Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?

[paarsurrey]

Why debate the existence of God with non-believers?

As a human courtesy.

Regards

 

[Gordian Knot]

Windwalker said "I recommend you familiarize yourself with the Structures of Consciousness of Jean Gebser. You can get an overview of it in this link scrolling down and beginning at the Archaic structure, up through the rational and integral stages. AN OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF JEAN GEBSER A mythological God isn't possible yet at the earlier structures."

Wow. Truly a fascinating fiction rationalized by the author's personal agenda and not much else. Why not try Jaynes' The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Another rationalization of the potential form of the human mind in prehistory.

Again, fascinating stuff. But based on no real evidence. Jaynes, at least, was not attempting to push his own religious agenda as Gebser is doing. Gebser takes the One God concept as his starting point, then works backwards to justify it.

It is not as if the entire world turned to One God theologies around 500 B.C.E. Plenty of religions continued the multiple Gods traditions uninterrupted from antiquity to the present day. Which is the other problem with Gebser. He is limiting his rationalizations to Abrahamic religions. Methinks the rest of the world would find that annoying at the very least.

 

[Desert Snake]

FWIW, I disagree with Magic Man's definition. IMO, if a person could truthfully say "I believe in God/a god/gods", then they're not an atheist.

It doesn't matter whether the god in question is a "personal god" or not; if the person holds it to be a god, then it's a god for the purposes of figuring out whether he's a theist or an atheist.

Exactly.

 

[Windwalker]

Gebser takes the One God concept as his starting point, then works backwards to justify it.

What? This sound suspiciously like the sort of arguments against evolution by creationists! "They create this fiction about biology to push the atheist agenda!" :clap

Can you please back this accusation up with some actual data, rather than your conspiracy theory crap?

Gebser is a well respected researcher, and you don't seem to know what you're talking about. He was a cultural philosopher, and he had no Abrahamic God theological agenda.

"Jean Gebser (1905-1973) was a German poet, philosopher, and phenomenologist of consciousness. He is best known for his magisterial opus, The Ever-Present Origin (Ursprung und Gegenwart, 1949-1953), in which he articulates the structures and mutations of consciousness underpinning pivotal shifts in human civilization. Gebser’s key insight was that as consciousness mutates toward its innate integrality, it drastically restructures human ontology and with it civilisation as a whole."​

Nothing about Jehovah there. In fact if you did any research before knee-jerking here, he sees the demise of the old system of mythic deities as heralding a new emerging awareness of the world, into an Integral philosophy. Here, do a little reading: A Brief Biography

It is not as if the entire world turned to One God theologies around 500 B.C.E. Plenty of religions continued the multiple Gods traditions uninterrupted from antiquity to the present day. Which is the other problem with Gebser. He is limiting his rationalizations to Abrahamic religions. Methinks the rest of the world would find that annoying at the very least.

You don't know what you are talking about. He doesn't teach this.

Again, this reminds me a creationist-style argument. "If we came from monkeys, why are monkeys still around?" :thud:

 

[paarsurrey]

Why debate the existence of God with non-believers?

As a human courtesy.
Why the Atheists should be left on a wrong worldview?

Regards

 

[edwinic]

Nothing inaccurate in my statements. When someone calls themselves an atheist, it doesn't mean non-belief in all deity ideas.

That looks like a novel idea to me. Can you substantiate it (that someone can call himself atheist and yet believe in some other deity ideas)?

I believe in love, and some people consider God to be love. I believe in the universe, which is what pantheists call God. This has been my whole point.

Lets suppose someone claimed that "God exist" and he defined his God as the Universe (or say the Sun or Energy). Do you say that his statement is false? Do you say to him that his God does not exist?

Generally you'll find atheists don't have a major problem with deists. Maybe some intelligent being did kick off the universe and let it go. We also don't have much of a problem with pantheists, which is why Richard Dawkins called pantheism "sexed-up atheism".

I dont have problem either , because the God they claim is whatever we have in the universe (I hope I understand them correctly) and its very obvious that it exist. Moreover, the fact that that they have God, they are theist by definition, someone who believe that God exist.

Hard atheism is really a reaction to the most common god-concept, the Yahweh type.

Atheism a position that the claim of Theism (God exist) is false. The God concept is not limited to Yahweh type only.Theres no agreed definition of God. Have we lived in another time, we could be debating those who believe in Zeus, Ra, Minerva, etc...And there are those who believe that Yahweh is an evil God not to be worshipped and that there is Someone higher than Yahweh.

 

[LuisDantas]

As a human courtesy.
Why the Atheists should be left on a wrong worldview?

Regards

Or rather, why should Theists refrain from learning better?

 

[ratikala]

namaste

Originally Posted by steeltoes
Why debate the existence of God with non-believers

I wouldnt bother to open a debate with an atheist ,

just incase the Atheist starts to do this ....

Or rather, why should Theists refrain from learning better?

debate is futile.....

if an atheist wishes to have a meaningfull non confrontational conversation and exchange of Ideas then I am perfectly happy to discuss ...

but in my experience debates simply end up offending or upseting every one ....

 

[LuisDantas]

namaste




I wouldnt bother to open a debate with an atheist ,

just incase the Atheist starts to do this ....

Which, of course, is just another way of saying that you are not interested in debating that specific matter.

Which is ok, but hardly the fault of those who disagree with you.

 

[Magic Man]

Now you're backtracking. I'm a panentheist, so there is no similarity according to you. You're making less sense now..

It depends on what you mean by panentheism. If you believe in an intelligence that created and controls the universe, then it would be similar to the god I've been talking about. I get the impression from what I've read that panentheists' god is closer to pantheists' than to monotheists', in most cases. Basically, the closer you get to pantheism, the farther you get from theism.

 

[Magic Man]

FWIW, I disagree with Magic Man's definition. IMO, if a person could truthfully say "I believe in God/a god/gods", then they're not an atheist.

It doesn't matter whether the god in question is a "personal god" or not; if the person holds it to be a god, then it's a god for the purposes of figuring out whether he's a theist or an atheist.

I actually brought that up a little while back. I'm OK with that, too, but it gets messy.

 

[Magic Man]

That looks like a novel idea to me. Can you substantiate it (that someone can call himself atheist and yet believe in some other deity ideas)?

Lets suppose someone claimed that "God exist" and he defined his God as the Universe (or say the Sun or Energy). Do you say that his statement is false? Do you say to him that his God does not exist?

This second part answers the first. I would tell him God does not exist, but obviously, to him the universe is God, and I'm not going to say that doesn't exist. So, we have to figure out why I'd say "God doesn't exist, but the universe does", when to him that's contradictory.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

:angel2:

I actually brought that up a little while back. I'm OK with that, too, but it gets messy.

I think that's because gods are messy.

I'm still trying to figure out why a Christian who believes in God (in 3 parts), God's divine messenger Gabriel, and lord of the underworld Satan is a "monotheist" but an ancient Roman who believed in Jupiter, Jupiter's divine messenger Mercury, and lord of the underworld Pluto was a polytheist.

 

[Magic Man]

:angel2:

I think that's because gods are messy.

Well, of course. That's why I try to keep it simple, and wish we'd use words other than "God" for things that aren't the common understanding of the word.

I'm still trying to figure out why a Christian who believes in God (in 3 parts), God's divine messenger Gabriel, and lord of the underworld Satan is a "monotheist" but an ancient Roman who believed in Jupiter, Jupiter's divine messenger Mercury, and lord of the underworld Pluto was a polytheist.

It's a good question. I'd say it's probably because to a certain degree Jupiter, Mercury and Pluto were on the same level. Sure, Jupiter was the king and most powerful of the three, but he wasn't significantly different from the other two. For Christians, there's God above all, and then some other beings who might be more than humans, but aren't gods themselves.

 

[Windwalker]

I get the impression from what I've read that panentheists' god is closer to pantheists' than to monotheists', in most cases. Basically, the closer you get to pantheism, the farther you get from theism.

Panentheism is exactly both at the same time. It's not closer to pantheism. It embraces pantheism. It's not closer to theism. It embraces theism. It's paradoxical, not leaning more towards one or the other.

 

[Magic Man]

Panentheism is exactly both at the same time. It's not closer to pantheism. It embraces pantheism. It's not closer to theism. It embraces theism. It's paradoxical, not leaning more towards one or the other.

The question is whether there's an intelligence that created and controls the universe.

Atheists tend not to outright reject a deistic god because it's at least plausible. They generally don't actively believe in such a thing, but aren't opposed to the idea. The key is whether the intelligence is supposed to be active in the universe.

 

[Windwalker]

The question is whether there's an intelligence that created and controls the universe.

Atheists tend not to outright reject a deistic god because it's at least plausible.

The Deist idea of God is the creator who is not longer active in the world. This get's rid of the intervening deity of traditional theism, as well as the immanent God of pantheism. It sees God as wholly transcendent, as well as uninvolved. It's basically theism minus miracles.

What's interesting is atheists actually see pantheism more favorably, which teaches that God is wholly present and immanent in all things, as opposed to transcendent to the things themselves. Dawkins amusingly called it "sexed up atheism". But of course, it's not. It's still theism. This is this God, as opposed to this no-God.

They generally don't actively believe in such a thing, but aren't opposed to the idea. The key is whether the intelligence is supposed to be active in the universe.

So then, you would say an atheist can accept the idea of God, sans miracles?

BTW, as a panenthiest I see miracles as part of the fabric of reality of which God is wholly present. They are part of reality, not something dropping down into it from the great beyond. But most reports of miracles are typically mythology. I'm speaking more a subtle-level reality which is part of manifest reality. Because God is wholly immanent as well as wholly transcendent, the transcendent is immanent. Formlessness and form are not two.

 

[Magic Man]

The Deist idea of God is the creator who is not longer active in the world. This get's rid of the intervening deity of traditional theism, as well as the immanent God of pantheism. It sees God as wholly transcendent, as well as uninvolved. It's basically theism minus miracles.

What's interesting is atheists actually see pantheism more favorably, which teaches that God is wholly present and immanent in all things, as opposed to transcendent to the things themselves. Dawkins amusingly called it "sexed up atheism". But of course, it's not. It's still theism. This is this God, as opposed to this no-God.

Pantheism is sexed-up atheism because it doesn't differ much from atheism.

So then, you would say an atheist can accept the idea of God, sans miracles?

I don't know if I'd say "accept", but the really objectionable thing about the big three is some of the specifics of God, and the idea that people could know these specifics. A god without so many specifics isn't nearly as objectionable. I still don't have a need to consider the idea of a deistic god. If such a thing exists, it doesn't make any real difference to us.

 

[Windwalker]

Pantheism is sexed-up atheism because it doesn't differ much from atheism.

It differs in exactly the way I said. From a religious point of view, God is experienced and known as being through everything manifest. To know the world, is to know God, which creates a sense of being and wholeness beyond the individual. I see you, I see God. This is not how an atheist conceives of reality. Atheism typically is extremely materialist, which is inherently dualistic. Pantheism is monistic. It is a religious experience of reality, of God. That is radically different from the atheist who sees no God at all, but rather just unintelligent matter blindly holding itself together, separate from the observer.

I don't know if I'd say "accept", but the really objectionable thing about the big three is some of the specifics of God, and the idea that people could know these specifics.

This is reasonable.

A god without so many specifics isn't nearly as objectionable.

I'd say it's also more reflective of the transcendent nature of God, wouldn't you? A God that is transcendent, also transcends defining this way.

I still don't have a need to consider the idea of a deistic god. If such a thing exists, it doesn't make any real difference to us.

I personally agree. Which I why I don't buy into the wholly transcendent impersonal God. If it's wholly impersonal, why should it matter? But because the world and my experience is extremely personal, as well as encountering the impersonal, a genuine connection to myself and reality must include both. Otherwise, I'm disconnected from myself and from the world.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Panentheism is exactly both at the same time. It's not closer to pantheism. It embraces pantheism. It's not closer to theism. It embraces theism. It's paradoxical, not leaning more towards one or the other.

It's not paradoxical at all, since pantheism and monotheism address different questions (i.e. "how many gods are there?" and "what is the nature of God?").