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

[Windwalker]

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.

You know that Christians were considered atheists to the Romans in the days of the early church? Why is that?

 

[Orbit]

I have thought of this question in my journey from Christianity to atheism to mystic panentheism. To Christians, I would readily be labelled an atheist. It would be quite clear to them. I don't believe in their literal, mythic God, so atheist. For an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I may or may not be seen as atheist because they have a less literal understanding of what "God" means. I am saying the exact same thing as Windwalker here. Whether or not I'm atheist depends on your point of view. I personally no longer see things in black and white, atheist/theist any more because I have seen how complicated it is. To a mythic believer, I'm an atheist. To a more sophisticated theist, maybe I'm not. But I do know this, there is no category for my beliefs, only partial approximations.

 

[`mud]

It's interesting to me how people don't want to give up their beliefs.
They claim to be non-believers, but the agnostic feelings are still there.
They seem to not get over their fear of the supposed god that might still be there.
The elders that taught them still have control of them to this day.
Do away with the fear and recognize the reality of what life really is.
We will die eventually, and then we will become memories to others.
That's a promise, get over the fear, there isn't any post death cognizence.
Life is stuff, enjoy what you can, your 'god' will wait, if you're right.
Fill your gnosis with all that's available, and try to take it with you.
~
'mud

 

[lovemuffin]

This is a classic strategy. The atheist just doesn't understand.

Iti, I know from past conversations that this is a bit of a touchy subject, but if I may: I wouldn't say that you, personally, don't understand. I don't think the kind of argument that windwalker was trying to make, or that I was originally sort of hinting at in the thread that spawned this one, is that it is necessarily the case that every self-identified atheist just doesn't get it, and that if you got it you would change your self-identification. I can understand why that would seem insulting and dismissive. However, just as windwalker says that he has had particular experiences with atheist representations of religion seeming more like caricatures than reasonable depictions, I've had similar experiences. This, to me, is kind of the case in point:

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.

Not to pick on mud too much, because this is a very common argument. It's the "flying spaghetti monster" argument by ridicule. The problem is that the analogy to "pink unicorns", "leprechauns", and "Big Foot" has very little to do with how I experience what I call "God" or how I conceptualize it. The fact of the matter is, equating the "Divine", in my view, to a flying pig does very much misrepresent my theology. It may be the case that it doesn't entirely misrepresent the history of theism, or the God of much popular belief, although even there I think it runs the risk of being overly caricaturized. In any case, it's hard to let go of this objection. If I say it, I don't intend it to be an insult of the atheist, or a suggestion that you are (all) merely ignorant. It's more a matter of not finding a particular polemic very compelling. It doesn't mean that there aren't better and more valuable "atheistic" points to be made.

The other thread requested that theists should "identify your God and convince us that he exists". The pushback against the request is that, implicitly, it seems to contain assumptions about what it means to identify "my" God (is God a thing? like a unicorn?), the absolute value or necessity of "convincing", or of some presupposed epistemology, a particular ontology of "existence", and other difficulties. Because we so often take some of that philosophical background for granted, even challenging it seems, I think, to many people, like intentional obfuscation. But it's really not. At least not if the goal is to try to understand the experience and views of some theists as they themselves understand it. It's the same problem as when theists assume that all atheists must be nihilists, or immoral, because they assume that meaning or moral value can only possibly be grounded in a Supreme Being. Usually, what I am interested in is dialogue, more so than debate. To understand and to hopefully be understood. There are preconceptions on both sides that make this challenging imo

 

[Desert Snake]

Iti, I know from past conversations that this is a bit of a touchy subject, but if I may: I wouldn't say that you, personally, don't understand. I don't think the kind of argument that windwalker was trying to make, or that I was originally sort of hinting at in the thread that spawned this one, is that it is necessarily the case that every self-identified atheist just doesn't get it, and that if you got it you would change your self-identification. I can understand why that would seem insulting and dismissive. However, just as windwalker says that he has had particular experiences with atheist representations of religion seeming more like caricatures than reasonable depictions, I've had similar experiences. This, to me, is kind of the case in point:



Not to pick on mud too much, because this is a very common argument. It's the "flying spaghetti monster" argument by ridicule. The problem is that the analogy to "pink unicorns", "leprechauns", and "Big Foot" has very little to do with how I experience what I call "God" or how I conceptualize it. The fact of the matter is, equating the "Divine", in my view, to a flying pig does very much misrepresent my theology. It may be the case that it doesn't entirely misrepresent the history of theism, or the God of much popular belief, although even there I think it runs the risk of being overly caricaturized. In any case, it's hard to let go of this objection. If I say it, I don't intend it to be an insult of the atheist, or a suggestion that you are (all) merely ignorant. It's more a matter of not finding a particular polemic very compelling. It doesn't mean that there aren't better and more valuable "atheistic" points to be made.

The other thread requested that theists should "identify your God and convince us that he exists". The pushback against the request is that, implicitly, it seems to contain assumptions about what it means to identify "my" God (is God a thing? like a unicorn?), the absolute value or necessity of "convincing", or of some presupposed epistemology, a particular ontology of "existence", and other difficulties. Because we so often take some of that philosophical background for granted, even challenging it seems, I think, to many people, like intentional obfuscation. But it's really not. At least not if the goal is to try to understand the experience and views of some theists as they themselves understand it. It's the same problem as when theists assume that all atheists must be nihilists, or immoral, because they assume that meaning or moral value can only possibly be grounded in a Supreme Being. Usually, what I am interested in is dialogue, more so than debate. To understand and to hopefully be understood. There are preconceptions on both sides that make this challenging imo

Flying pig doesn't necessarily misrepresent the classical views of God? Wow ,loll.

 

[lovemuffin]

I didn't use the word classical, and I did say "not entirely". All I mean is that it is almost certainly the case that at some points humans have conceived of deities as being entirely physical realities with essentially super-human powers. They could have children with humans, for example. At least at the level in which certain myths are taken more literally. That is sort of the reduction to a category of "flying pig", leaving aside the obvious pejorative connotation.

 

[Desert Snake]

I didn't use the word classical, and I did say "not entirely". All I mean is that it is almost certainly the case that at some points humans have conceived of deities as being entirely physical realities with essentially super-human powers. They could have children with humans, for example. At least at the level in which certain myths are taken more literally. That is sort of the reduction to a category of "flying pig", leaving aside the obvious pejorative connotation.

I still don't think it equates. At all. But hey, were all entitled to an opinion.

 

[Jumi]

They could have children with humans, for example.

Isn't this what many Christians believe about Jesus?

 

[Desert Snake]

Isn't this what many Christians believe about Jesus?

I can answer that, from arguing about it on the forums. Yes, that's a common belief.
Fisherman carpenter Rabbi demi-god not Deity, no idea.

Also ,how can that be monotheism? ...Anyways.

 

[lovemuffin]

Isn't this what many Christians believe about Jesus?

In a sense, yes. Although there are meaningful differences between the understanding of the creed that Jesus was "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" and a probably more immediately anthropomorphic idea that Zeus might physically have sex with a human woman.

There is more that could be said using the Virgin birth as a context for discussing the entire question of this thread, or the ways in which religious symbols are interpreted, but I'm leaving for the airport

 

[Nakosis]

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?

If I don't believe in any gods that includes any concept of God they do happen to believe in.

 

[Ouroboros]

I have something similar to this in a different way. The God that the atheist rejects is the anthropomorphic form of God of traditional theism. To say one is an atheist, is to start and end with that imagining of God as the great being in the sky who looks down up his creation, who acts upon it with either grace and compassion or disciplines and judgments, the way a parent would with a child. In other words, the atheist rejects this mythic-literal interpretation of God, what really boils down to a mode of interpretation of reality. In a sense, God is still a symbol, even to them.

Yes. That's what I came to understand in my journey as an atheist. Atheism, to me at least, was the rejection of the anthropomorphic God. Simply because that's the one that is easy to dispel. Other concepts of God not so much. There were many times that I said that I was a strong atheist regarding the Judeo-Christian God (the traditional one), but more agnostic regarding all other God-images.

So atheism is only atheism to that definition of God, the only one many if not most seem to believe exists. Do all theists imagine God this way? No, of course not. Therefore, is atheism relevant to them? No, because they already don't believe in the same form of God the atheist doesn't. So then, is an atheist, really an atheist?

I've learned on this website that some people consider themselves theists but have a more panentheistic view. And some atheists consider pantheism of any form to be a theism. So I can't really say what "theism" really is. There's no true or pure theism, it seems.

 

[Orbit]

It's interesting to me how people don't want to give up their beliefs.
They claim to be non-believers, but the agnostic feelings are still there.
They seem to not get over their fear of the supposed god that might still be there.
The elders that taught them still have control of them to this day.
Do away with the fear and recognize the reality of what life really is.
We will die eventually, and then we will become memories to others.
That's a promise, get over the fear, there isn't any post death cognizence.
Life is stuff, enjoy what you can, your 'god' will wait, if you're right.
Fill your gnosis with all that's available, and try to take it with you.
~
'mud

This is a common misconception. I'm not sure if you were addressing my post specifically or just saying this in general, but my experience of spirituality has nothing to do with a "fear of no afterlife" that I can't get over. I do recognize life for what it "really" is, meaning I don't hide behind a mythic God to explain the universe. I think the ideas you have presented here are a common stereotype that materialist atheists have towards atheists who profess a spiritual life. It's dismissive of the entire experience, and assumes fears that aren't the basis for that life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have something similar to this in a different way. The God that the atheist rejects is the anthropomorphic form of God of traditional theism.

This atheist sees no merit in any of the many versions of god that he's ever heard proposed.

I also recognize that many of the "non-traditional" concepts of gods are really just modified versions of the "traditional" god you describe, only with the really glaring logical problems edited out.

Take deism: it's basically "ordinary" theism with everything stripped out of it that might be falsifiable. Yes, it's lost the cartoonish "bearded man on a cloud throwing blessings and punishments down from Heaven" image of God, but this process didn't help it pick up a rational foundation.

The difference I see is this: a lot of non-traditional god-concepts have traded "that doesn't seem correct" for "that has no rational basis" or "why on Earth would you call THAT a god?"

 

[Windwalker]

Yes. That's what I came to understand in my journey as an atheist. Atheism, to me at least, was the rejection of the anthropomorphic God. Simply because that's the one that is easy to dispel. Other concepts of God not so much. There were many times that I said that I was a strong atheist regarding the Judeo-Christian God (the traditional one), but more agnostic regarding all other God-images.


I've learned on this website that some people consider themselves theists but have a more panentheistic view. And some atheists consider pantheism of any form to be a theism. So I can't really say what "theism" really is. There's no true or pure theism, it seems.

What it really comes down to for me, is how do I wish to perceive and relate to Ultimate Reality? I can do so from a theistic perspective, typically a panentheistic view or approach, or a non-theistic, scientific view. Both are valid. It's simply which set of eyes is God looking at Himself with today? That's funny, if you think about it God is an atheist. Does God believe in God? Or Is God just simply God? How do I think about myself? How do I answer the question "who am I"? Don't I see myself in many ways? Don't I understand my own being in many forms? You see? Such arguments about the existence or non-existence of God fail to look at the one asking the question and from what vantage point. I can easily say I do not exist, but what I am referring to, what definition of myself? Is that a concrete reality? Is anything, at all times, one thing only?

 

[Ouroboros]

What it really comes down to for me, is how do I wish to perceive and relate to Ultimate Reality? I can do so from a theistic perspective, typically a panentheistic view or approach, or a non-theistic, scientific view. Both are valid. It's simply which set of eyes is God looking at Himself with today? That's funny, if you think about it God is an atheist. Does God believe in God? Or Is God just simply God? How do I think about myself? How do I answer the question "who am I"? Don't I see myself in many ways? Don't I understand my own being in many forms? You see? Such arguments about the existence or non-existence of God fail to look at the one asking the question and from what vantage point. I can easily say I do not exist, but what I am referring to, what definition of myself? Is that a concrete reality? Is anything, at all times, one thing only?

I agree.

Over the years, when I realized the differences, it was easy to become a pan(en)theist because I feel it's an affirmation of something about life rather a denial. I'm still an atheist, denying or rejecting certain god-images, and agnostic to many other, but I'm gnostic and affirming my pantheism. With it, I can now see the world from many aspects, and strangely enough, so many things make sense now that didn't before.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

As of my posts above, yes, we do talk past each other regarding God and any images and ideas of God or Gods. Even the labels that we use are thought of differently. We don't all define labels like theism, atheism, etc the same. On top of that, to add to the confusion, we don't always know exactly what we are ourselves! And it changes ever so slightly during our journey too. We're trying to put our finger on a moving bullet that goes in an infinite speed. It's there! No, it's there now! No it's not there either. It was there but not ever, never more, because it was there an infinite ago.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The other thread requested that theists should "identify your God and convince us that he exists". The pushback against the request is that, implicitly, it seems to contain assumptions about what it means to identify "my" God (is God a thing? like a unicorn?), the absolute value or necessity of "convincing", or of some presupposed epistemology, a particula ontology of "existence", and other difficulties.

You're describing it with a noun, so apparently whatever you mean by "God" is a thing, yes.

If you're using the term "God" in a meaningful way, then you ought to be able to explain what you mean when you use it.

 

[Jumi]

In a sense, yes. Although there are meaningful differences between the understanding of the creed that Jesus was "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" and a probably more immediately anthropomorphic idea that Zeus might physically have sex with a human woman.

Are you sure that the Hellenic pagan theologies didn't assume a metaphoric quality to stories of their gods? I guess whether you view them as the same or different depends on where your sympathies for the Greek gods or Jesus lie.

 

[Jumi]

As of my posts above, yes, we do talk past each other regarding God and any images and ideas of God or Gods. Even the labels that we use are thought of differently. We don't all define labels like theism, atheism, etc the same.

I agree on this. It's not an easy word and I personally prefer not to use it at all. There's hardly any clues what type of God people are talking about.

On top of that, to add to the confusion, we don't always know exactly what we are ourselves! And it changes ever so slightly during our journey too. We're trying to put our finger on a moving bullet that goes in an infinite speed. It's there! No, it's there now! No it's not there either. It was there but not ever, never more, because it was there an infinite ago.

I can sympathize with this somewhat holding both atheism and naturalistic pantheism as my basic viewpoints. They are not that much different to each other.