form of fundamentalism is quite different.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I meant do you believe in God as you understand the term?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've noticed that the concept of God that atheists/antitheists tend to rail against the most is a fire and brimstone fundamentalist Protestant caricature of God. It's so different from the God I believe in that it might as well be another deity.

One of the many gods I don't believe in was the one that was presented to me during the several years I attended a Catholic Church.

 

[Ouroboros]

One of the many gods I don't believe in was the one that was presented to me during the several years I attended a Catholic Church.

How about the naturalistic pantheistic God?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

One of the many gods I don't believe in was the one that was presented to me during the several years I attended a Catholic Church.

Yeah, I know you're an atheist. Your opinion of the Catholic Church hasn't been a secret to me since I've been on this site.