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

[Quintessence]

I'm just going to repeat this: if I am asked non-judmental, open-ended questions, I may respond more meaningfully. You might want to start with asking for clarification regarding what I actually meant by that earlier post, as opposed to what you think that I meant.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.)

I do mean to infer that there are other categories between what you're defining as "concept" and "real", insofar as there are different forms that "reality" can take, and that it can overlap with concept in many cases.

The way I've thought about it is that there are broadly two types of reality: subjective and objective. Objective reality is like a rock. It exists as an object regardless of whether a subject is regarding it. Subjective reality, on the other hand, is the reality that subjects experience. All human beings can only perceive subjective reality; that is, the realities that we perceive can only ever be subjective to our own biases, experiences, etc. However, certain subjective realities may be closer to the objective reality than others. A person who hears disembodied voices, for example, is experiencing a reality that is exclusive (most likely) to them; it's still a reality, but not one that others experience.

These two broad terms, however, have their own, still being conceived of, subcategories. For instance, another type of subjective reality involves agreement among people about a certain thing's qualities, such as monetary value or political boundaries. These have no objective existence, and yet they still exist.

After regarding the various ways in which the Modern English word "God" is applied, whether meant figuratively ("Stan Lee is my God") or as a legitimate title ("Woden is a God"), I've come to narrow down the status of Godhood into: anything which has been deified. That makes it a subjective quality dependent on a human mind. In other words, Sun is a God because She's one of the most universally worshiped figures in human culture, but was not a God before She started being worshiped. Because that's the way in which I regard Gods, I'm not an atheist. Atheism, under this definition, would be the lack of any deification.

This, of course, doesn't really help in determining the objective existence of those Gods that are what people these days might call "spirits", but which I prefer to call "wights" (because I regard "spirit" as a reference to a person's attitude), such as Woden, Indra, El, etc. Regarding these Gods, I'm an agnostic polytheist in that I softly believe they're there but fully acknowledge that I don't know, and thus don't argue this belief as any sort of truth. Or rather, I speak, think, and act as if they were there, so whether they actually are or not doesn't really effect my life. That's just how I am naturally; it's not going away and I see no real benefit to getting rid of it that would be worth the potential mental damage of such an ordeal.

Short version: I do not regard Cthulhu as a physical entity. However, despite what Lovecraft has stressed, he has come to be worshiped by people who think he is; thus, this fictional being has become a real God.

And yes, if this seems like a lot of mental gymnastics, that's only because it is. I'm still building all of this up into some sort of vernacular that's consistent and precise, as I largely believe that most of the miscommunications that happens between religious people and non-religious people, atheists and theists, lies in the aforementioned problem with the current state of the vernacular. I've seen the paradoxical term "theistic atheist/atheistic theist" come up now and then, but I don't really feel like this accurately represents me at the moment. A lot of this is a question of my own identity, and so isn't a scientific problem, but rather a philosophic one.

 

[Bunyip]

I do mean to infer that there are other categories between what you're defining as "concept" and "real", insofar as there are different forms that "reality" can take, and that it can overlap with concept in many cases.

Not that i can see. Real and conceptual are distinct. If there is another category, I am not aware of any form of reality that 'overlaps' with concept. I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

The way I've thought about it is that there are broadly two types of reality: subjective and objective. Objective reality is like a rock. It exists as an object regardless of whether a subject is regarding it. Subjective reality, on the other hand, is the reality that subjects experience.

Oh ok. Well no - subjective is not 'the reality that subjects experience' as far as I understand the definition of the term. So again, I am not sure what you are taking 'subjective' to mean.

All human beings can only perceive subjective reality; that is, the realities that we perceive can only ever be subjective to our own biases, experiences, etc. However, certain subjective realities may be closer to the objective reality than others. A person who hears disembodied voices, for example, is experiencing a reality that is exclusive (most likely) to them; it's still a reality, but not one that others experience.

Woah there! No, somebody hearing voices is not necessarily perceiving a reality at all. I am also not sure what you mean by 'certain subjective realities may be closer to objective reality than others'.

These two broad terms, however, have their own, still being conceived of, subcategories. For instance, another type of subjective reality involves agreement among people about a certain thing's qualities, such as monetary value or political boundaries. These have no objective existence, and yet they still exist.

After regarding the various ways in which the Modern English word "God" is applied, whether meant figuratively ("Stan Lee is my God") or as a legitimate title ("Woden is a God"), I've come to narrow down the status of Godhood into: anything which has been deified. That makes it a subjective quality dependent on a human mind. In other words, Sun is a God because She's one of the most universally worshiped figures in human culture, but was not a God before She started being worshiped. Because that's the way in which I regard Gods, I'm not an atheist. Atheism, under this definition, would be the lack of any deification.

This, of course, doesn't really help in determining the objective existence of those Gods that are what people these days might call "spirits", but which I prefer to call "wights" (because I regard "spirit" as a reference to a person's attitude), such as Woden, Indra, El, etc. Regarding these Gods, I'm an agnostic polytheist in that I softly believe they're there but fully acknowledge that I don't know, and thus don't argue this belief as any sort of truth. Or rather, I speak, think, and act as if they were there, so whether they actually are or not doesn't really effect my life. That's just how I am naturally; it's not going away and I see no real benefit to getting rid of it that would be worth the potential mental damage of such an ordeal.

Short version: I do not regard Cthulhu as a physical entity. However, despite what Lovecraft has stressed, he has come to be worshiped by people who think he is; thus, this fictional being has become a real God.

Sorry what? Cthulhu is real and not real? That doesn't work.

And yes, if this seems like a lot of mental gymnastics, that's only because it is.

Yes, i'm sorry it is indeed a rather spectacular suite of mental gymnastics.

I'm still building all of this up into some sort of vernacular that's consistent and precise, as I largely believe that most of the miscommunications that happens between religious people and non-religious people, atheists and theists, lies in the aforementioned problem with the current state of the vernacular. I've seen the paradoxical term "theistic atheist/atheistic theist" come up now and then, but I don't really feel like this accurately represents me at the moment. A lot of this is a question of my own identity, and so isn't a scientific problem, but rather a philosophic one.

Thankyou so much for the response, I apologise for failing to understand much of it. I sincerely promise you that I am not trying to be obtuse or difficult. I have responded as best I can.

On further reflection it occurs to me that much of the 'mental gymnastics' you perform here reduces to stretching the meaning of common terms like 'real', 'exists' and so on in order to cantilever those terms into some kind of internally consistent rationale.

The problem is that by doing so you are employing the significant terms (exists, real etc) in a way that the person you are talking to would not naturally assume. And so unless you clearly establish the definitions you are employing, conversation is rendered pretty much meaningless.

I suggest that rather than expand the meanings of the significant terms, you simply think up a different label, it would save a lot of confusion.

As an atheist I certainly agree with you that Cthulhu is real and exists as you define those terms. But all that really succeeds in doing is removing any real meaning for 'real' and 'exists'. So I don't understand what this achieves.

 

[Riverwolf]

Thankyou so much for the response, I apologise for failing to understand much of it. I sincerely promise you that I am not trying to be obtuse or difficult. I have responded as best I can.

On further reflection it occurs to me that much of the 'mental gymnastics' you perform here reduces to stretching the meaning of common terms like 'real', 'exists' and so on in order to cantilever those terms into some kind of internally consistent rationale.

The problem is that by doing so you are employing the significant terms (exists, real etc) in a way that the person you are talking to would not naturally assume. And so unless you clearly establish the definitions you are employing, conversation is rendered pretty much meaningless.

I suggest that rather than expand the meanings of the significant terms, you simply think up a different label, it would save a lot of confusion.

As an atheist I certainly agree with you that Cthulhu is real and exists as you define those terms. But all that really succeeds in doing is removing any real meaning for 'real' and 'exists'. So I don't understand what this achieves.

I try my best to define the terms as I use them whenever they come up, but I do occasionally forget.

Part of the problem is that the words as they are used are currently insufficient by my (admittedly amateur) reckoning. They don't "feel" right, and to me that's reason enough to explore and experiment. Otherwise, the Kami, Olympioi, Ahuras, Devas, etc. can't really be called Gods; only the Judeo-Christian God and the Ese (Old English name for the Aesir, aka half of the Germanic pantheon) can be rightly called Gods at all.

But a lot of it is for myself as much as anyone else. The language we use does inform and influence how we think, and I'm currently on a journey to use language to unlearn many of the assumptions that have basically gone unquestioned ever since the early Catholic Church decided that Aristotle was the epitome of human intellect (despite apparently being wrong about ... well, almost everything if Crash Course is to be believed). That involves a lot of shifting terms and reusing old, obsolete words for concepts we've all but forgotten about.

But when it comes to the terms "reality" and "existent", the thing is, when something is real for an individual, then from that individual's perspective, it is reality. (We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.) That's significant enough, for me, to call it reality, but with the qualifier "subjective". That's my current solution to avoiding confusion: qualifiers.

Subjective and objective, when used in most contexts, seem to reference a major aspect of grammar: the subject-object relationship. Hence my usage of the word involves that relationship. If I can find obsolete words that can better express what I'm trying to communicate, then you bet I'm going to start using them.

 

[Bunyip]

I try my best to define the terms as I use them whenever they come up, but I do occasionally forget.

Part of the problem is that the words as they are used are currently insufficient by my (admittedly amateur) reckoning. They don't "feel" right, and to me that's reason enough to explore and experiment. Otherwise, the Kami, Olympioi, Ahuras, Devas, etc. can't really be called Gods; only the Judeo-Christian God and the Ese (Old English name for the Aesir, aka half of the Germanic pantheon) can be rightly called Gods at all.

I understand your dilemma. You are quite correct, all of the language used to describe these notions is problematic.

But a lot of it is for myself as much as anyone else. The language we use does inform and influence how we think, and I'm currently on a journey to use language to unlearn many of the assumptions that have basically gone unquestioned ever since the early Catholic Church decided that Aristotle was the epitome of human intellect (despite apparently being wrong about ... well, almost everything if Crash Course is to be believed). That involves a lot of shifting terms and reusing old, obsolete words for concepts we've all but forgotten about.

But when it comes to the terms "reality" and "existent", the thing is, when something is real for an individual, then from that individual's perspective, it is reality.

To be honest I see no value in stretching the meaning of 'reality' that way. To my mind it can only serve to remove any meaning for the word.

(We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.) That's significant enough, for me, to call it reality, but with the qualifier "subjective". That's my current solution to avoiding confusion: qualifiers.

Yeah, I'm sorry - but I really don't see why you would call that reality - it seems to add only confusion.

Subjective and objective, when used in most contexts, seem to reference a major aspect of grammar: the subject-object relationship. Hence my usage of the word involves that relationship. If I can find obsolete words that can better express what I'm trying to communicate, then you bet I'm going to start using them.

Just so that I can be sure I understand; as 'real', 'reality' and 'exists' are normally defined Cthulhu does not exist and is not real - we agree on that correct?
However you have unique definitions for those three words and under those definitions Cthulhu is real and exists - right?

What is this supposed to achieve?

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks, yeah you got my point. I think that somebody who believes (for example) that Yahweh is the one god, must therefore believe that Ganesh (for example) is not a god.
For polytheists there would be gods outside of the set of gods they believe in. A polytheist could not believe a monotheistic god exists.

No, polytheists can believe in just their pantheon, or a set of pantheons, etc. There is no 'rule' that says one must believe in a certain deity.

 

[Bunyip]

No, polytheists can believe in just their pantheon, or a set of pantheons, etc. There is no 'rule' that says one must believe in a certain deity.

I didn't say that there was.

 

[Desert Snake]

I didn't say that there was.

What I meant was, there doesn't have to be gods outside of the polytheists set of gods. There is no rule or compunction to believe in some one else's set of deities.

 

[Bunyip]

What I meant was, there doesn't have to be gods outside of the polytheists set of gods. There is no rule or compunction to believe in some one else's set of deities.

Of course not. Sure.

 

[Tumah]

I don't know I always personally found it rude when someone who is an adherent to a religion believes in a deity or pantehon but then says that only their deity/pantheon exists and the others don't. I personally think almost all of the deities exist and I think almost every religion has some truth to it. I for one thing would never say that I don't think their deity exists even though I don't practice that religion. Like with Ahura Mazda, who I think is cool, but I just don't practice Zoroastrianism or with others like Jesus or Allah or Thor or Vishnu. I'm sure we've all encountered folks like that who just assume all other deities are make believe and only theirs exist.

To me this looks like you are saying:
Other theological views are wrong because they won't accept my view on theology and this makes me mad.
My views are right because my theological stance includes other's deities.

This is not a very convincing argument.
Consider that what you believe to be true is not inclusive of other's, but antithetical to other's theological stances.
Then you'll realize you're in the same boat as everyone else.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

To me this looks like you are saying:
Other theological views are wrong because they won't accept my view on theology and this makes me mad.
My views are right because my theological stance includes other's deities.

This is not a very convincing argument.
Consider that what you believe to be true is not inclusive of other's, but antithetical to other's theological stances.
Then you'll realize you're in the same boat as everyone else.

Except that isn't anything close to what I said... It's best if you read the whole post instead of reading a couple sentences and then exaggerate it ten fold. I said I personally believe almost all deities exist. I never pretended that I am right and others are wrong but I think it's rather arrogant and pompous for one to assume other deities are fake just because they are not in their pantheon. Even the bible mentions other deities and confirms that they do exist, yet they still have the mentality that other deities are make believe. It'd be less arrogant and more polite to disagree with other pantheons, rather than assume other deities don't exist and therefore making their religion a lie.

 

[Tumah]

Except that isn't anything close to what I said... It's best if you read the whole post instead of reading a couple sentences and then exaggerate it ten fold. I said I personally believe almost all deities exist. I never pretended that I am right and others are wrong but I think it's rather arrogant and pompous for one to assume other deities are fake just because they are not in their pantheon. Even the bible mentions other deities and confirms that they do exist, yet they still have the mentality that other deities are make believe. It'd be less arrogant and more polite to disagree with other pantheons, rather than assume other deities don't exist and therefore making their religion a lie.

I did read the whole thing. And you're doing it again here.
What it comes down to is that you believe multiple pantheons exist and find it offensive that others do not share this belief with you.
We do not do this out of arrogance, we do so because it is not a part of our belief structure for one reason or another.
Just because you believe a certain way, is not a reason that other should do so as well.
Once you come to terms with this and you stop taking it personally, you will realize that mutual exclusion is a common factor among religions.
It is arrogant to suggest that other must accept your beliefs.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I did read the whole thing. And you're doing it again here.
What it comes down to is that you believe multiple pantheons exist and find it offensive that others do not share this belief with you.
We do not do this out of arrogance, we do so because it is not a part of our belief structure for one reason or another.
Just because you believe a certain way, is not a reason that other should do so as well.
Once you come to terms with this and you stop taking it personally, you will realize that mutual exclusion is a common factor among religions.
It is arrogant to suggest that other must accept your beliefs.

It isn't about them accepting MY personal beliefs it's that I find it rude for others to degrade other people, too, where if one only believes in Jesus and says to a Heathen that Thor and all of the other deities he/she believes in are fake and non existent. That is what I find rude. I don't demand everyone share my beliefs. I couldn't care less if they believe what I believe, but it'd be rude if I walked up to you and say "Yahweh doesn't exist and your entire religion is fake." Of course whenever anyone thinks such thoughts, it's best to only think of it and not say it.

 

[Tumah]

It isn't about them accepting MY personal beliefs it's that I find it rude for others to degrade other people, too, where if one only believes in Jesus and says to a Heathen that Thor and all of the other deities he/she believes in are fake and non existent. That is what I find rude. I don't demand everyone share my beliefs. I couldn't care less if they believe what I believe, but it'd be rude if I walked up to you and say "Yahweh doesn't exist and your entire religion is fake." Of course whenever anyone thinks such thoughts, it's best to only think of it and not say it.

That's somewhat of a surprising statement considering it is taking place on a website practically devoted to inter-religious debate. We are all calling each other out. It might be rude to say that outright, but pretty much everyone thinks that way. Your best bet is to just grow some spine and give what you get. Or stop frequenting the Debate forums.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

That's somewhat of a surprising statement considering it is taking place on a website practically devoted to inter-religious debate. We are all calling each other out. It might be rude to say that outright, but pretty much everyone thinks that way. Your best bet is to just grow some spine and give what you get. Or stop frequenting the Debate forums.

It's about DEBATE, not nay-saying and putting others down. Why do you exaggerate so many times in your posts? I've made it pretty clear that I don't care if people accept my beliefs. Going online and debating does not mean it's ok for people to put others down. That's not how debate works. You can debate on what you believe and simply say "I just don't agree with the religion" rather than say "I think those deities are fake and it's all a lie." Which do you think is more polite? Pretty much everyone thinks that way? Based on what?

Anyways I already said what I needed to say.

 

[Quintessence]

Personally, when people say my gods are "fake" and that my religion is a "lie" my first response is to start laughing, because I can't even take such a comment seriously.

 

[Bunyip]

Personally, when people say my gods are "fake" and that my religion is a "lie" my first response is to start laughing, because I can't even take such a comment seriously.

Are you saying that your Gods are real, physical beings?