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

[Windwalker]

I thought I should deal with this separately:

There is the school of thought - ignosticism - that the concept (or set of concepts) referred to by the term "god" is not coherent enough to be evaluated for truth or falsehood.

Actually this I can understand, and it was what I was trying to get at. In reality, I agree with it. I very specifically say one should not hold to an idea of God as God and then believe in it. I am saying the same thing, from a slightly different approach. You recall I said I "believe" in God provisionally? It's really at its heart a symbolic tool, an archetype, not a "believe in" sort of thing. That's what seems very vague to people, and I can understand that. But it's not a confusion, it's really just a matter of engaging in the value of the symbol. And in that sense it's "true" because of what it opens within you. What you experience is true, not the object of belief. The object of belief is provisional, like the raft used to cross the river you leave at the shore as you walk inland. And that's a hard concept for people to understand. It's thinking from a very different perspective. Others that do this will clearly understand what this is however.

So I agree with what ignosticsm is saying about you can't or shouldn't put your beliefs in something so vague. What I do, and others like me, is basically open our sails to the wind and let it propel our rafts over the river on the journey into ourselves. Wind is vague too, but it can in fact be harnessed!

I consider ignosticism to be a form of atheism, since a concept can't be rationally accepted as true until it can be evaluated.

Well, I've always had a problem with atheism as a term in that it is saying "I don't believe". That's fine though, I know some use it more as a "weak atheist", which is really more like agnosticism, or by extension Ignosticism. But my point has been that when atheist speaks of God, it is in fact offering a definition that is mythic-literal. That is not what Ignosism does, as far as I am aware.

In these cases, rejection isn't so much "you're wrong" as it is "you're so incoherent you can't possibly be right".

Be careful. What some people call incoherent is often times something they simply lack context in order to understand. Cries of "You're incomprehensible!" is taken by those who understand the context is just that person expressing frustration that they can't understand something and need to blame someone else. Sometimes stuff is just garbled gook, but not everything is. If NO ONE understands someone, that's another matter. Plenty of people do get what I am saying clearly and is quite coherent to them. So I think a better assumption would be to ask others if the person speaking doesn't make sense to them. Other may have another way of explaining it better to that person in a way that might help bridge the understanding better for them.

 

[Orbit]

I understand what WW is saying, and offer this by way of clarification:
In this crowd "god" is a symbol to be used and transcended, to be left behind. That's what Eckhart's "God beyond God" is about. Does that help?

 

[Looncall]

Of course this is metaphorical expressions. Anything the mystic points to uses metaphors. Again, we are not talking about objects laying around out there. But if you think about it, what is a human? Am I not stardust?

As an exercise, after you hopefully lay out what you think it is mystics are claiming (I genuinely think this will help progress our civil discussion between us, which I appreciate), we may wish to examine this point you said that "I am a human". Is that somehow separate from the universe that lives within me? Is "human" separate from the strings and quarks and atoms and molecules and cells that live within me doing their things and are as much me as my thoughts about myself? Where do you do place the locus of your self-identity? This is something most people general just assume without introspection. "This is me!," the child smiles as he points to his body. "This is me!" the teen smiles as he looks at his room, his bike, his friends, and his hobbies. "This is me!," the adult beams as he points to his job and his care and his wife and his family and he thoughts and ideas and personality. Is it? Is that who we truly are? And if so, why does this change over our lifetimes?

So what is "a human"? Isn't it also a form of the universe? Am I separate from the universe? Most people assume we are. And that is what the mystical experience does. It shifts your perception away from these separate, constructed distinctions which we exclusively identify ourselves with, separating us from the world and our own true Self. Everything I am saying here in actual realization that people have, not just concepts or ideas. The center of your identity becomes Infinite in being, not just your body, your friends, or ideas you have about what makes you different from others.

BTW, I loved the story about the mist!

I will think about this and your later posts. (I still don't like to see the word "infinite".)

One thing, though, since our material components are temporary (they are replaced), I like to think of our identities as consisting of our histories. I have told the tale of Grandpa's axe here several times, but it gets at this: "This is Grandpa's axe: it has a new handle and we replaced the axehead a few years ago, but it is still Grandpa's axe."

I find that the arrangement of our components and our histories tend to be overlooked in this kind of discussion. These are immaterial, but that's no big deal.

 

[Ouroboros]

it's really just a matter of engaging in the value of the symbol.

Yum. Well said. Perfect summation.

 

[Ouroboros]

I understand what WW is saying, and offer this by way of clarification:
In this crowd "god" is a symbol to be used and transcended, to be left behind. That's what Eckhart's "God beyond God" is about. Does that help?

And I understand what WW and you are saying. Does it say anything about it being comprehensible or not?

Everything has to do with understanding a context or language that's being used. All language, all words, are just symbols for something else, and just like they're calling quarks strange, left, right, etc, even though the words have nothing to do with them being strange or left or right, but those are words that in a context can be understood. Symbols. That's all what it is.

 

[`mud]

In the "light beyond the light" sort of vain,
WW has a list of what he is the most found of.
It's called the "Order of The Universe"
or...Universal Reality...
Quote:"Cries of 'You're incomprehensible!' ";
have never passed from my lips, or my mind !
I understand that one can mis-understand meanings,
and errored speaking of known facts,
or having strange thoughts,
or outright lieing.
But to be called "incomprehensible",
would mean that one is mute,
and I'm not mute, I'm just stupid !
and WW has some close friends.
The Order of The Universe: one to infinity: one step at a time.
~
'mud

 

[corynski]

Greetings,

I'm an old atheist who doesn't believe in a 'God' who would create a world where every creature must eat another living creature to survive. Duh!

 

[genypher]

(I am late to the party, so sorry if I am redundant)

Atheism comes in many variant forms. I atheistic in my beliefs, in so much as I do not believe in any sort of deity, Supreme Being, prime mover, or transcendent essence.

To say atheism is a rejection of traditional theism is an over-simplification. It is better to say atheism is defined as not believing in gods/deities. That would be regardless of whether they are anthropomorphic, or life-spirit-energies or whatever else you might want to call it. I reject the notion of a White, Old Man God, just like a great many believers do-- but I also hold no belief whatsoever for a more transcendental or imminent essence of love or creativity or whatever.

If we want to approach this from the specious argument that atheists reject one kind of god concept, and since the god concept they speak out against the most is that of fundamentalist religious thought (a concept rejected by many theists as well), then maybe the commentary that "we're just talking past each other" is valid-- but I think that there is a real desire for believers to see atheists as believers too. And this desire leads to a rejection of belief in atheism as a part of a larger worldview or philosophy.

 

[corynski]

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?

An atheist is 'without belief' most likely because he cannot possibly have an image or idea of what a 'God' is, or would be. What is the 'being' of a deity? If you could possibly define or describe what you refer to as a 'god', I could tell you if I've ever encountered such a 'being'. I cannot believe in what I cannot imagine or perceive.

 

[Blastcat]

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?

As an atheist, I can assure everybody here that I own NO belief in any god whatsoever. I don't have a god .. that I don't believe in.. I don't hold up a god and then say that that god isn't real. NO... What you are asking me is an malformed question.

I don't disbelieve the same god.. to me, god is a concept without a referent in reality. So, if some believer in a god wants to discuss the god in question it is entirely ( 100%) UP to that person to describe the god and it's supposed characteristics. I do NOT EVER bring any form of bias towards a god concept.

I don't HAVE a god concept that I choose not to believe in.. I know enough about what others mean by the word to be able to discuss THEIR beliefs..

I have ZERO belief in any god.. ANY GOD... none.. IF I were to believe in some god I would not BE an atheist.. what a question.

As an atheist, I don't DENY the existence of a god that is real. That's the apologist's weird idea.. the fool thing in the Bible .. whatever, that's THEIR weird idea.

As an atheist, I simply do not buy the claims the believers make. That's it. I don't have a god hypothesis of my very own that I DENY....

if god turns out to be a little green man, ok.. as long as you have evidence .. I'll believe in a little green man. I don't care.

 

[aremisasling]

An atheist is 'without belief' most likely because he cannot possibly have an image or idea of what a 'God' is, or would be. What is the 'being' of a deity? If you could possibly define or describe what you refer to as a 'god', I could tell you if I've ever encountered such a 'being'. I cannot believe in what I cannot imagine or perceive.

Atheists aren't atheists because they can't imagine a god. They actively don't believe in them, your nebulous, unknowable being included.

 

[aremisasling]

An atheist is not an atheist because they are not Christian or not Bhuddist or not Asatruar any more than a dog is not a cat because it's not a cheetah or not a lion or not a house cat. It is defined by its dog-ness not by it's lack of cat-ness.

Atheism is an active disbelief in metaphysical ideas, nebulous and concrete. Other varieties of non-theistic metaphysical ideas are included in that category by default, not by individual rejection. It's their default position.

Say you encounter an atheist and present them with a brand new faith with no conception of deity, but with some mystical concept of pervasive this and that in the universe. The atheist already doesn't believe in that before the discussion even begins or in fact before that conception of belief even comes to be. They don't have to actively reject it to know that.

 

[genypher]

An atheist *can* be "religious" (for lack of a better word), though-- so long as the religion is more pragmatic than dogmatic. For instance, my worldview is humanistic, monist, and I practice Buddhism (poorly). My beliefs are implicitly atheistic, in that I do not actively believe in any god concepts. I am not explicitly atheistic since I am rather dispassionate in my rejection of god concepts. I liken it to belief in magic. Some people believe very passionately. Other disbelieve very passionately. Some don't believe and really don't pay it much more thought than that and just go on about their life paying the possibilities for and against the existence of such things very little mind.

Categorizing the atheist experience is a bit like herding cats. Not all kneel at the altar of Dawkins.

 

[aremisasling]

An atheist *can* be "religious" (for lack of a better word), though-- so long as the religion is more pragmatic than dogmatic. For instance, my worldview is humanistic, monist, and I practice Buddhism (poorly). My beliefs are implicitly atheistic, in that I do not actively believe in any god concepts. I am not explicitly atheistic since I am rather dispassionate in my rejection of god concepts. I liken it to belief in magic. Some people believe very passionately. Other disbelieve very passionately. Some don't believe and really don't pay it much more thought than that and just go on about their life paying the possibilities for and against the existence of such things very little mind.

Categorizing the atheist experience is a bit like herding cats. Not all kneel at the altar of Dawkins.

"My beliefs are implicitly atheistic, in that I do not actively believe in any god concepts"

That's non-theism; the lack of belief, specifically, in a deity or deities. It's a wholly different category from atheism. Atheism, by necessity, is also non-theist. But there are a variety of faiths that are non-theistic. Buddhism being a great example (although many Buddhists do believe in a deity or deities, it's not an important question to the Buddhist faith). They are also not atheist.

 

[aremisasling]

"Categorizing the atheist experience is a bit like herding cats. Not all kneel at the altar of Dawkins."

You need not fall into Dawkins' cult of personality in order to be an Atheist. And I don't say that as a slur. I rather like Dawkins despite me being a Pagan.

 

[aremisasling]

If this sort of thing interests you, I'd recommend auditing a 100-level course in religious studies or at least finding the textbook recommendations for one and purchasing it. This is fundamental terminology in the study of religions and really irons out a lot of the confusing terms used colloquially. Again, I don't mean that in the trollish sense. It's an interesting topic.

 

[elallred]

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 think there is a fundamental flaw in how we in the western world (at least) have approached both philosophy and theology. That FLAW, which I will identify as the SAME BRAIN FLAW, assumes that humans in general think the same way. Once one of us plots out a path to some conclusion, everyone else can just jump right in and duplicate the process in his/her own brain. My assumption is that all 7.2 billion of us on the planet have somewhat to greatly different ideas on the notion of a god, whether we accept that notion or not. BUT the truth is always this: We do not accept or reject THE idea of god, we accept or reject OUR idea of god. And it may be that few or no one has the same idea as you (or me).

I would like to use what has happened in the last 100 years in the field of cosmology. Scholars 100 years ago thought they had a pretty good idea of what the universe was and how it operated. But what a difference the last 100 years have made. AND most scholars agree that we think we know a lot less about cosmology than previous thinkers thought they knew. AND if there is a god, there is a good likelihood that the thinking about him/her/it is still very narrow, incomplete and flawed. My thinking is that we as a species are still a long way from coming up with accurate or useful ideas about god. BUT we know more than those before us because we know much more about the universe than before. But that is still very little.

To reject all ideas about god is nonsense. To reject one's own idea about god could be valid. No one human can or will every know all the ideas about god present in the brains of other humans. And to reject all of the ideas is simply arrogance, effectively declaring that your brain is far superior to all other brains in this area. The most one ought to say about not knowing about god is "I so far have not found any idea about god that seems credible to me." THAT is a credible and could be an honest statement.

I can say with complete confidence that my brain has found a pathway which allows me complete confidence in my idea of god. BUT I have no idea of what I can say or do to share that path or my idea. AND I will willingly admit that my idea is incomplete and limited and perhaps flawed in many ways, but I believe it is better for me than any other idea of god I have been exposed to ... AND I spent 11 years in a Roman Catholic Seminary (not ordained).

SO I would suggest this: back off on the declaration of superiority of your idea about god. Back off on the declaration that you understand someone else's idea of god--my experience, so far, is that we do not really understand each other's notion on this topic.

NOW that we know there are black holes, atomic particles, expanding universe, dark matter and energy, etc. we still have miles to go in understanding them. AND, if there is a god, he/she/it is very likely more complex and mysterious than these topics.

 

[rodc13]

As an atheist, I hold no beilief in the supernatural. As has been mentioned, this is the default position regarding any proposed supernatural entity. The burden of proof rests with those who assert the existence of such, regardless of its construct.

 

[aremisasling]

"We do not accept or reject THE idea of god, we accept or reject OUR idea of god."

No. Regardless of how an atheist comes to develop, refine, or alter their idea of what a god is or is not, they will continue to not believe in it. What's more, they already don't believe in a deity they have yet to conceive. It's definitional to atheism.

"To reject all ideas about god is nonsense."

According to you. To an atheist, accepting any idea of god is nonsense.

"And to reject all of the ideas is simply arrogance, effectively declaring that your brain is far superior to all other brains in this area."

Not at all. It is not arrogant to decide that you personally do not believe in any metaphysical ideas. You need not call everyone else a fool to hold that position. If another person is offended by it, that's is a matter of their insecurities, not the supposed arrogance of atheists. That's not to say there aren't atheists who do call those ideas foolish and the ones who hold them fools. But atheism does not intrinsically require you to believe all metaphysical ideas are foolish, just that you don't believe in them.

 

[genypher]

That's non-theism; the lack of belief, specifically, in a deity or deities. It's a wholly different category from atheism. Atheism, by necessity, is also non-theist. But there are a variety of faiths that are non-theistic. Buddhism being a great example (although many Buddhists do believe in a deity or deities, it's not an important question to the Buddhist faith). They are also not atheist.

the most simple definition of atheism is "without god." There are more exclusive definitions (such as the one you are using, aremisasling) but in the most inclusive sense of the word, lacking a belief in deities is atheism. weak or strong, implicit or explicit... it's all atheism. I am atheistic in my beliefs, and practice a nontheistic, orthopraxic religion. Atheism and nontheism are not mutually exclusive in the least. I agree, though, that it is more accurate to say Buddhism, Jainism, and other such orthopraxic belief systems are nontheistic rather than saying they are atheistic.

My point (I feel like we are perhaps talking around each other, or maybe I am being unclear) is that there is a wide variety in thought when it comes to people who self-identify as atheist. Other than extrapolating that a person does not believe in gods/goddesses/deities/supernatural beings/etc., telling a person I am an atheist doesn't really give them much insight into what I *do* believe. An atheist can espouse one of myriad philosophical views. That's what I meant about categorizing an atheist is like herding cats. We're not all materialists, necessarily.