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

[vijeno]

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.

Ahm... well, of course you don't get to speak for all atheists. Not even I, being an atheist myself, get to do that.

That said, I agree with you to a certain degree.

Speaking from my own perspective, well, an anthropomorphic god is way more rejection-worthy than an abstract absolute simply because the notion contains a lot more assertions (and, more often than not, assumptions). The most basic being that there is an absolute person. Who acts, has a will, has attributes. Etc.

But, of course, also because that is what moves people, makes them do stuff, often destructive or at least irrational stuff. And also because the vast majority of discussions we have are with people who believe in just such a god. After all, atheists are emotional beings too.

An abstract absolute with no personal attributes is not very cringeworthy because it's not very impressive. I mean, the concept doesn't really change anything, it has no bearing on our behaviour, our attitudes etc. It's pretty much irrelevant. Insofar, I see no need to reject it with any fervor.

Do I reject an abstract absolute on a purely intellectual level? I don't really know. If you consider Münchhausen's trilema, which I think is a fairly good start (though I'm never sure whether it is actually a trilemma and not just a dilemma), then the chances for an absolute beginning are equal to the chances of an infinite regress. Somehow, positing a beginning seems a little more intellectually unsatisfying than infinite regress, but that's probably just my own predilection and my taste for infinity paradoxes speaking. As I said, a non-anthropomorphic god doesn't make any difference, so it doesn't matter.

 

[aremisasling]

"weak or strong, implicit or explicit... it's all atheism. "

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.

You're trying to have, essentially, an academic discussion with colloquial terms. This is not a confusion of terminology, it's a misuse of it. Academic study of religion developed that language specifically to resolve the lack of clarity you describe. Rejecting that terminology is not a matter of disagreement in terms, but of deliberately choosing an unclear definition for the purpose of sustaining a topic of debate that has already been well and soundly put to rest. A variety of atheist that believes in a metaphysical concept is not an atheist. The other terms exist as a matter of clarifying that point and better defining and categorizing those groups, not as a matter of expressing opinion. It's not a matter of "this is a fact". It's a matter of "this debate has already been had and a reasonable solution proposed, so why intentionally obfuscate it?"

 

[Jumi]

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.

It is not my lack of imagination that is faulty. I have many types of Gods I can imagine, but I still do not believe them.

 

[aremisasling]

"the most simple definition of atheism is "without god."

And that's just etymology. Do you know that sinister also means left-handed? Does that mean the meaning "left-handed" is more correct? More simple? No, it means language has developed since the original meaning of the word was set down. You can break atheism down to its Greek constituents, but that doesn't make it the 'simple definition'.

 

[genypher]

So, atheism = materialism? Because that seems to be what you are saying. If this is true across the board, and the accepted definition of atheism in academia, I was unaware. No obfuscation intended. I have taken multiple religious studies courses and have never come across so stark a definition, but it has been over a decade since I was in a formal educational environment.

 

[Ouroboros]

"the most simple definition of atheism is "without god."

And that's just etymology. Do you know that sinister also means left-handed? Does that mean the meaning "left-handed" is more correct? More simple? No, it means language has developed since the original meaning of the word was set down. You can break atheism down to its Greek constituents, but that doesn't make it the 'simple definition'.

That's a very good point. Also the word "God" has changed.

 

[genypher]

Etymology has its place. Knowing sinister means "pertaining to the left side" and knowing the symbolism that entails and how the definition has changed and why is important, too. I don't believe I referred to the simplistic etymological definition as "better," though. That is you placing a judgment on my comments. I never said I was right an you were wrong. I was simply trying to clarify my point. I don't see anything you are saying as incorrect. Just very black and white. Such firm definitions have not held up in my everyday experiences with atheistic individuals.I am not speaking academically (and never claimed to) but rather experientially.

 

[`mud]

Beliefs in gods is like a grande parade,
when it's over, it's over !
What's left over, is the stuff of life,
whether one beleives or not.
~
'mud

 

[SKC007]

Surely if all you Christian theists follow the Bible then the God you talk of HAS 'human like ' characteristics. created everything, made man in His image, is watching over us, spoke to some of us, is there to Pray to etc..... or do you now reject what is written in your Holy Book?

 

[Underhill]

I look at God, or the concept of God, much like Noah's flood.

I think it is clear that there was no actual flood that covered the planet. But I wouldn't be surprised that someone who lived on a large plain that was flooded for as far as the eye could see might think it was. This was in a time when some believed the world was flat and on the back of a giant turtle after all.

God can mean a great many things to people. He can be a simple, old testament deity, or a more modern interpretation. To me it doesn't matter. They are all predicated on the the fact that we just haven't learned enough to explain things. We know there is no turtle. We know there was no flood. We know the world wasn't created in 6 days. As our knowledge of the universe expands, our current gods will change or die.

Because of this. we will never 'disprove' god. But that doesn't matter to me. History shows that these gods too shall pass.

I do hate the term atheist though. I hate most absolute terms. I think most atheist believe a god like being could exist. Extraordinarily unlikely, but possible in much the same way bigfoots, who love anal probing, are dressing up as aliens and abducting people in a saucer shaped airplane they hide in the arctic... is possible.

 

[SKC007]

If all you Christian Theists follow the Bible then your God does indeed have 'human like' characteristics. He is 'The Father,' man is created in His image, He created everything, He threw out Adam and Eve, He has talked to some of us, he is there to Pray to etc etc or do you now reject what is said in your Holy Book?

 

[Windwalker]

An abstract absolute with no personal attributes is not very cringeworthy because it's not very impressive. I mean, the concept doesn't really change anything, it has no bearing on our behaviour, our attitudes etc. It's pretty much irrelevant. Insofar, I see no need to reject it with any fervor.

I would say that to hold the view there is the Absolute in and of itself is impressive, and has a great deal of bearing on our behaviors and attitudes. By saying the Absolute, I mean that which is not the relative. It leads one to realize the relative nature of our truths and perceptions. That has a radical effect on how one lives their lives. If you move away from the mythic schools of thought which hold God to be a big person in the sky, or some form of external entity, then the Absolute is part of our own being, and knowing that, will radically change our behaviors and attitudes. To apply singular attributes to the Absolute, makes it just another object in the relative domain, and likewise makes it cringe worthy for that very reason. It makes "God" on the order of a Yeti alluding detection in the Himalayas.

Somehow, positing a beginning seems a little more intellectually unsatisfying than infinite regress, but that's probably just my own predilection and my taste for infinity paradoxes speaking. As I said, a non-anthropomorphic god doesn't make any difference, so it doesn't matter.

I rather like the view of infinite regress myself. But again, let's begin by saying anything which is Infinite, or Absolute must of necessity not exclude anything, or anyone. There can be no Infinite that exists outside of me separately. I have to be the Infinite myself, and the Infinite exists Infinitely. You cannot reach the end of Infinite, because it makes Infinite not Infinite if an end can be reached. So where "infinite regression" comes is, is when the finite approaches Infinity, it can never reach it as finite. Infinity will "infinitely regress" from itself touching the finite.

Think of it like traveling close to the speed of light. You can never reach the speed of light not being light itself. If you hit the speed of light, you are light. So with the Infinite, to touch infinity, you do as as Infinity itself. And since we are Infinity inasmuch as we cannot be excluded from Infinity and Infinity actually be Infinite, that it is in fact only a realization of ourselves as Infinity, and not simply finite within the Infinite.

OK, so, then, is this way of thinking of the Absolute unimpressive and irrelevant to being human? There are many ways to understand this that is slightly beyond defining God as a Sky Parent, or a Rainbow Unicorn. I'm curious where atheism per se actually fits something like this? To me, this is an atheistic view of the Absolute. God is simply the face we put on the absolute to represent it symbolically. God, cannot represent the Absolute or the Infinite, if we are excluded from it Absolutely. The separation can only be held as a relative perception.

 

[Desert Snake]

If all you Christian Theists follow the Bible then your God does indeed have 'human like' characteristics. He is 'The Father,' man is created in His image, He created everything, He threw out Adam and Eve, He has talked to some of us, he is there to Pray to etc etc or do you now reject what is said in your Holy Book?

Many Christians seem to, yes.
Sounds like a topic for the Christianity DIR.

 

[genypher]

The question posed in the OP : "Why don't you believe in god?" is a rather interesting one. I think it assumes that an atheist would answer along the lines of "Because God does bad things" and it presupposes a fundamentalist view of the Abrahamic gods is the thing that atheists are rejecting. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I don't believe in gods because I have never had a cause to believe in them in the first place. I have never had a hole in my life that needed to be filled with the supernatural. I have entertained the notion, but it never has held up to scrutiny. The universe just is. I don't need a preternatural being that just is to have created the universe. It has never been something I believed in.

 

[corynski]

It is not my lack of imagination that is faulty. I have many types of Gods I can imagine, but I still do not believe them.

I was referring to the semantics of the argument. The words 'is' and 'being' refer to 'essence' in my mind, but no where do I find any mention anywhere of what a god's 'Being' is, would be, or could be. My essence is bones, skin, fluids, molecules, etc, but what could the essence of a 'god' be? It's said we 'are made in God's image', but what is any basis for that? It seems we are different from any aspect of a supposed deity.

I can imagine the various parts of a unicorn but not completely, and not enough to ascertain 'being'.

George Smith, in his 'Atheism: The Case Against God' describes this in detail in chap 2..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Speaking only for this atheist, I do not believe in any sort of a god, anthropomorphic or otherwise. Certainly, the Christian god is a non-starter for a whole lot of reasons, but I hold that any deity that was active in the world would leave some kind of trace, some evidence of its actions -- which would make it discoverable by science and put Gould's NOMA to rest permanently.

But I also don't need a "first cause" sort of god, either since that simply drives the answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" just another step back, without providing any clue as to what sort of thing it might be. To answer an unknown by reference to another unknown is no answer at all, and thus utterly unsatisfying and quite useless.

Is it possible that there is something that we might call "spirit" that can exist in an entirely incorporeal state? No idea, but given what I know now (not as much as I'd like) I do not think so. I am utterly and completely convinced that such "spirit" as I might have must be of an organized sort (information, at least), and you can't organize nothing at all.

 

[ChristineES]

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 believe in one God, as a monotheist. Since atheists don't believe in ANY God, I would assume that would include the God I believe in.

 

[Jumi]

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.

Yes the argument in the OP has been used to dismiss atheists' viewpoints as somehow lacking in knowledge.

The question posed in the OP : "Why don't you believe in god?" is a rather interesting one.

I didn't intend it to sound like that was the question. I was rather thinking about definitions of the certain types of Gods being something you and I as non-theists would disbelieve along with the theist section.

I think it assumes that an atheist would answer along the lines of "Because God does bad things" and it presupposes a fundamentalist view of the Abrahamic gods is the thing that atheists are rejecting. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I don't believe in gods because I have never had a cause to believe in them in the first place. I have never had a hole in my life that needed to be filled with the supernatural. I have entertained the notion, but it never has held up to scrutiny. The universe just is. I don't need a preternatural being that just is to have created the universe. It has never been something I believed in.

This is my view as well. I've tried keeping myself and my views a bit on the sidelines to see what develops. I just thought what was proposed by @kepha31 was interesting enough to pursue as a thread of it's own.

I can imagine the various parts of a unicorn but not completely, and not enough to ascertain 'being'.

I was talking in this exact sense.

But I also don't need a "first cause" sort of god, either since that simply drives the answer to the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" just another step back, without providing any clue as to what sort of thing it might be. To answer an unknown by reference to another unknown is no answer at all, and thus utterly unsatisfying and quite useless.

The first cause arguments to me always seemed to be the same thing as unnecessarily adding unknowns to a hard equation when you want to solve for X. You forget what you wanted to solve and because the equation was too difficult, you beginto study the new unknown because it seems so much easier to understand.

 

[nazz]

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?

You've hit the nail on the head with this. I often find that the god atheists talk about is nothing like the god I believe in.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You've hit the nail on the head with this. I often find that the god atheists talk about is nothing like the god I believe in.

Interesting, because my experience is that theists generally use this as a shield. Whatever the atheist might say, they can respond with "that's not the god I believe in." However, since they will never go on to describe in any detail what the nature of the god they believe in really is, they can always and perpetually fall back on this. It's the debate equivalent of the safety play.