Most theists think of reality as material, not as God. That's more pantheism. Many theists even think of the afterlife and heaven as material.
Atheist Realism?
- Thread starter ronan
- Start date
We already talk about that, it is not true. There are many mystic that believe in a all encompassing god , call it pantheist if you want but it is still god for them
now if you saw my last post I am finnaly agreeing with you that even the theist and atheist I was talking are different because theists believe in a reality that is conscious while atheists do not
But before, (because I believed they were referring to the same thing when using the word reality (for atheist) and god (for theist):
atheist (again the one I was talking) BELIEVE in reality/god
theist (again the one I was talking) BELIEVE in reality/god
You see there is NO NEGATION OF BELIEF here so the "a" of "a"theist should not be there.
That's not a big deal
In fact rethinking now:
imagine an extraterrestrial civilization (who have a view of reality different from atheist/realist from earth and that believe that they do not believe in god (god being what their past religions were talking about)) coming to hear about the different believes on earth, they would probably put both atheist/realist and all theists in the same class: theist
Why? Because they realize that earth belief does not match their belief of reality and for them what is not their reality is god (old naive view of their past religion)
the sticking point is that i do not see reality and god as in any way related.as i explained in my previous post i accept that only a "god like" creature could experience objective reality.
this has no bearing on the nature of reality itself.
reality is not a being.god,pretty much by definition...is.
im pretty drunk so i might revise this in the morning.
Errr ... "baggage" connotation as in "religious". IOW The word god carries religious baggage and cannot be equated to the word realist, which has no such religious baggage.
why you keep thinking about only one god, there are many different god according to different culture and people, please read again the thread, I am talking about a specific god
"dog" has an english baggage, "chien" has a french baggage, but maybe they have the same referent
be open to other culture/belief/language is to recognize that word in one can be the same as another word in other, but anyway if you read the thread, I agreed now that the one who call themselves atheist (at least the one who believe in a reality behind their perceptions) believe in an unconscious reality/god, while the theist I was talking are believing in conscious god/reality.
So they are not talking about the same thing
But as I said for a closed minded extraterrestrial being who believe he is an atheist who share different belief about what is god could put human atheists an theists in the same class (the class of believer in some thing that does not match what for them is reality) while you atheist will say that the Extraterrestrial Being believe in another reality or maybe in another god (Depending of your openness)
ok.,but i will go out on a limb and say that when 99.9999% of theists talk about god,they are talking about a sentient being.you are not.
i have had a similiar arguement before with one of my friends who thought he was a theist but when i asked him what he thought god was he said "love" (after about 30 mins)
Did you read all my post ???
You should read before posting, that is not nice otherwise.
Please come back when you ll read my older post
I told you that I agree that I am not believing what your belief is
Just see that:
That' s a good question, in fact how can consciousness arise from something that is not conscious?
I think the arguments from Nagel, Chalmers, Jackson seems to say that it is not possible
So I would say yes (I am expecting lot's of "It is nonsense!"
Ok I cannot imagine one theist that does not believe that god is not conscious. So I agree now: all of you (I mean the one who recognize themselves here) finally are not theist because as I said for the stone (in one post about pagan view), if consciousness is a property of god and that some people believe in a reality without this property they are not talking about the same thing.
Sorry for all this debate, I realize my mistake. But I think we get a better insight about the divide between atheist and theist (at least the kind we were talking (at least me
The belief in the consciousness of reality/ god would be a criteria of beign a theist or not
But now, with the argument of Chalmers, Nagel and Jackson, I would say that theist (of the kind I am talking) have strong argument in their favor
The credibility is the same for atheist who believe in the existence of reality behind our senses which is quite credible
But do not forget that:
"imagine an extraterrestrial civilization (who have a view of reality different from atheist/realist from earth and that believe that they do not believe in god (god being what their past religions were talking about)) coming to hear about the different believes on earth, they would probably put both atheist/realist and all theists in the same class: theist
Why? Because they realize that earth belief does not match their belief of reality and for them what is not their reality is god (old naive view of their past religion)"
that is exactly the same arguement except you are using aliens instead of me.
Why? Because they realize that earth belief does not match their belief of reality and for them what is not their reality is god (old naive view of their past religion)"
that is exactly the same arguement except you are using aliens instead of me.
so it is not the same, that is the point
ET makes the thing more objective:
there is no objective way to say that someone is not a believer in god except if he believe in nothing (but many atheists believe in something they call reality that for most of them is not perceivable directly and that is unconscious...)
Most certainly not.
You know my formal definition and the informal one would be "everything that exists".
I don't know what you mean. Perception is a combination of sensory input and brain processing of the input.
Ok
But that does not say anything, my question was what exists?
You assume that perception is a combination of sensory input adn brain processing but they are also perceptions!
Do not forget that maybe you are a butterfly dreaming that you are a human (Chuang Tzu)
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I'm sorry..
I did read the thread, but I was just disagreeing with your use of words there.
I know you don't want to learn the language of some theists but you should rethink again else I would say that is really close-minded.
Also as I said now, I agree theist and atheist differ in the sense that for atheist (the Kantians) their god is unconscious
while for theist (the one I am talking) god is conscious.the word "god" can be exchanged by the word "reality" if you prefer, it does not change the meaning
I am taking the atheist close-minded extraterrestrial point of view (who believe like many atheists here that the reality they belief is not god (which they believe to be some fantasy) while they believe that believer in other reality are theist (because they believe in a fantasy)You should see now why atheist should be applicable only to skeptic like Hume that does not even believe in the existence of a reality behind our sense
While other who believe in a reality behind the sense should be call theist
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I know you don't want to learn the language of some theists but you should rethink again else I would say that is really close-minded.
Also as I said now, I agree theist and atheist differ in the sense that for atheist (the Kantians) their god is unconscious
the word "god" can be exchanged by the word "reality" if you prefer, it does not change the meaning
You should see now why atheist should be applicable only to skeptic like Hume that does not even believe in the existence of a reality behind our sense
While other who believe in a reality behind the sense should be call theist
I definitely do not agree.
Besides, I object to your insistence on using those words because it leaves me guessing at what it precisely is that you believe in.
You say 'God' is exchangeable for 'reality', but I don't know whether you hold my concept of reality or not, or God for that matter.
It is confusing.
Information which equals units of difference. If your question is what those units are then I don't know.
It's not an assumption. Take away either and perception isn't possible.
That's not a possibility let alone a probability.
Do you want to say that we cannot know or that it is just that currently we don't know?
It is an assumption!
perception is there, it come from somewhere but you cannot know that you have a brain, you are maybe as I said a another being that dream to be a human
For senses It is debatable, and I can agree that we recognize 5 senses in our experiences but to say that they come from what we recognize as eyes, ears... and brain it is an assumption
That is a possibility for sure!
It means that you cannot know that what you are saying is real, you are maybe dreaming, or maybe you are in a matrix or anything else. It is a logical argument that you need to prove to be wrong if you want to say that what you see is real.
To resume:
I believe in a conscious reality that I call "god"
You believe in a unconscious god that you call "reality" (or "objective reality")
You would probably prefer this following version though:
I believe in a conscious god
You believe in a unconscious reality
and to match better your language I would say:
I believe in a conscious reality
Maybe you also believe in a conscious reality?
Please consider the argument from Nagel, JAckson and Chalmers
It seems very difficult (if not impossible) that a unconscious reality can give rise to consciousness.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ok, thank you
I had no way of knowing whether you were calling God 'reality', or reality 'God'.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
You do not believe in any conventional sort of God, but rather you believe reality is somehow conscious. Correct ?
I'm guessing you don't mean in the same way as, for instance, humans are ?
To answer you question: I do not believe that, apart from certain life forms, reality is conscious.
Having said that, consciousness is, imo, nothing more than the sum of complex biological and electrical processes in the brain.
Perhaps I don't believe in your concept of consciousness all together.
I feel the concept of consciousness is rather insignificant when discussing reality in this sense.