"My deity/deities exist and yours doesn't" mentality

[Bunyip]

Clearly, the existence of theists such as myself and Riverwolf (among a bunch of other theists) is proof to the contrary.

How so? Are any of you claiming to believe that all gods exist? I honestly did not see it if you did so.

Well, considering you said this:

I'm sorry, I don't see how that follows. It would be the right god to them. If I chose a god, surely I chose the right god for me?

It's not essential. At all. Thinking there are "right gods" and "wrong gods" is the mindset of exclusivists, not pluralists and not polytheists.

Exclusivism inherently condemns and is critical of other ways of thinking by claiming there is only one correct, true, or right position. It's how it defends itself and maintains its position - by denying the validity of all other perspectives. Exclusivism and pluralism are mutually exclusive mindsets. Exclusivism says "there's only one truth or right way" and pluralism says "there are many truths and right ways."

Oh ok. Well let me take this opportunity to clear that up then, I am not defending or attacking exclusivism.
Under the definitions you give above, please re consider my responses from the perspective of pluralism, not exclusivism. You will find I did not argue from an exclusivist position.

 

[Riverwolf]

Focusing on the later post, as I assume it's the more up-to-date one. I also appreciate the questioning; it's forcing me to really think.

Thanks, that helps. So are then it is not really about belief for pantheists, but preference? You are conceding non-existence for gods?

Polytheists, not necessarily pantheists. And no, I'm not conceding that; if I were, I'd say exactly that.

There is only one 'way' that is relevant to the question - does the entity in question exist in a real way, ie - does that god exist? Yeah, I do think I am understanding your idea. And yes, I can resonate with looking a deities as representative, rather than existent.

Not so much "rather than existent", so much as "existent in this manner". I still count it as existence, at least of a certain type; I regard anything as having some form of existence if it has influence on things other than itself whether directly or indirectly. Cthulhu, and other certainly fictitious Gods, pretty much exist only in this manner.

The reason I use Cthulhu as my example of a definitely fictitious God is because Lovecraft himself stressed this, and he was quite a staunch atheist. With the Old Gods, like Woden, Thunor, etc., I'm agnostic as to their status of scientific existence(or at least sentience), as it's not particularly important or even terribly interesting to me. I definitely concede that there's no independently verifiable evidence that these Gods exist. But for me, they may as well exist in ways other than simply representative. Unfortunately, I lack the vernacular at this time to adequately express it, though your questioning is helping me build that vernacular; thanks.

 

[Riverwolf]

Exclusivism and pluralism are mutually exclusive mindsets. Exclusivism says "there's only one truth or right way" and pluralism says "there are many truths and right ways."

Rather paradoxical, actually.

But the thing about paradoxes is that they're still true.

 

[Bunyip]

Focusing on the later post, as I assume it's the more up-to-date one. I also appreciate the questioning; it's forcing me to really think.



Polytheists, not necessarily pantheists. And no, I'm not conceding that; if I were, I'd say exactly that.



Not so much "rather than existent", so much as "existent in this manner". I still count it as existence, at least of a certain type; I regard anything as having some form of existence if it has influence on things other than itself whether directly or indirectly. Cthulhu, and other certainly fictitious Gods, pretty much exist only in this manner.

The reason I use Cthulhu as my example of a definitely fictitious God is because Lovecraft himself stressed this, and he was quite a staunch atheist. With the Old Gods, like Woden, Thunor, etc., I'm agnostic as to their status of scientific existence(or at least sentience), as it's not particularly important or even terribly interesting to me. I definitely concede that there's no independently verifiable evidence that these Gods exist. But for me, they may as well exist in ways other than simply representative. Unfortunately, I lack the vernacular at this time to adequately express it, though your questioning is helping me build that vernacular; thanks.

Thanks. I'll make it more clear - I take the topic to be referring to existing as in; Does this entity exist? Is it a real entity, as opposed to does it exist as a metaphor. Do you believe Cthulu exists somewhere in the universe? Is he real?

Huge Lovecraft fan by the way.

 

[Riverwolf]

Thanks. I'll make it more clear - I take the topic to be referring to existing as in; Does this entity exist? Is it a real entity, as opposed to does it exist as a metaphor. Do you believe Cthulu exists somewhere in the universe? Is he real?

Huge Lovecraft fan by the way.

^_^

Cthulhu himself, no, not in the sense that R'lyeh is a physical place in the Atlantic Ocean that you could dive to, wherein there's a giant door that, like the rest of the city, has non-Euclidian geometry, beneath which lies a mountain-sized monster with a humanlike body, bat wings, and a cephalopoid face who can survive any attack you can throw at it.

I define this form of existence as scientific existence. That is, existence that can be verifiable using the scientific method of inquiry and deduction, and can be reliable verified by the peer-review process. Whether this is the only type of existence that "really matters" is completely subjective.

For me, lacking this form of existence for a thing doesn't mean rejecting its existence altogether. Two examples I sometimes give in this matter are money and political borders. These don't have scientific existence at all, but trying to reject them completely probably wouldn't go over very well.

 

[Bunyip]

^_^

Cthulhu himself, no, not in the sense that R'lyeh is a physical place in the Atlantic Ocean that you could dive to, wherein there's a giant door that, like the rest of the city, has non-Euclidian geometry, beneath which lies a mountain-sized monster with a humanlike body, bat wings, and a cephalopoid face who can survive any attack you can throw at it.

I define this form of existence as scientific existence. That is, existence that can be verifiable using the scientific method of inquiry and deduction, and can be reliable verified by the peer-review process. Whether this is the only type of existence that "really matters" is completely subjective.

For me, lacking this form of existence for a thing doesn't mean rejecting its existence altogether. Two examples I sometimes give in this matter are money and political borders. These don't have scientific existence at all, but trying to reject them completely probably wouldn't go over very well.

Sure, but in the context here my interpreting 'exists' to mean 'is real' is now understood right? When I referred to existence I meant 'is a real, actual entity'. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
I define this form of existence simply as the colloquial common usage of the term. We were clearly simply thinking of different definitions of existing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sure, but in the context here my interpreting 'exists' to mean 'is real' is now understood right? When I referred to existence I meant 'is a real, actual entity'. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
I define this form of existence simply as the colloquial common usage of the term. We were clearly simply thinking of different definitions of existing.

Yeah.

Part of the problem is that the vernacular of this topic is... probably the most vague, ill-defined, and polysemic of any other. So I'm even hesitant to trust the standard colloquialisms, since I'm sure even those vary from region to region.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah.

Part of the problem is that the vernacular of this topic is... probably the most vague, ill-defined, and polysemic of any other. So I'm even hesitant to trust the standard colloquialisms, since I'm sure even those vary from region to region.

Cheers, thankyou. I would say that as you were defining ' exists' I would also accept that gods exist.

 

[Riverwolf]

Cheers, thankyou. I would say that as you were defining ' exists' I would also accept that gods exist.

While I certainly will not say that there physically exists in the Sky, or somewhere in the Earth, a man with one eye, pointed cap, and a long gray beard, whose thousands of years old, walking around looking for all knowledge and taking half the people slain in battle on his eight-legged horse to a grand golden longhall somewhere in the Up-ish direction, past a Rainbow Bridge.

I'm glad I could help clarify these views. I'm still trying to work it out, myself.

 

[Paranoid Android]

I know, people think Dementheology is crazy because I don't agree that sane thinking is so good. After all, "sane" thinking led to sterilization of people with disabilities in America in the 30's, led Adolf Hitler to gas disabled people, not including having disabled people living in subhuman conditions, has people aborting their children with Down's Syndrome, e.t.c . I believe that surely shows Norm's father is truly Satan.
I believe a concerted effort by people with disabilities can have the opposite effect.

 

[Bunyip]

While I certainly will not say that there physically exists in the Sky, or somewhere in the Earth, a man with one eye, pointed cap, and a long gray beard, whose thousands of years old, walking around looking for all knowledge and taking half the people slain in battle on his eight-legged horse to a grand golden longhall somewhere in the Up-ish direction, past a Rainbow Bridge.

I'm glad I could help clarify these views. I'm still trying to work it out, myself.

Sure, much appreciated. I think it is worth saying that as far as atheism is concerned, it is whether the deity in question exists as a being, an entity that is relevant as opposed to whether or not they exist conceptually, or metaphorically. I think that most if not all atheists would accept that the concept of gods exists, and that they do indeed exist symbolically/metaphorically/conceptually.

I don't think I have never come across anyone who denies that the concept of gods exist, or that they exist as metaphors and so on. I must admit to being rather surprised that you and the other member assumed I did.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sure, much appreciated. I think it is worth saying that as far as atheism is concerned, it is whether the deity in question exists as a being, an entity that is relevant as opposed to whether or not they exist conceptually, or metaphorically. I think that most if not all atheists would accept that the concept of gods exists, and that they do indeed exist symbolically/metaphorically/conceptually.

I don't think I have never come across anyone who denies that the concept of gods exist, or that they exist as metaphors and so on. I must admit to being rather surprised that you and the other member assumed I did.

Thing is, metaphoric/symbolic/conceptual are not sufficient for what I feel, insofar as they imply irrelevance, hence I don't identify as an atheist. (Well, that and I have a more precise, at least I think, definition of "God", but that's a whole 'nother topic).

I'm still not sure what term would most suffice. After some time with the game Persona 4, I thought of "psychotheist", but it turns out that's an old term for something else entirely (and a rather derogatory term, to boot).

Part of it is that our modern conceptions are derived from medieval European Aristotlean-Christian philosophy of binary states of existence; that is, something either exists or doesn't. This sort of thing just isn't sufficient based on what I've seen.

 

[Bunyip]

Thing is, metaphoric/symbolic/conceptual are not sufficient for what I feel, insofar as they imply irrelevance, hence I don't identify as an atheist. (Well, that and I have a more precise, at least I think, definition of "God", but that's a whole 'nother topic).

I'm still not sure what term would most suffice. After some time with the game Persona 4, I thought of "psychotheist", but it turns out that's an old term for something else entirely (and a rather derogatory term, to boot).

Part of it is that our modern conceptions are derived from medieval European Aristotlean-Christian philosophy of binary states of existence; that is, something either exists or doesn't.

Yeah, thanks for expanding. What do you mean by saying that god being conceptual is not sufficient?
I am just using 'conceptual' to refer to Gods that you do not believe to be real entities. And 'exists' to refer to entities that really exist.

As far as I can see, that is a pretty clear distinction. What you seem to be inferring is that there is some other category between concept and real, I don't understand what you mean by that.

Do you believe A: Cthulhu (given that was the example we discussed before) is real? As in does that entity exist in this universe?
Or B: Do you believe Cthulhu does not exist as a real entity?

If your answer is B, then you are atheist in relation to Cthulhu.

(Just for the sake of clarity, I am inferring no irreverence whatsoever by identifying some ideas as conceptual. Nor do I understand I'm afraid how seeing something as conceptual could be interpreted as irreverence.)

 

[Bunyip]

Riverwolf

Just for the sake of clarity, what I am saying is simply that 'exists' in the context of atheism/theism is all about delineating from entities that exist (are real) and entities that do not exist.

So we have real entities that exist in this universe. And entities that do not exist in this universe, but are conceptual or abstract in nature.

Atheism is about whether or not a person believes a given God claim exists in reality, not really whether it exists conceptually, metaphorically etc. I understand that you find the terms 'metaphoric/conceptual' weighted - so let me just place the division between existent entities and ones that do not exist. So the two categories are 1. Entities that are real. And 2. Entities that are not real. Somebody who thinks Cthulhu is not real is atheist in relation to Cthulhu. I hope that serves to clarify. Existence/non-existence is a binary state. There is no middle ground.

 

[Quintessence]

Should we start explaining the otherworlds or something, Riverwolf? Or would that just make things infinitely more confusing to someone who insists that exist/not-exist is a binary?

(watching this conversation reminds me of why I typically simply say "it's all real" and leave outsiders to their confusion... heh)

 

[Bunyip]

Should we start explaining the otherworlds or something, Riverwolf? Or would that just make things infinitely more confusing to someone who insists that exist/not-exist is a binary?

(watching this conversation reminds me of why I typically simply say "it's all real" and leave outsiders to their confusion... heh)

Of course exists/does not exist is binary. Adding 'not' infers the opposite.

So in English we have (for example) : Exists, does not exist. Is real, is not real. Alive, dead. Pregnant, not pregnant. All are binary. As to taking the position that 'it's all real', that can not work in practice. You would be unable to function with that mindset. No wonder it confuses people when you tell them.

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks for your concern, but it works just fine for me in practice, and I'm quite able to function with such a mindset. That other people can't is a reflection of the limitations of their worldview, not of mine.

 

[Blastcat]

Thanks for your concern, but it works just fine for me in practice, and I'm quite able to function with such a mindset. That other people can't is a reflection of the limitations of their worldview, not of mine.

So, you never have to worry that you might be wrong. It's everyone else. BUT if your project is to communicate, it's not really useful to say that when you don't get understanding for your position that it is the fault of the listener in all cases. Communication should be a two way street.

Now, you may be able to function with such a mindset.. That's right..you might. BUT this forum is about trying to communicate our mindset to others.. in a meaningful way. I see you struggling with that.

That others can't understand our position very well is more a reflection on our limitations we may have in communicating it.

Or.. My worldview, as you say, is so limited that I can't understand a better worldview.
However, the problem I have with that is the people who are renowned for having a great mindset are also able to communicate it very clearly and effectively, so that, even though we may not AGREE , we at least are all able to UNDERSTAND.

When I can't understand someone, and no amount of attempted clarification seems to help that.. I lose interest.
You may be perfectly happy. That's wonderful. I am happy for you. But that's not the issue.
I'm not convinced that you have explained yourself very well.

And that would be my fault.. of course, in your way of thinking.
That would make a bit more sense if we could assume that you speak perfectly well.. and perfectly clearly.
I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption. The evidence I have here... is that I have trouble understanding you.

 

[Quintessence]

@Blastcat , when someone wants to understand another, the wise place to start is by asking open-ended, non-judgemental questions. A poor place to start is presuming to tell that person what they think or should think, or to use negative language that invalidates their perspectives and experiences. Sorry, but when someone presumes to tell me what I think, or what works for me, or reads things into my posts that aren't there, especially when it's negatively-slanted, I tend to not be very motivated to have a conversation. Ask me some non-judgmental, open-ended questions, I may respond more meaningfully.

 

[Blastcat]

@Blastcat , when someone wants to understand another, the wise place to start is by asking open-ended, non-judgemental questions. A poor place to start is presuming to tell that person what they think or should think, or to use negative language that invalidates their perspectives and experiences. Sorry, but when someone presumes to tell me what I think, or what works for me, or reads things into my posts that aren't there, especially when it's negatively-slanted, I tend to not be very motivated to have a conversation. Ask me some non-judgmental, open-ended questions, I may respond more meaningfully.

That other people can't is a reflection of the limitations of their worldview, not of mine.

I didn't presume to tell you what you think. I was commenting on the above. These words are yours. If we don't understand you, it's not your fault, but ours, apparently.