God Terms

[mirandansa]

cosmos (Ancient Greek κόσμος "ordered world") : an ordered systemic whole, including quantity, quality, substance, change, and relation (effectively including both objectivity and subjectivity)

• : universe : a unit of physical entirety including space and time (possibly constituting multiverse)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

theism : theo(s)-ism

• theos (Ancient Greek θεός ADJECTIVE: "divine" NOUN: "deity") : god
  
  god (Proto-Indo-European ǵhewH- "to call, to invoke") : deity or divinity
  • 
    : deity (Latin deus) : a supreme being ; Absolute
    CF. Omnisicence, Omnipotence...
    • :: demiurge (Ancient Greek δημιουργός "original worker") : a deity who creates Cosmos out of Chaos ; Creator
    : divinity (Latin dīvīnitās) : the property of being divine (awe-inspiring, sacred, reverential) ; godhead, godhood
    • :: transcendence : a state of surpassing both materiality (e.g. the universe) and immateriality (e.g. knowledge)
      CF. Divine Simplicity, Tawhid...

theology : the study of god

• - to compare and understand theistic views
  - to defend, justify, or reform a theistic view
  - to draw on a theistic view to interpret a situation
  - to explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition

CF. Natural Theology, Systematic Theology, Neurotheology, Mystical Theology, Scholasticism, Liberation Theology, Islamic Theology, Midrash (Jewish Biblical Commentaries), Hindu Philosophy, Buddhist Philosophy...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

religion (Latin re- +‎ ligō "tie behind") : a collection of practices based on beliefs and teachings, which may be theistic or non-theistic ; due to the demarcation problem, the difference between religion and science is not always clear

secularism : the concept that governmental decisions should not be affected by religious convictions


RELIGIOUS


NONRELIGIOUS

humanism : a religious or non-religious approach that focuses on human values and concerns
CF. Secular Humanism, Christian Humanism, Humanistic Hermeneutics of Islam, Humanistic Judaism, Humanistic Buddhism...

transhumanism : a religious or non-religious approach that seeks to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities
CF. Immortality, Post-genderism, Singularitarianism, Extropianism

spirituality : religious or non-religious practices of contemplation and meditation for the purpose of developing awareness

----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATURALISM
Everything is based on natural laws...

• : methodological/epistemological naturalism
  ... epistemology-wise -- i.e. knowledge are true only by reference to natural events.
  • :: scientism
    Natural science is the most authoritative worldview and superior to all other interpretations of life.
    CF. Positivism
  
  : philosophical/ontological naturalism</B><i></i> :
  ... ontology-wise -- i.e. existences are true only by reference to natural events.
  • :: monism
    Existences are ultimately of one kind of unity...
    • ::: <B>physicalism (materialism)
      ... and the unity is physical -- i.e. everything can be reduced to material substance.
      
      ::: idealism
      ... and the unity is ideal -- i.e. everything can be reduced to mental substance.
      
      ::: neutral monism
      ... and the unity is neutral -- i.e. everything can be reduced to neutral substance (neither material nor mental).
    
    :: pluralism
    Existences are ultimately of multiple kinds of unity...
    • ::: dualism
      ... namely the material and the mental.
  
  : religious/spiritual naturalism
  ... significance-wise -- i.e. meanings are true only by reference to natural events.

SUPERNATURALISM
Not everything is based on natural laws.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In theological contexts...

GNOSTIC
The word "god" is always meaningful/usable. And the validity of a theistic view is known/knowable.
CF. Mysticism


AGNOSTIC
The word "god" is always meaningful/usable. And the validity of a theistic view is unknow/unknowable.
CF. Skepticism


IGNOSTIC
The word "god" is not always meaningful/usable. And the validity of a theistic view is either knowable or unknowable, depending on the word's definition.
CF. Theological Noncognitivism

----------------------------------------------------------------------

THEISM
One holds that at least one notion of god pertains to a full appreciation of reality. Such notions may vary -- natural or supernatural, material or immaterial, quantitative or qualitative, single or multiple, personal or impersonal, creator or non-creator, etc. Therefore, theism may be a) a faith-based stance of believing in the existence of an unverified item or b) an experience-based stance of evaluating a verified ontological item.
CF. Immanence, Divine Presence

• : autotheism/apotheosis
  A non-god becomes a god.
  CF. Imperial Cult, Sacred King, Greek Hero Cult...
  
  : polytheism
  Multiple deities including a demiurge exist and interact with the Cosmos...
  CF. Egyptian religions, Greek religions, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, Smarta Hinduism...
  • :: henotheism
    ... and they share the same essential godhood, so they are each worthy of worship.
    
    :: kathenotheism
    ... and only one of them can have true godhood at a time, so they are each worthy of worship at different occasions.
    
    :: monolatrism
    ... and only one of them has true godhood and is worthy of worship.
  
  : monotheism
  Only one demiurge-deity exists and interacts with the Cosmos.
  CF. Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Dvaita Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Bahà¡'à­...
  
  : deism
  At least one demiurge-deity exists but does not interact with the Cosmos...
  CF. Unitarianism, Socinianism, Ietsism...
  • :: pandeism
    ... having created the Cosmos by becoming the Cosmos.
    
    :: penendeism
    ... having created the Cosmos by partially becoming the Cosmos.
    
    :: polydeism
    ... having created the Cosmos through collaboration with multiple deities.
  
  : pantheism
  The Cosmos embodies divinity...
  CF. Taoism, Advaita philosophy, Unitarian Universalism...
  • :: panentheism
    ... through integration and transcendence.
    CF. Transcendentalism, Monism, Process Theology, Cosmotheism, Infinitism, Ramanuja philosophy, Universal Sufism, Kabbalah...

NONTHEISM
One does not hold at least one form of theism...

• : weak nontheism ("implicit atheism")
  ... implicitly or unconsciously (i.e. negative atheism).
  
  : strong nontheism (atheism or "explicit atheism")
  ... explicitly or consciously, due to absence of evidence for theism (i.e. critical atheism) or presence of evidence for atheism (i.e. positive atheism)...
  
  * "Explicit atheism" is naturally "atheism" itself, since "atheism" is never observed by "implicit atheists" to identify with.
  • :: apatheism
    ... and does not care about the validity of theism.
    
    :: panatheism
    ... and holds that all theistic subjects are false.
    
    :: antitheism
    ... and holds that theism should be terminated.

* Both theism and atheism concern the concept of god and are therefore theological stances. These, as theoretical categories, are mutually exclusive. When actually applied to a mind, however, these turn out to be subject to the context of a given dialogue and can therefore overlap with each other. For example: a Christian may be a theist in arguing for the Biblical God, but may be an atheist in arguing against the Qur'anic God; a secularist may be an atheist in debating a Mormon, but may be a theist in adopting a non-religious pantheistic view. Also: when one argues for polytheism, they must at the same time be monotheistically propounding one notion of god from which to consistently derive the interpretation that something is "a god"; and when one argues for a monotheistic belief, they must at the same time be polytheistic in claiming the existence of a god in addition to other gods claimed by other monotheists. These labels, especially "theism" and "atheism", are semantically distinct but instrumentally ambiguous.


TRANSTHEISM
Whether or not a deity exists, they are not the highest instance of reality.
CF. Nondualism, Buddhism, Stoicism, Post-Theism, Post-Monotheism...

* It is not nontheism/atheism since it would not be invalidated if theism is true, and it is not theism since it would not be invalidated if nontheism/atheism is true. Some forms of pantheism and panentheism are possibly transtheistic, depending on how these observe a level of transcendence.

 

[Amerist]

I am greatly amused by both the ignostic concept and especially transtheism.

 

[mirandansa]

I am greatly amused by both the ignostic concept and especially transtheism.

Founder and chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Paul Kurtz thinks both atheism and agnosticism are consistent with ignosticism. But A. J. Ayer and Theodore Drange (known for his "argument from nonbelief") consider ignosticism more distinct, in that it does not readily accept the semantic validity of "god exists" while agnosticism and atheism do:

Atheistic: I don't believe god exists; "god exists" is false -- I can judge so because I know what "god exists" means and I can assess its evidence and proof.

Agnostic: I don't know whether or not god exists; "god exists" is inconclusive until further evidence is met -- I can expect so because I know what "god exists" means and I can assess its evidence and proof.

Ignostic: I don't know what you mean when you say "god exists".

Sam Harris has expressed similar discernment, that talking about the existence of god is absurd and that the label and concept of "atheism" is extraneous:



Transtheism was originally described by Christian existentialist philosopher Paul Tillich through his idea of "God above God" (it's a very important concept, but i don't see it discussed by atheists or Christians etc. on YouTube). This label more suits Buddhism, since founder Siddhartha explicitly rejected the authority of any deity class on the account that a deity or deities, if such a thing exists, are, as long as they intentionally hold such a title and ontological rank, to be bound by their own cognitive attachment.

Again Sam Harris points out that there are important aspects to Buddhism and spirituality which rational people can and ought to respect:



"There is clearly no greater obstacle to a truly empirical approach to spiritual experience than our current beliefs about God."
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

This is one of the things i have been trying to communicate on this forum. Both atheists and theists (especially monotheists) need to go beyond their conventional preconception about God, to observe a level of transcendence that is not a supernatural sky-daddy or a magic sandwich, for the purpose of a deeper appreciation of life and existence, by recovering and maintaining, critically, subjective sensibility.

 

[Prolescum]

This is one of the things i have been trying to communicate on this forum. Both atheists and theists (especially monotheists) need to go beyond their conventional preconception about God, to observe a level of transcendence that is not a supernatural sky-daddy or a magic sandwich, for the purpose of a deeper appreciation of life and existence, by recovering and maintaining subjective sensibility.

I don't need to do anything, thank you very much. This bullshit about going beyond my supposed preconceptions about God (hint: they're not preconceptions) to observe a level of transcendence (which is unobservable) for the purpose of a deeper appreciation of life and existence (because you, of course, know how deep my appreciation is, and it must be shallow because I don't take recently contrived spiritualist nonsense seriously), by recovering (a presumption by you that it has been lost) and maintaining subjective sensibility applies only to those willing to forgo physical evidence as the only coherent and testable way of defining reality.

You can waffle until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, you are not going to convince anyone using cod-philosophy and pseudo-spirituality; not those already with a faith, nor those without. This is not a third way, it is ethereal fan-wanking.

 

[mirandansa]

I don't need to do anything, thank you very much.

You don't need it if you don't need fuller comprehension.

This bullshit about going beyond my supposed preconceptions about God (hint: they're not preconceptions)

When atheists talk about God, they too often proceed from the idea that God means "Creator". Preconception.

to observe a level of transcendence (which is unobservable)

By "observe" i don't mean "look at".

for the purpose of a deeper appreciation of life and existence (because you, of course, know how deep my appreciation is, and it must be shallow because I don't take recently contrived spiritualist nonsense seriously),

You don't seem to have considered the point Sam Harris makes:

"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. [...] Spirituality can be -- indeed, must be -- deeply rational. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns."
(The End of Faith)

by recovering (a presumption by you that it has been lost)

You have just called it "nonsense" above. The sense is lost for you.

and maintaining subjective sensibility applies only to those willing to forgo physical evidence as the only coherent and testable way of defining reality.

Another preconception and bias on your part. You don't realise that subjectivity and objectivity can be integrated.

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
(Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World)

You can waffle until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, you are not going to convince anyone using cod-philosophy and pseudo-spirituality; not those already with a faith, nor those without. This is not a third way, it is ethereal fan-wanking.

Relax. Take your time to contemplate.

 

[Prolescum]

I don't need to do anything, thank you very much.

You don't need it if you don't need fuller comprehension.

A comprehension that may or may not exist but is impossible to determine. Don't insult me.

This bullshit about going beyond my supposed preconceptions about God (hint: they're not preconceptions)

When atheists talk about God, they too often proceed from the idea that God means "Creator". Preconception.

Tar us all with the same brush, eh? Thanks.

to observe a level of transcendence (which is unobservable)

By "observe" i don't mean "look at".

Neither do I.

for the purpose of a deeper appreciation of life and existence (because you, of course, know how deep my appreciation is, and it must be shallow because I don't take recently contrived spiritualist nonsense seriously),

You don't seem to have considered the point Sam Harris makes:

"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. [...] Spirituality can be -- indeed, must be -- deeply rational. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns."
(The End of Faith)

No, I considered it and dismissed it as utter bollocks.

by recovering (a presumption by you that it has been lost)

You have just called it "nonsense" above. The sense is lost for you.

:lol:

and maintaining subjective sensibility applies only to those willing to forgo physical evidence as the only coherent and testable way of defining reality.

Another preconception and bias on your part. You don't realise that subjectivity and objectivity can be integrated.

Only if you contort their meanings so completely that they no longer mean anything remotely like their actual meaning. Well done you!

You can waffle until you're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, you are not going to convince anyone using cod-philosophy and pseudo-spirituality; not those already with a faith, nor those without. This is not a third way, it is ethereal fan-wanking.

Relax. Take your time to contemplate.

I have. I do regularly. I never say never. I still think and contend that you are talking right and completely out of your arse.

 

[mirandansa]

You don't need it if you don't need fuller comprehension.

A comprehension that may or may not exist

... for you.

but is impossible to determine.

... for you.

Don't insult me.

I never meant to insult you.

When atheists talk about God, they too often proceed from the idea that God means "Creator". Preconception.

Tar us all with the same brush, eh? Thanks.

I didn't quantify "atheists" with "all".

By "observe" i don't mean "look at".

Neither do I.

Transcendence can be intellectually investigated through a philosophical deduction of categories and intuitively experienced through meditation.

You don't seem to have considered the point Sam Harris makes:

"There is clearly a sacred dimension to our existence, and coming to terms with it could well be the highest purpose of human life. [...] Spirituality can be -- indeed, must be -- deeply rational. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns."
(The End of Faith)

No, I considered it and dismissed it as utter bollocks.

Please explain how it's utter bollocks.

Another preconception and bias on your part. You don't realise that subjectivity and objectivity can be integrated.

Only if you contort their meanings so completely that they no longer mean anything remotely like their actual meaning. Well done you!

What is their actual meaning?

I still think and contend that you are talking right and completely out of your arse.

Cherish the flow of thoughts rather than embattle individualism.

 

[australopithecus]

:facepalm:

Thank you, Prolescum, for making this thread more entertaining that it has any right to be.

When atheists talk about God, they too often proceed from the idea that God means "Creator". Preconception.

Strawman.

And when you say 'atheists' without qualifying it with 'some' or 'most' then the default for the reader (it seems to be the case with both me and prolescum at the moment) the assumption is a blanket description. For example:

"Atheists/Jews/Muslims/Africans/Mexicans/Dogs/Cats/Dolphins/Manchester United fans are all X"

Doesn't sound to great does it, and even though I may be talking about a select few it comes across as a reference to any member of those groups. Just be aware of that next time. I'm an atheist and I don't proceed from the idea that God means creator, just saying. I proceed from the idea that God is a supernatural claim.

 

[mirandansa]

When atheists talk about God, they too often proceed from the idea that God means "Creator". Preconception.

Strawman.

If you go to my YouTube channel and scan through the videos i favourited for the last 3 years, you'll get a hint of my having been a pretty hardcore atheist. I have countlessly watched atheist videos and favourably commented on them. I was immersed in atheism. I know the general intellectual landscape of today's atheism. When Pat Condell says "God", he almost always means the monotheistic notion of "Creator". When Thunderf00t says "God", he almost always means what monotheists believe to be, again, the "Creator". As much as i like Edward Current, NonStampCollector etc., I'm aware that their focus is on the monotheistic "Creator" (which is fine for the purpose of entertainment) and not on other non-supernatural conceptions of God. I also read the four horsemen's books. When Christopher Hitchens said "God is not great", he meant the "Creator". When Richard Dawkins said "the God delusion", he meant, again, the "Creator". The current theist-atheist dialogue has largely been framed by this partial conception.

I proceed from the idea that God is a supernatural claim.

And that is a one-sided preconception. That's not what the question of God or theology is all about. When Einstein, Hawking, Margaret Atwood, Mikhail Gorbachev etc. used the word "God", they did not mean to make a claim about the quantitative existence of a supernatural thing; they were expressing how they would qualitatively perceive a natural item in a theological context. And, under honest discernment, that counts as a form of theism, namely pantheism or panentheism. Theism need not be an ontological claim; it can be an evaluational (value-giving) view, just like aestheticism. Once you recognise that, you'll realise that "atheism" is not as meaningful a term as it has seemed to you -- more contextual, more ambiguous, more overlapping with "theism". If you want to retain this label as a default/principal description of your mind in relation to theology, then you keep the "Creator"-oriented preconception; if you don't need this label, you discard the preconception and move on to a more comprehensive paradigm.

 

[australopithecus]

If you go to my YouTube channel and see the videos i favourited for the last 3 years, you'll get a hint of me having been a pretty hardcore atheist. I have countlessly watched atheist videos and favourably commented on them. I was immersed in atheism. I know the general intellectual landscape of today's atheism.

It was still a strawman.

When Pat Condell says "God", he almost always means the monotheistic notion of "Creator". When Thunderf00t says "God", he almost always means what monotheists believe to be, again, the "Creator".

What Condell thinks about anything couldn't be less important.

When Thunderf00t says "God", he almost always means what monotheists believe to be, again, the "Creator".

Mostly because he debunks creationism.

As much as i like Edward Current, NonStampCollector etc., I'm aware that their focus is on the monotheistic "Creator" and not other non-supernatural conceptions of God.

Mostly because they're satirising fundementalist Christians.

I also read the four horsemen's books. When Christopher Hitchens said "God is not great", he meant the "Creator". When Richard Dawkins said "the God delusion", he meant, again, the "Creator".

So you can read minds now?

And that is a one-sided preconception. That's not what the question of God or theology is all about.

The question of God or theology isn't really that important. In fact I've found things on the bottom of my shoe that are more important than the question of God or theology. I've given you my starting point with regards to discussing gods, universally gods are supernatural claims regardless of any creator worship. This starting point will not change unless any god or godlike 'thing' can be evidenced in the natural world.

When Einstein, Hawking, Margaret Atwood, Mikhail Gorbachev etc. used the word "God", they did not mean to make a claim about the quantitative existence of a supernatural thing; they were expressing how they would qualitatively perceive a natural item in a theological context.

I'm not those people, and this appeal to authority is useless. I don't care what their views on theology are, those views are no more valid than mine.

And, under honest discernment, that counts as a form of theism, namely pantheism or panentheism.

I'm not a pantheist.

Theism need not be an ontological claim; it can be an evaluational (value-giving) view, just like aestheticism.

So?

Once you recognise that, you'll realise that "atheism" is not as meaningful a term as it has seemed to you

You assume it has meaning to me in the first place. You assume too much.

If you want to retain this label as a default/principal description of your mind, then you keep the "Creator"-oriented preconception; if you don't need this label, you discard the preconception and move on to a more comprehensive paradigm.

I lack faith in gods, I'm an atheist. SImple as. The word holds no meaning for me, if a lack of faith in gods was called 'Coddlespooness' then I would still fall under that catagory. The word is irrelevant, what is important is the opinion it describes. You can shift the goalposts and claim god is x, y or z and invoke pantheism or whatever else you like, but the fact is I have no faith in any description, definition or asserted property of any god yet described.

 

[mirandansa]

When Pat Condell says "God", he almost always means the monotheistic notion of "Creator". When Thunderf00t says "God", he almost always means what monotheists believe to be, again, the "Creator".

What Condell thinks about anything couldn't be less important.

I agree, in light of his recent intellectual blunders. Nonetheless he has been very instrumental in setting atheism in motion on YouTube. Don't forget that he is even endorsed by Richard Dawkins:
http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/pat-condell-anthology
People learned things from him and were encouraged to be critical of religions. Which is a good thing. The not-so-good thing is that they have not as much been encouraged to contemplate on theism in a more comprehensive way (without dispensing with reason, of course).

When Thunderf00t says "God", he almost always means what monotheists believe to be, again, the "Creator".

Mostly because he debunks creationism.

Debunking creationism is a good thing. However, if you keep associating "God" with "Creator" with no critical annotation, uninformed audience would start to have the erroneous impression that a supernatural "Creator" is all there is to what theism can postulate as "theos/God". Then they might think:

debunk "Creator" --> no evidence for "Creator" --> no reason to embrace theism --> I'm an atheist!

This would be a mistake from ignorance.

As much as i like Edward Current, NonStampCollector etc., I'm aware that their focus is on the monotheistic "Creator" and not other non-supernatural conceptions of God.

Mostly because they're satirising fundementalist Christians.

Which is fine. I love their videos.

My point is that those major and popular atheists haven't as much discussed theology in its fullest and most meaningful scope. While i believe that at least people like AronRa (who seems to have some interest in the Eastern Philosophy), Nykytyne2, TheoreticalBullshit etc. may have the potential to open a new, intellectually more fruitful kind of theological dialogue, there seems to be some binding situation in this community of supposedly free thinkers where (as Sam Harris noted) spirituality has been reduced to an awkward topic or even a taboo. Look at the cavils i have been met with on this forum by affirming the notion of interconnectedness. Cramp.

I also read the four horsemen's books. When Christopher Hitchens said "God is not great", he meant the "Creator". When Richard Dawkins said "the God delusion", he meant, again, the "Creator".

So you can read minds now?

Don't be silly. You can tell from the contents what they mean by "God". In case you haven't read them, here are some quotes:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#The_God_Delusion_.282006.29
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#God_is_Not_Great:_How_Religion_Poisons_Everything_.282007.29

And that is a one-sided preconception. That's not what the question of God or theology is all about.

The question of God or theology isn't really that important.

Importance is a subjective value. Your above statement comes from your own subjective landscape, from how you perceive the world. And it's your prerogative to explore or not to explore the qualitative realm of the Cosmos. If you want at all to examine theism with all your intellectual honesty, however, it will ill behove you to neglect non-supernatural conceptions of divinity.

In fact I've found things on the bottom of my shoe that are more important than the question of God or theology.

Right, that's the level of your understanding of theism.

I've given you my starting point with regards to discussing gods, universally gods are supernatural claims regardless of any creator worship.

And theism is not only about creator worship. I said it. You ignored it.

This starting point will not change unless any god or godlike 'thing' can be evidenced in the natural world.

I consider consciousness a natural phenomenon. Through this, i contemplate various readily-verifiable natural things, events, processes, relations etc. At a certain point, i start to perceive sacredness about them. They start to appear holy in divine stillness. It's neither happiness nor sadness, but pure mindfulness. Yes, this cognitive experience can be explained in terms of electrochemical reactions in the brain, but so what? The important part is the quality, the thing which is as much part of the Cosmos as the electrochemical reactions.

Its evidence is primarily subjective. And please note that i'm not using this subjective evidence to make an objective claim. I'm not claiming that there is a deity apart from the Cosmos itself. No ontological argument, just the expression of direct qualitative experience. And my experience, at least with the current standard of technology, is to remain subjective. All i can firstly suggest to those who want to confirm what i'm talking about, is that they develop their own cognitive potential to observe such a qualitative landscape for themselves. Harris explains it from 30:00 in the first video above.

When Einstein, Hawking, Margaret Atwood, Mikhail Gorbachev etc. used the word "God", they did not mean to make a claim about the quantitative existence of a supernatural thing; they were expressing how they would qualitatively perceive a natural item in a theological context.

I'm not those people, and this appeal to authority is useless.

I mentioned them to give you a hint of the subject's nonstupidness.

I don't care what their views on theology are, those views are no more valid than mine.

You don't care and haven't actually gone through this perspective, but you somehow know its "validity"? What "validity"? It's just direct experience. You are acting like ShockofGod by putting a non-belief-position into the category of belief-position and rejecting it on the fallacious account that it isn't "proven" to be valid.

And, under honest discernment, that counts as a form of theism, namely pantheism or panentheism.

I'm not a pantheist.

Ok.

Theism need not be an ontological claim; it can be an evaluational (value-giving) view, just like aestheticism.

So?

So one cannot really reject theism altogether on the sole account that no deity has been proven to be existent. You could reject most positive monotheism and polytheism, but not theism per se. Just like some forms of atheism need no objective proof, some forms of theism which makes no objective claim has not burden of objective proof.

If you want to retain this label as a default/principal description of your mind, then you keep the "Creator"-oriented preconception; if you don't need this label, you discard the preconception and move on to a more comprehensive paradigm.

I lack faith in gods,

I too lack faith in the existence of supernatural deities.

I'm an atheist. SImple as.

That's how i kept calling myself an atheist for several years. Then i realised that "atheism" and "theism" have inherent ambiguity.

I'm not saying that nobody is an atheist at any occasion; i'm saying that one who is an atheist in relation to a particular form of theism may be a theist in relation to another form of theism.

The word is irrelevant, what is important is the opinion it describes. You can shift the goalposts and claim god is x, y or z and invoke pantheism or whatever else you like, but the fact is I have no faith in any description, definition or asserted property of any god yet described.

(Pantheism is not necessarily a faith-position.)

So be it. You claim you are completely an atheist. At the same time, you haven't properly examined the areas of theism which might as well affect this self-labelling of yours. I did examine it, and that's how i came to do away with the nominal adherence to atheism.

 

[australopithecus]

I agree, in light of his recent intellectual blunders. Nonetheless he has been very instrumental in setting atheism in motion on YouTube. Don't forget that he is even endorsed by Richard Dawkins:
http://store.richarddawkins.net/products/pat-condell-anthology
People learned things from him and were encouraged to be critical of religions. Which is a good thing. The not-so-good thing is that they have not as much been encouraged to contemplate on theism in a more comprehensive way (without dispensing with reason, of course).

Dawkins can endorse who or what he likes, it doesn't matter. He is not King Atheist, he is just one man with an opinion. That he has encouraged people to be skeptical is a good thing however he is almost universally refering to monotheism and the Abrahamic faiths, he even states so himself in The God Delusion.

Debunking creationism is a good thing. However, if you keep associating "God" with "Creator" with no critical annotation, uninformed audience would start to have the erroneous impression that a supernatural "Creator" is all there is to what theism can postulate as "theos/God". Then they might think:

debunk "Creator" --> no evidence for "Creator" --> no reason to embrace theism --> I'm an atheist!

This would be a mistake from ignorance.

:facepalm:

Creationsists assert God as a creator therefore to debunk creationism you must work with the premise that God is a creator, or atleast the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is, seeing as it is these faiths that are pretty much the bulk of mainstream creationism. There's no point addressing a 'non creator god' in this context because the people you're refuting ARE asserting god as a creator.

Which is fine. I love their videos.

My point is that those major and popular atheists haven't as much discussed theology in its fullest and most meaningful scope. While i believe that at least people like AronRa (who seems to have some interest in the Eastern Philosophy), Nykytyne2, TheoreticalBullshit etc. may have the potential to open a new, intellectually more fruitful kind of theological dialogue, there seems to be some binding situation in this community of supposedly free thinkers where (as Sam Harris noted) spirituality has been reduced to an awkward topic or even a taboo. Look at the cavils i have been met with on this forum by affirming the notion of interconnectedness. Cramp.

'Spirituality' is meaningless. What does the term actually mean? What spirit? If it means a sense of awe or connection with the universe and the feelings it envokes then fine, but 'spirituality' isn't some magical thing that we need to study theology to understand, especially when it's just semantics.

Don't be silly. You can tell from the contents what they mean by "God". No good author would put in their own book's title a word which they have no intention to expand on in the book itself. In case you haven't read them, here are quotes:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#The_God_Delusion_.282006.29
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#God_is_Not_Great:_How_Religion_Poisons_Everything_.282007.29

7

In these books they address a specific god or gods as asserted by others. They can only work and address what they're given to work with.

Importance is a subjective value. Your above statement comes from your own subjective landscape, from how you perceive the world. And it's your prerogative to explore or not to explore the qualitative realm of the Cosmos. If you want at all to examine theism with all your intellectual honesty, however, it will ill behove you to neglect non-supernatural conceptions of divinity.

I really don't want to address theism as anything other than subjective until any claim made by any theist ever can be evidenced. It's of little interest to me to dance around blind assertions, semantics and appeals to emotion/consequence/ignorance.

Right, that's the level of your understanding of theism.

No, that's my level of interest in unevidenced claims.

And theism is not only about creator worship. I said it. You ignored it.

I never said theism was about creator worship. Theism is a set of different claims reguarding god or gods, whatever those claims are. I don't buy any of them.

I consider consciousness a natural phenomenon. Through this, i contemplate various readily-verifiable natural things, events, processes, relations etc. At a certain point, i start to perceive sacredness about them. They start to appear holy in divine stillness. It's neither happiness nor sadness, but pure mindfulness. Yes, this cognitive experience can be explained in terms of electrochemical reactions in the brain, but so what? The important part is the quality, the thing which is as much part of the Cosmos as the electrochemical reactions.

So you've arbitraily decided things are sacred and 'holy in devine stillness'? What bearing does this have on reality?

Its evidence is primarily subjective. And please note that i'm not using this subjective evidence to make an objective claim. I'm not claiming that there is a deity apart from the Cosmos itself. No ontological argument, just the expression of direct qualitative experience. And my experience, at least with the current standard of technology, is to remain subjective. All i can firstly suggest to those who want to confirm what i'm talking about, is that they develop their own cognitive potential to observe such a qualitative landscape. Harris explains it from 30:00 in the first video above.

The cosmos is not a deity. Or at least considering it one is utterly redundant.

I mentioned them to give you a hint of the subject's nonstupidness.

Still an appeal to authority. Just because Einstein thought in a certain way doesn't mean it's correct or valid. Or nonstupid.

You don't care and haven't actually gone through this perspective, but you somehow know its "validity"? What "validity"? It's just direct experience. You are acting like ShockofGod by putting a non-belief-position into the category of belief-position and rejecting it on the fallacious account that it isn't "proven" to be valid.

I don't care because those views are irrelevant to anyone other than the people holding them. Einstein could have asserted God was the feeling you get when you smell fresh baked bread, it wouldn't have any impact or relevance to anone other than Albert. I'm not rejecting anything, I merely stated I don't care about X's personal and subjective belief about deifying the cosmos. I just see pantheism as a redundant exercise in relabeling.

So one cannot really reject theism altogether on the sole account that no deity has been proven to be existent. You could reject most positive monotheism and polytheism, but not theism per se. Just like some forms of atheism need no objective proof, some forms of theism which makes no objective claim has not burden of objective proof.

But that's not logic works. You don't assume something is correct until it's disproven. if you can show me any evidence of any theistic claim being correct then I will jump on board. Until then...

I too lack faith in the existence of supernatural deities.

Good for you.

That's how i kept calling myself an atheist for several years. Then i realised that "atheism" and "theism" have inherent ambiguity.

Atheism = lack of belief in claims of gods. Theism = acceptance of claims of gods. Not very ambiguous from where I'm sitting.

I'm not saying that nobody is an atheist at any occasion; i'm saying that one who is an atheist in relation to a particular form of theism may be a theist in relation to another form of theism.

Until any form of theism can back up their claims I'm atheistic towards all of them.

So be it. You claim you are completely an atheist. At the same time, you haven't properly examined the areas of theism which might as well affect this self-labelling of yours. I did examine it, and that's how i came to do away with the nominal adherence to atheism

.

Strawman. I've never said I've not properly examined anything. I claimed not to care. Apathy =/= ignorance. Just because I don't care about something doesn't mean I am ignorant of the subject. I don't care about the Twilight books, I've still read a couple. That's how I know they're crap.

I reitierate:

Until any theistic claim can be backed up objectively and evidentially I will not accept those claims. I can look into them and understand them, that doesn't mean I care. As for pantheism, I see no reason to label the cosmos as God. The Universe is amazing enough as it is without trying to deify it and make the awe it inspires religious.

 

[Fictionarious]

Being that mirandansa has argued so well here, I am going to dredge up something I wrote awhile ago. It was originally intended as a script for a YouTube video, but it didn't come out so well in video format (maybe I just wasn't satisfied with it because I knew it was kind of an alien thing for me to suggest).

But if mirandansa and any other person who has agreed with his/her posts here about theism not being a necessarily ontological claim could review/critique this for me, it would be much appreciated.

God as a Hypothetical Exemplar of the Good

There are the people who point to an idea or institution and say "this is bad or deficient, we need to knock it down and start all the fuck over, or just leave it knocked down." Then there are the people who say "well, here are the bad parts of this idea or institution, let's reform it so that they aren't there any more, but otherwise leave it alone". And it seems like it's a real dichotomy, almost on a psychological level, between these two groups, the categorically opposed and the constructively critical. But it seems that both of these groups, point to the other group and say "you're part of the problem, what you're saying is counterproductive". But I disagree with both there. There are the anarchists out there who say, voting is a sham, fuck elections, if you vote you're just perpetuating the problem, which is the State. Then there are the moderates who say, you're refusing to participate, if you don't vote you have no right to complain about the problem. So the result is that a person who shows up at election night with a bunch of flyers about building a new society within the shell of the old where voting won't be necessary and then proceeds to vote for the more libertarian candidate, seems like a hypocrite. But I would beg to differ, I would defend that person's sincerity, even his wisdom. And I will supplement that introductory example as to what I'm speaking of with the topic of this essay, God. I'm an atheist. I admit to myself and to others that no extremely powerful, extremely wise, extremely everywhere, extremely loving man-like agency who's responsible for the entire universe has made himself known to me, and I advise that, if this is the case for you, you admit it too. But, here's an excerpt from Vox Dei's book The Irrational Atheist:

The only straightforward claim to omniscience is made on God's
behalf by the Apostle John, who clearly states "he knows everything."
However, the context in which the statement is made also indicates
that this particular "everything" is not intended to encompass life
and the universe, but rather everything about human hearts. Not
only does this interpretation make more sense in light of the verse
than with an inexplicable revelation of a divine quality that appears
nowhere else in the Bible, but it is also in keeping with many previous
statements made about God's knowledge.

So, this particular trait "omniscience" has been denied, or at least demoted, to the knowledge of men's hearts. Now, I'm not going to talk about whether that's Biblically accurate, or about The Irrational Atheist, I'm just going to note that the God concept, or the God name, despite whatever any one particular believer will tell you, is actually very flexible. There's polytheism, suitheism, monolatrism, maltheism, and the Gods of these various positions possess varying degrees of the same few traits, to sum them up, power, presence, knowledge, love, cosmic responsibility, man-like image.

Current conceptions of God (Fantastical):

"¢ Categorically existent (in some dimension) as one entity man-like in appearance
"¢ The originator of the universe and all life, directly or indirectly
"¢ Omnipotent or extremely powerful
"¢ Omniscient or extremely wise
"¢ Omnipresent or can teleport anywhere almost instantaneously
"¢ Omnibenevolent or extremely loving
"¢ Passive worship encouraged, active emulation mostly impossible


Why These Are Deficient:

"¢ Categorically existent (in some dimension) as one entity man-like in appearance

1. A single categorically existent God predominating theology has the effect of removing any hope for change in the status quo. It precludes the existence of other Gods, the possibility of non-Gods becoming Gods, and most notably, the possibility of the present nonexistence of Gods. Much hinges on what traits and alleged actions are prerequisites for Godhood, which we'll go into in just a second. But saying that no matter the traits or actions, there can be only one God by definition, not only does it ignore the vast history of theism as it was expressed by polytheistic societies gone by, it ignores the potential of theism to be reinvented and evolve as a practical branch of virtue ethics.
2. Being man-like is specified two ways too many, it might be said. Not only is the modern conception of God entirely human, but entirely male. This alienates women primarily, since humans are the only species known to conceive of such an explanation for themselves and the universe as "God", in that a male God's goodness cannot possibly display those qualities of goodness exclusive to the female gender, if there are any such gender exclusive virtues. But non-human animals secondarily, in that we cannot measure "goodness" or "badness" in them, with reference to a conception of God, whatsoever. Animals have no goodness according to this frame of mind, they are merely out-grouped and owned like property.

"¢ The originator of the universe and all life

1. The scientifically informed will immediately object to God being the origin of species, as we know that previous species are the origin of species, and have good evidence to suggest that the origin of the earliest species are self-replicating chemical mixtures of non-conscious matter.
2. As for the origin of the universe, the scientific consensus is either big bang or big bounce theory, but even in eternal flux universe theories there is no evidence that any life preceded the universe either temporally or metaphysically, much less life in the instance named "God". There are those who would point out that this lack of evidence does not exclude that possibility, and that God could be, all reputable scientific estimates still standing, be behind it all anyway. This is the kind of "God-set-it-all-in-motion", very nearly deistic view of God, which I would argue actually qualifies as a form of atheism. But any God concept in the modern day that rejects the discoveries of modern empirical science, or simply cannot reconcile itself with them, will and deserves to fall out of favor and popularity.

"¢ Omnipotent or extremely powerful

1. Omnipotency entails a logical contradiction with itself as expressed in the classic question "can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?". This boils down to "can God do something he can't do"?, the necessary answer being "no", but it is still a fitting question. Stupid questions deserve stupid answers and stupid answers, like omnipotence, deserve stupid questions, at least arguably.
2. Omnipotency entails logical contradictions with omnibenevolence and omniscience, namely the problem of evil, expressed most succinctly by Epicurus: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?".

"¢ Omniscient or extremely wise

1. All-knowing is kind of the same as all-seeing when it's conceived by we creatures who rely primarily on our vision. It's this "even when you're alone, you're not alone" feeling that could well be dispensed with. True, in moments of emotional and physical loneliness or misery, it's comforting to think there's a friend beside you even when there's not. But it's not so comforting to think that there's a critical judge, jury, and executioner with you, even when there's not, especially when the crimes you've been told he'll eventually punish you for were victimless.
2. Problem of evil again
3. All-knowing implies certain knowledge of the future, which implies certain knowledge of one's own actions, which implies an inability to change one's mind, which implies a lack of omnipotence. Perhaps this one could be called the problem of divine free will

"¢ Omnipresent or can teleport anywhere almost instantaneously

1. Omnipresense at first just seems like an aspect of omnipotence until you realize that unlike power, presence cannot be potential or kinetic the way power can. Presence either is or is not. If God is necessarily IN everything at all times, then the question is, "is there any more to God than his Inness in everything", and if the answer is no, then you've just redefined God as anything's existence, and you are a pandeist, which I would argue is another form of atheism. If the answer is yes... what specifically more is there?
2. Omnipresence must be distinguished from the ability to be in many places at once, because the later implies that God is capable of "leaving" something or somewhere. If I am "God-forsaken", then I am an without God, which makes me an atheist. Similarly, if you are God-forsaken, then you are without God, and adjectivally atheist, even if you believe in his existence within you mistakenly. Notably, obligatory omnipresence is another logical contradiction with omnipotence, being that God cannot ever leave wherever he is... Let's call it the problem of divine retreat.

"¢ Omnibenevolent or extremely loving

1. Problem of evil again.
2. Problem of hell, which in some theology is a place where God sends you to burn and suffer forever despite the fact that he loves you. The meaning of omnibenevolent is "all-good", not "all-loving", so presumably for these theists, not all suffering is bad and some could be good, even to a loving God.
3. Another logical contradiction with omnipotence, God's inability to do bad things, or be at least partially evil, if he wanted. Let's call it the problem of divine malevolence. This would be inverted in the case of maltheism, an all-bad God who can't be or do good.

"¢ Passive worship encouraged, active emulation discouraged (or impossible)

1. Emulation of God is discouraged today by both how he's been defined and the incredible vanity and pride he's reputed to have. It is literally impossible to emulate omnipresence. Or omnipotence. They are fantastical, storybook traits that are nice to imagine, fun to speculate upon, but offer no model of how men should live their lives.
2. Where emulation is possible, or has been made possible, it's denounced as "replacing God with man", or "playing God". Thus we have objections to cloning, stem cell research, weather-alteration, and a probably a number of other useful things enabled by science.
3. Not only is emulation rendered largely impossible and discouraged, passive worship is encouraged. It is seen as useful to lay dormant for one or more periods everyday and telepathically communicate with someone who may or may not intervene on your behalf in some way unverifiable by casual observation, which is usually the only observation offered when people attribute monumentally positive changes in themselves or their lives to the intervention of God or his minions.

All of the aspects of God that I have just enumerated I view as either useless or counterproductive, so I submit that they should be amended, by whatever processes, to the following:


Reformed conceptions of God (Practical):

"¢ Conditionally existent as any person who acts or is "good".
"¢ The cause and cultivator of some life
"¢ Physically fit, healthy, or possessing great endurance
"¢ Mentally active, knowledgeable, or understanding
"¢ Well-traveled and socially involved
"¢ Charitable and spurns coercion
"¢ Active emulation encouraged, passive worship discouraged

Why These Are Better:

"¢ Conditionally existent as any person who acts or is "good".

This would probably be the hardest to swallow for those accustomed to the modern conception of God, the transition from categorical and always a third party, to conditional and potentially any party. Perhaps it could be likened to the difference between a simile and a metaphor, you can say "I feel like a God" today without being too heretical, but you couldn't say "I am a God" without getting a few suspicious glances directed your way, if you said it with all seriousness.

"¢ The cause and cultivator of some life

That is, they perpetuate that life which they consider beautiful. Whether that manifests itself in settling down and having a happy family, or establishing an animal conservation center of some sort, or planting trees, or helping the poor, or growing a garden, it's all that same basic impulse to promote life over death, ability over inability.

"¢ Physically fit, healthy, or possessing great endurance

They strive for individual power over themselves and resiliency. This can be contrasted with the subjection to absolute power and immutability of the modern fantastical God conception. The object of the practical God conception rejects the present possibility of immortality whilst still striving for it, rejects the possibility of omnipotence whilst still learning to do all they are capable of doing.

"¢ Mentally active, knowledgeable, or understanding

Primarily, they recognize the parameters of this universe. That you do not come back to life after you die, either in paradise or hell, or as some other thing, and that there is no evidence for the modern fantastical conception of God whatsoever. They also enjoy speculating on alternate parameters of fictional universes, playing games, doing puzzles, and becoming knowledgeable in practical subjects of study, like medicine or mechanics or some other trade. This can be contrasted with the all-seeing eye of omnipotent big brother Gods, who know everything about everything already, so that you don't have to bother knowing anything about anything, just pray to your third-party God for the answers.

"¢ Well-traveled and socially involved

They are sociable, cooperative, and generally friendly. This is the reformed version of omnipresence, of course it's not plausible to even aspire to be everywhere at once, but you can aspire to have your name and ideas in as many places as possible, so, there you go.

"¢ Charitable and spurns coercion

They do all within their power to help others reach Godliness as well, which can be attained, relative to the opinion of any observer, by excelling gymnastically, mentally, and socially. They aid the organized prevention of unnecessary suffering and death, whether by fighting world hunger, boycotting the meat industry, or some other pet special interest good.

"¢ Active emulation encouraged, passive worship discouraged

They learn from and teach one another freely, solely for the sake of self-improvement. They don't become prideful and try to make sure that they are the best of their company whom everyone else must submit to, take orders from, envy, or fear. Likewise they don't passively worship, fear, or envy anyone, they are honest and act to improve themselves and their situation.

In summary, I propose we make God the noun form of the adjective "good", in reference to persons, and it might become a useful and contributing conception about the world around us. I suppose this validates the common theist view that atheists just want to "replace God with man", but I would counter that we are instead trying to "realize Gods as the hypothetical role model for men that they properly are!"

 

[mirandansa]

I re-ordered the sequence of the sections of your response for the purpose of clarity. I will elaborate on my contention through 4 basic parts: transcendence, contemplation/meditation, evidence, and atheism.

Take your time.


TRANSCENDENCE

The cosmos is not a deity.

Hence the distinction between "deity" and "divinity" made in the first post of this thread.

As for pantheism, I see no reason to label the cosmos as God. The Universe is amazing enough as it is without trying to deify it and make the awe it inspires religious.

Firstly, "God" is to denote the non-ontological level of transcendence. And please don't strain the philosophical meaning of "transcendence". You should at least understand, for instance, why Kant's unification of rationalism and empiricism is called transcendental. Such a level prevails among our modern intellectual life. People just don't realise it. The transcendental level of the Cosmos is neither objective nor subjective, neither material nor mental. As Kant explained -- and as revealed in recent studies of artificial intelligence i.e. the pattern recognition problem --, physical properties are the very forms of intuition by which the human brain must perceive objects, not fundamental things-in-themselves. Reality is fundamentally non-physical as well as non-ideal; it transcends all modalities (cf. Dawkins on the human frame of reference). Consider also William James' and Bertrand Russell's view of neutral monism.

Secondly, note the holistic nature of the cosmic process. The billions of years of our universe's history has not been a mere collection of changes in physical states; it has been an integrating process of growing in exterior reach and interior depth. For instance, material reach has developed in such a way as:
particles --> atoms --> molecules --> cells --> intelligent life --> society, nation --> global communication and locomotion --> space exploration --> ...
and immaterial depth as:
energy magnitude --> sensorymotor --> nominal, sentential, preoperational, primary, and then concrete cognition --> abstract and then formal cognition --> systematic and then metasystematic cognition --> paradigmatic and then cross-paradigmatic cognition --> ...
Once the Cosmos has grown to self-awareness (as Sagan puts it), it starts to integrate the material and the immaterial through its (various) consciousness (yours, mine, theirs...). An event is no longer necessarily a momentary physical phase but can be retained as a recoverable past (in this sense, cosmology is the Cosmos' own endeavour to recover it's own history through a collection of consciousnesses that it has made possible after billions of years of integrating formulation). This insight is related to panentheism.

When something happens, it doesn't just happen; it happens so as to absolutely determine what is. I'm talking about the absolute condition for the ontic (something or nothing), not the deontic (something or something else). This condition transcends existence and nonexistence.

The Cosmos is not just "amazing". This word quite falls short of denotative competence for the actual profundity to "divine". When i say the Cosmos is divine, i'm not just describing how fantastic the process of the Big Bang or a supernova is. In fact, as i wrote in the first post, i distinguish between "a universe" and "the Cosmos". A universe is a physical entirety, while the Cosmos is the ultimate whole of both the material and the mental, of both objectivity and subjectivity. When i say the Cosmos is divine, i'm also denoting its transcendental level with which it's the case that everything is of the Cosmos.

Don't worry if you don't grasp this for now. It takes continuous contemplation. Which is my next point.




CONTEMPLATION / MEDITATION

'Spirituality' is meaningless. What does the term actually mean? What spirit? If it means a sense of awe or connection with the universe and the feelings it envokes then fine, but 'spirituality' isn't some magical thing that we need to study theology to understand, especially when it's just semantics.

I too have a problem with this term. It's so slippery.

If i use it at all, i use it as people like Sagan and Harris use it. It's not about some magical eternal spirit with memories and personality; it's about cognitive development. The point is: there are objective/material development and subjective/mental development in this world, and practices to help the latter or even the simple affirmation of it is often referred to as "spirituality". Such practices include contemplation and meditation. One of the effects is that the brain becomes more mindful and appreciative of otherwise unnoticed existential nuances and contexts. The mind becomes more aware of the whole of reality and thus less ego-centric, leading to the well-being of the person, as Harris explains. Note that he is a Ph.D. neuroscientist, he knows what he's talking about. Another significant neuroscientist in this field is Francisco Varela.

I consider consciousness a natural phenomenon. Through this, i contemplate various readily-verifiable natural things, events, processes, relations etc. At a certain point, i start to perceive sacredness about them. They start to appear holy in divine stillness. It's neither happiness nor sadness, but pure mindfulness. Yes, this cognitive experience can be explained in terms of electrochemical reactions in the brain, but so what? The important part is the quality, the thing which is as much part of the Cosmos as the electrochemical reactions.

So you've arbitraily decided things are sacred and 'holy in devine stillness'?

You misunderstood what i meant by "contemplate". The ensuing perception is spontaneous, not arbitrary. Suppose you are playing with puzzle pieces...

You don't get as much pleasure from each individual piece's segmented image as when they are presented as a whole. And you don't really "arbitrarily decide" the nature of pleasure that the whole of the puzzle pieces makes possible for you. If the whole of the picture is pleasurable, it's just pleasurable, spontaneously. The same for spirituality. Through contemplation and meditation, you gather and amplify sense-data and then try to capture its entirety, concentrating on its actuality (now-ness, this-ness), on its immediacy and undividedness. Eventually, the holistic non-dual content of the awareness arises naturally, like the image of a completed puzzle.

What bearing does this have on reality?

Reality is represented through two basic modalities: objectivity and subjectivity. Your subjective experiences are part of reality. When you feel sad, the feeling is not unreal. Your feeling represents what the Cosmos locally is.

I mentioned them to give you a hint of the subject's nonstupidness.

Still an appeal to authority. Just because Einstein thought in a certain way doesn't mean it's correct or valid. Or nonstupid.

I testify to his correctness.

I don't care because those views are irrelevant to anyone other than the people holding them.

Every conscious being has the potential to develop their awareness. Other people's views may be "irrelevant" to you, but the mechanism for cognitive development is relevant to all humans.


"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge."
(Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994)




EVIDENCE

Until any theistic claim can be backed up objectively and evidentially I will not accept those claims.

Evidence is important, yes. Equally important is that the evidence for pantheism/panentheism/spirituality/... comes through subjective experience. Sometimes a discovery takes your own consciousness' active involvement and direct experience. Don't expect you'll know all kinds of nuances of the Cosmos by being passive, by waiting for someone to present quantified data for you. The Cosmos is made not only of quantity but also quality. And quality manifests only through subjective experience.

if you can show me any evidence of any theistic claim being correct then I will jump on board.

Consider this...

TJ: "I perceive a certain aesthetic value in Marilyn Manson's music."

Is TJ "correct" about the fact that he has this perception? Should he "prove" the above statement? Should his aesthetic stance be "objectively proven"?

Now this...

M: "I perceive a certain divine quality about the reality of the Cosmos."

Is M "correct" about the fact that M has this perception? Should M "prove" the above statement? Should M's theistic stance be "objectively proven"?

Your challenge is as misguided as ShockofGod's. SoG fallaciously reduces atheism to specifically "strong" atheism (namely positive atheism, which makes an objectivity-oriented claim that there is no god); you fallaciously reduce theism to specifically "strong" theism (namely monotheism and polytheism, which makes an objectivity-oriented claim that there is one supernatural and personal god).

Right, that's the level of your understanding of theism.

No, that's my level of interest in unevidenced claims.

And you have decided that it's not worthy of investigation. This will leave you unlearned in the actual perspective of non-supernatural theos/god, limiting your understanding of theism. Again, if you are not interested in theism, you don't need to learn it. But if you are to profess yourself as an a-theist, you'd better learn it, through the 1st-person method (actively observing with your own consciousness), not the 3rd-person method (passively waiting for pantheists etc. to "prove" the accuracy of their subjective perceptions for you).

I really don't want to address theism as anything other than subjective until any claim made by any theist ever can be evidenced. It's of little interest to me to dance around blind assertions, semantics and appeals to emotion/consequence/ignorance.

Up to you.




ATHEISM

That's how i kept calling myself an atheist for several years. Then i realised that "atheism" and "theism" have inherent ambiguity.

Atheism = lack of belief in claims of gods. Theism = acceptance of claims of gods. Not very ambiguous from where I'm sitting.

Right, what if one rejects the Islamic claim of god on one hand and accepts the Christian claim of god on the other hand? According to your definition above, this person would be both an atheist and a theist.

Sure, theism and atheism are semantically mutually exclusive. But they are instrumentally ambiguous. As labels -- as nominal instruments --, they can easily overlap in describing a person's mind.

That he has encouraged people to be skeptical is a good thing however he is almost universally refering to monotheism and the Abrahamic faiths, he even states so himself in The God Delusion.

... which proves my point that his criticism of theism is less than being comprehensive. That itself is not the problem, though. Abrahamic monotheism can doubtless be more harmful than other forms of theism, and Dawkins did not err in prioritising such monotheism as the target of his criticism. The problem is that people, particularly on YouTube, haven't been making a good follow-up to where these authors left off. There is more to theism than just a magical sky-daddy, but i don't see those major YouTube atheists tackling the more profound theological subjects. If they are not so seriously interested in theism, that's fine; but then what's with the label "atheism"? If the topic of theism is so important for them to the point of feeling the need to explicitly advocate atheism, then they should discuss theism extensively. If their complaint is about specifically monotheism or creationism, then they should call themselves specifically an amonotheist or acreationist.

Think about it. Person A loves Grunge Rock, and person B hates Emo Rock. B, somehow, decided that he should call himself an a-Rock, which denotes his rejection of Rock altogether.
A asks B: "So you reject Rock? You don't like Grunge Rock too?"
B: "Well, I don't know much about Grunge Rock. I'm not sure. I don't care. I reject Rock anyway."
A: "Altogether?"
B: "I mean, Emo Rock sucks. So I reject Rock. I'm an a-Rock."

This is what you are doing when you say "I'm an atheist and I don't care what theism has to say about god".

Theism is a set of different claims reguarding god or gods, whatever those claims are. I don't buy any of them.

If you are willing to be constructive in the theist/atheist discussion, you would have to explore theism extensively. If you aren't so willing, then you aren't respecting the mutuality of dialogue set out by your calling yourself an atheist in the first place.

Debunking creationism is a good thing. However, if you keep associating "God" with "Creator" with no critical annotation, uninformed audience would start to have the erroneous impression that a supernatural "Creator" is all there is to what theism can postulate as "theos/God". Then they might think:

debunk "Creator" --> no evidence for "Creator" --> no reason to embrace theism --> I'm an atheist!

This would be a mistake from ignorance.

Creationsists assert God as a creator therefore to debunk creationism you must work with the premise that God is a creator, or atleast the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is, seeing as it is these faiths that are pretty much the bulk of mainstream creationism. There's no point addressing a 'non creator god' in this context because the people you're refuting ARE asserting god as a creator.

You quite missed my point there. The problem is not how Creationists define their god but how the refuter concludes after having debunked Creationism. Think about it. Creationist A argues that Yahweh created the Universe 6000 years ago; rational thinker B debates A; it then turns out that A's argument for his supernatural Creator is false. What has B just debunked here? Theism itself? No. Young-Earth Creationism. So, it would be a mistake if B then concludes that "there is no reason to embrace theism" and that she can call herself an "atheist" on that account.

And it's the same with less supernaturalistic claims such as the Kalam argument that argues for a monotheistic or deistic Creator as the First Cause, which does not hypernymically represent all notions of god in theism. So, it would be a mistake if one debunks Kalam and then considers it a refutation of theism per se. Rejection of monotheism or deism alone does not make you an atheist per se.

So be it. You claim you are completely an atheist. At the same time, you haven't properly examined the areas of theism which might as well affect this self-labelling of yours. I did examine it, and that's how i came to do away with the nominal adherence to atheism

.
Strawman. I've never said I've not properly examined anything. I claimed not to care. Apathy =/= ignorance. Just because I don't care about something doesn't mean I am ignorant of the subject.

In your case, you don't care + don't know. You don't care what pantheism and panentheism are, and you don't know what pantheists and panentheists mean by God.




MISC.

Dawkins can endorse who or what he likes, it doesn't matter. He is not King Atheist, he is just one man with an opinion.

It matters because there are people who don't think for themselves. Look at those fanatic atheists attacking Coughlan for criticising Condell's videos. Coughlan provided substantial evidence to reveal Condell's hypocrisy; in the face of that, however, the fanatics refuse to rethink, avoiding disturbance to their tribalistic adherence.

 

[australopithecus]

Any chance of a tl;dr version? I have no desire to trawl through a wall of text.

 

[mirandansa]

Any chance of a tl;dr version? I have no desire to trawl through a wall of text.

I said take your time. This isn't an ordinary conversation.

If you don't like reading, you could start by watching and listening...

Alan Watts explains the difference between the Western and Eastern notions of God, with Tao as an example:



What is pure, non-dual experience:

 

[Prolescum]

waffle.

Although your definitions may seem cromulent to you, I assure you they're hilarious to me.

 

[mirandansa]

I assure you they're hilarious to me.

You already assured me that.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Any chance of a tl;dr version? I have no desire to trawl through a wall of text.

Don't bother, its just mirandasa playing semantics with theist and atheist, then using her(?) spurious assertions to leap to even more ludicrous conclusions. Basically, "transcendence" is neither of thought nor material, and every theist is an atheist unless they accept all gods and how we should transcend existence. Also, she(?) draws a distinction between cosmos and universe, one of course as this "transcendent" thing. Just lots of playing with words and even more pot. This post isn't intelligible enough to warrant a response other than, "so what?" Mirandasa, I've been looking at your posts for some time now, but this one was the worst yet. I don't know how you managed to think up this colossal waste, or how you convinced yourself of it, but it isn't convincing form the outside. You seem to just be sticking words where they don't belong and drawing meaning from them. It isn't that Prole and Austrolopithecus do not understand, it is that it is illogical. SO, my question to you is, what is the point of all this? All the semantic posturing and "transcendence", what is the use in it?

 

[mirandansa]

Basically, "transcendence" is neither of thought nor material,

Right.

and every theist is an atheist unless they accept all gods and how we should transcend existence.

No. You are confusing a cognitive output (i.e. a thought) with the executive system (i.e. "the person").

A thought is theistic if it adopts a form of theism, be it monotheism or pantheism etc.
A thought is atheistic if it rejects a form of theism, be it monotheism or pantheism etc.

A person's mind consists of not only one thought but multiple thoughts contingent upon occasions of information, problems, dialogue, etc. It's very much possible that a person be considered both theistic and atheistic due to the multiplex nature of the mind. These labels are semantically distinct but instrumentally ambiguous, because the God concept is inherently ambiguous; the relationship between a person and theism can vary. For this reason, we cannot always meaningfully judge on the dichotomy of theism/atheism for a person, for the mind, for the executive system itself. What we usually refer to as "a person", as a thinker, is actually a cognitive system, and no cognitive system itself is truly a theist or atheist; it's the system's components that are either theistic or atheistic. When Christians say "We are theists", they are referring to an instance of thought, not the entire personal system of it, which may as well includes atheistic thoughts in relation to Islam etc; the entire system is neither a theist nor an atheist.

This post isn't intelligible enough to warrant a response other than, "so what?"

If you profess yourself to be an atheist, you must be ready to critically address what theism encompasses. If you are not up to do that -- if you are not willing to examine theism extensively --, there is no reason for you to explicitly attach yourself to the banner of atheism. This is one of my points.

a distinction between cosmos and universe, one of course as this "transcendent" thing.

There is no transcendent thing. Transcendence is not a thing, not an ontological item.

Mirandasa, I've been looking at your posts for some time now, but this one was the worst yet. I don't know how you managed to think up this colossal waste, or how you convinced yourself of it, but it isn't convincing form the outside. You seem to just be sticking words where they don't belong and drawing meaning from them. It isn't that Prole and Austrolopithecus do not understand, it is that it is illogical.

Logic is an aspect of reality, not what reality itself is. Reason is the harmony between thought and reality, not what reality itself is. The Cosmos as the whole of reality transcends logic and reason, and the transcendence is not a thing in the first place. My attempt has been to infer transcendence through language.

SO, my question to you is, what is the point of all this? All the semantic posturing and "transcendence", what is the use in it?

Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something can be said. [...] There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
Wittgenstein