Maybe, what isn't the statement conveying that would be needed for you to understand?
Atheist Realism?
- Thread starter ronan
- Start date
Maybe, what isn't the statement conveying that would be needed for you to understand?
I wasn't aware that was a valid theist perspective - I'll take your word for it though.
It is however a very unusual theist perspective - most xtians, muslims etc etc are very firmly of the view that only their religion is the correct one and all other non beleivers are wrong and will be punished.
If god constitutes reality as you beleive, and if all religions essentially boil down to the same fundamental truth about god, why is there not some kind of shared experience or knowledge of god across cultures, and even across species, like in so many other aspects of reality?
Why in fact is it the complete contrary to that with religion experience, dogma, beleif etc, in fact so culturaly singular, and so (apparently) species specific?
My bad - sorry - although it doesn't transform my argument against your point.
which is (I repeat):
If god constitutes reality as you beleive, and if all religions essentially boil down to the same fundamental truth about god, why is there not some kind of shared experience or knowledge of god across cultures, and even across species, like in so many other aspects of reality?
Why in fact is it the complete contrary to that with religion experience, dogma, beleif etc, in fact so culturaly singular, and so (apparently) species specific?
presence where?
Take a look at some Hindu philosophy that talk about Brahman.
I think you confuse moral laws didacted by religious institutions and belief that arise from teachers such as Jesus (in some interpretations and texts), Krishna ... or mystics such as Meister Eckhart and St. Augustine in the christian world and many sufis in the islamic world and yet more in the Hindu world. They often describe god as the encompassing reality, the "one" (even if it can probably be interpreted differently, the point is that it is a not so uncommon belief for theist)
The teachings across culture have similarities concerning this oneness.
Instead of fighting atheist and theist should work together to avoid manipulation by institutions (being scientific or religious (if there is any difference ;-) => another debate ).
'Where' in human terms refers to a cross section of 4-dimensional space. The concept of 'where' might not apply to reality itself. For example, if m-theory is on the right track then the root of all reality is Calibi Yao space. While objects such as branes (universes) can have a location in a Calibi Yao, the Calibi Yao itself has no container as there is no 'outside' of it (a concept that wouldn't apply).
Hinduism is unusal compared to many religions as it seems more of a mix of pantheism, monotheism, and polytheism - at least as I understand it from my krishna devotee friend - its the exception that proves the rule.
Christian, judaist, and muslim teachers may well describe god as an encompassing reality - but its always their encompassing reality - not any other religion's and that's the point - god as an encompassing reality wouldn't insist that all other religions were wrong - wouldn't preach that all other beleivers will be punished in the next life, or should be persecuted in this life - it would, by your own admission, be a self evident truth that can be distilled from each religion - even by atheists - it isn't, therefore god does not equal reality - indeed existence of atheists alone kind of proves the point.
That doesn't mean god might not be something else of course.
Agreed, but you started it Nyeaaahhh!!
Last edited:
I am referring to units of difference that exist. What those units are is anybody's guess.
So for you the deep "I" is part of what you call objectivereality and the "I" which is made of of your experience is part of what you call subjective reality, is that right?
Hindusim is far from being an exception
and as I told you, do not confuse religious institution and personal belief.
It is their encompassing reality because they often grow in an environment where we educate them to defend their community but when you see most of the mystic and teacher, they were often open to other religion seeing in them a common basis.
I told you that is was not my intention, (anyway we should not fight over this and in fact my critic was general, it was not addresses to you personally)Agreed, but you started it Nyeaaahhh!!
I challenge as well theist whose statement I felt invalid with argument to support my claim. But this thread was about atheist.
Last edited:
Do you want to say that we cannot know what the difference are?
Don't you think that differences are always relative to a background?
What would be the background in this case?
I didn't think hinduism really had a religious institution - with the exception of something like ISKON perhaps.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on it - I have a very old friend who's a krishna devotee (a relatively recent convert) - but we don't really discuss it in detail - we mostly just play blues (me badly - him sickenly well) together.
But more often they're not - read a history book sometime - in fact a newspaper will do - that's the point - no shared reality - god therefore does not equal reality
I didn't think we were fighting
yes.,but only objective to a certain extent,ie.what might seem bright to me would not seem bright to a partially sighted person.
When I was talking about your confusion between religious belief (theism) and institution I was referring to your talk about islam and christianity where you were talking about punishment... (I should have put a space)
Do not use this kind of remark it does not help, give arguments, and strong one, if you want to continue having a debate.
No shared reality between institution, not between teacher, sufi, mystic... who are the creator of religion but they are not the one who sustain it and they are not the one who create institution. The one who creates religion are often not anymore connected to what the teachers say (often we are not even sure to what they say).
The claim was not that god is reality.
It was that if we consider god to be equal to what realist refers to when they talk about reality, namely Kant's noumena, then it follows that atheist (who agree with this view) and theist(who agree with this view) share a common view of god/reality.
The second claim when we started to study religion and history was that the view that god is the encompassing reality (Kant's noumena) is shared by many mystic, teachers of religious movement who are themselves theist as well as many of their followers
I don't follow the argument. You're just substituting a word with a given meaning with a completely different word with a completely different meaning. Can't say I see the value in it.
If you really want to you can call a tennis racket 'god' - that is your right, but I don't see where there's any worthwhile discussion in it.
Did you read the thread?
For many theist god is what Kant's noumena is , namely an ineffable reality. That i not just replacing a word by another, it is to show that in some case when people use the word god they are in fact referring to the same thing that other people refer to when using the word "reality"
What are the objects that are inside what you call objective reality?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Anything.