It’s not that I’m agnostic, at least not about that any more than anything else. But being willing to consider new evidence is not how I think of agnosticism.

I’m a religious figuratist.

Going by the evidence currently available to me, I’m as completely convinced as I am of anything, that God is a personification of the entirety of reality, which surely exists, if anything does.

So the question then becomes “What is reality’s nature?” Well, I leave that up to the scientists to figure out. They have scratched the surface. The rest, remains a mystery.

Thanks for asking.

@skado

The pleasure is all ours to share.

I concur with your opinion on the source of reality although I'd add a splash of sardonicism, that the spin owes a lot to pantheism, uno "the god you have when you're not having a god", to which this ad refers.

@Polemicist
I don’t know that I was commenting on the source of reality, but it is straight-up pantheism, or at least one of the pantheisms. That much is certainly not original with me. But the “spin” that I add to it (whether I am the first to do so or not) is that, in this case, the veggie-burger is what the fundies are offering. It’s reality that has the beef.

And…

That that was the original intent, before the decay of popular misunderstanding set in.

@skado

Mythos was attributed to logos long before the pyramids, to say nothing of spin owes a / spinoza asteismus.

Is not the unfolding universe both the reality and the source of the reality?

Theists whopperly put filet de boeuf et trois legumes on the menu but the métier of atheists is elsewhere.

Gotta love Dali!

I was taught the same thing. Then I started looking into it for myself. I was very surprised by what I found.

The statement “I don’t believe in “X” is a meaningless statement unless “X” is specified. And when (pick any word) has multiple possible meanings, just plugging that word into the statement in the place of “X” still comprises a non-statement.

If believing that ‘the only true and proper definition of a god is a literal person in the sky’ is what makes a believer a fundamentalist, then it is no less a fundamentalist position for the non-believer who uses the same definition. They both proceed from the same understanding of what an ostensible god is.

I’m really not aware of any significant (read: dangerous) faction of society that consistently separates religious literalism from “tradition, populism, prejudice and unfalsifiable evidence-free thinking”. Seems to me they are nearly always found together.

The people who consciously recognize the critical value of symbolic narrative to the enterprise of human flourishing are much more likely to be the eggheads and academics, who, though far from monolithic in their views, are the least likely to be bound to mindless tradition. They are not only not a threat, they are often the ones offering viable solutions to the threat of outmoded thinking.

I’m calling your non-literalist traditionalist a strawman. I’ve never seen one in it’s natural habitat or in a museum. And if not in fact a totally imaginary being itself, it’s certainly not related to, or resembling in any way, any view I hold or have ever promoted.

Believing that a literal god and a malevolent figurative one are the only two possibilities doesn’t make anyone a fundamentalist. It makes them a scientist who’s willfully blind in one eye. But if fancying yourself as one makes you proud, you might be in good company there.

@KateOahu
Why does it matter - fair question. Because such a fundamental (if I dare use the word) error of perception on either side is the seed of untold mountains of conflict, much of which is deadly, and all of which is unnecessary. The old adage "What if they threw a war and nobody came?" comes to mind. There can be no war without at least two sides. Fighting with fundamentalists is unproductive.

To lean on another old saying, "You can't reason a person out of a position they were never reasoned into”. I try to reason with atheists because they have at least demonstrated some capacity for it. Unless they are fundy atheists, in which case, they are as locked into their unfounded worldviews as tightly and unthinkingly as any Bible thumper. And another reason is...

I just can't bear the irony of a community of individuals who bash and trash another group of fellow humans based on the claim that those humans are not rooted in reality, when the bashers themselves are equally resistant to science they don't like.
(And, clearly, I have nothing better to do!)

Regarding Dillahunty, was there any doubt in your mind that his definition of God was a literal one? I can't recall a more illustrative example.

@KateOahu
Did you mean atheist rant?

Sounds like I may not have gotten my point across yet.

I don’t think I’ve said anything about how God looks. I’m talking about what God is. What category of phenomena is it? An all-powerful intelligent being, or a literary metaphor for the natural universe? or something else? If I were an alien from another planet, and asked you what you were talking about when you speak of God, what would you tell me?

@skado No . Firstly. If believing that "the only true and proper definition of a god is a literal person in the sky’ is what makes a believer a fundamentalist," then opposing that does not make an atheist a fundamentalist, quite the opposite, it makes them an opposer of fundamentalism. As I said there are no sub -sets of the nil position, only selections of the things to which it is addressed.

The simple logic being that if I say I do not like pears, then that does not say anything about whether I like apples or not, nor does it say that I do not believe apples exist. So being opposed to fundamentalists does not make a person automatically opposed to cultural religion. ( I think they should be but that is not their position, that is mine. )

Secondly. The none literalist is certainly no strawman. You may not be. "aware of any significant (read: dangerous) faction of society that consistently separates religious literalism from “tradition, populism, prejudice and unfalsifiable evidence-free thinking” " Well that may just be an American local case, because I am aware of many, my country is full of them, and not only that but the person I am addressing now repeatedly tells me that he is one. Albeit leaving out the "dangerous" bit. Are you telling me that you do not exist ?

@KateOahu
What would you expect it to be.

@Fernapple
The question of what to call atheists whose idea of 'what God is' is the same as that of theists... is just a matter of perspective, not a matter of any verifiable fact. So call them what you like, and I will call them what I like. But for the sake of explaining my choice...

Yes, "...selections of the things to which it is addressed." When most atheists speak of not believing in any gods, whether they realize it or not, they are most often (always, in my experience) referring to literal gods. They have selected, consciously or otherwise, only the fundamentalist god to which to address their non-belief. So they are fundamentalist, non-believers. Of course, no atheist will be comfortable with that, but it is a possible, legitimate, linguistic construction, and it is useful because it helps to reveal a truth that very few people, atheist or otherwise, are fully cognizant of, that other selections are available.

I'm not saying that "Fundy Atheists" are atheists who really believe in a literal god. I'm saying the god they don't believe in is the same one the "Fundy Theists" do believe in. It is that conception of God that they have in common.

The nil position you speak of is relative to belief in the existence of a literal-only god.
But believing that literal gods are the only kind of god is a form of fundamentalism. It is accepting the fundamentalists’ definition of what a god is, and that’s what makes it a fundamentalist position. It is a position relative to the belief in only literal gods. So it is a literalist position. I have never met an atheist who claims that metaphor, or even god metaphors, don't exist. The fact that metaphor exists is self-evident to all. It needs no "proof" and engenders no belief or disbelief.

And yet again, you change my words, and then tear down the change, as if it were mine. That’s classic straw.

My words were: non-literalist traditionalist.
I italicized them in the original to show they belonged together.
“Non-literalist” is the adjective that modifies the noun, “traditionalist”.

My point was that I don’t see those two occurring together in the same person, and they most certainly don’t occur together in me.

You transposed the adjective, “non-literalist” to the position of noun, and then proceeded as if that was my formation.

It was not.

It is your putting those two concepts together that I am calling out as a fabrication.
If that combination exists in your country… well… condolences… but I’ve not been able to detect it in any of the material that reaches me from your fair land. And I certainly don’t experience it in mine. If your country is "full of them" I bet at least one of them has written something or filmed something that has found its way onto the internet, so please send a link to show me what you are talking about, if I have misunderstood.

Yes, I’m a non-literalist when it comes to religious interpretation, but I’m no kind of traditionalist, at least as regards the type you characterize as adhering to “tradition, populism, prejudice and unfalsifiable evidence-free thinking”.

The reason you classify me with them may be that there is no place in your worldview for my actual position.

You will not understand anything I say until you create that category in your understanding. For our purposes here, we could call that category non-literalist non-traditionalist. Or, if we are trading nouns for adjectives, and stating it in the positive frame, progressive figuratist.

Progressive in that I am not saying that we should return to some presumed golden age, simply because I can discern some value in real generational wisdom. Rather, I would recommend separating that hard-won wisdom from the barnacles of populism it has accumulated, and make it accessible to present and future generations.

@skado Yes I am well aware of all of that. I do know and accept that most atheists are addressing a literal god when they use the god term, that taking about words like fundamentalism are only arguments about usages of words, all of that is agreed. Indeed I could not agree more, that is what I said myself. Indeed it was my whole point from the beginning.

Once again you are dodging my point by claiming to misunderstand it. At no time did I say that the two exist in the same person, indeed my whole point was that the two are quite separate. And that therefore when atheists address a quite literal god, they are quite entitled to do so without the issue of a none literal god, even being considered. (The apples and pears metaphor, which I made quite early, and should have made my point quite clear. )

My point however is. That while non literal gods are quite different from literal ones, they are still able to do, and are observable to do, most of the same sort of harm. Which is what I observe in my country. And that while atheists are concerned only with the issue of literal gods, by the nature of atheism, they, and any other caring and thinking person, would be well advised to not ignore the dangers of non literal belief.

These are very simple ideas , which I believe I expressed quite plainly. Yet you accuse me of straw-manning the issues. Yet you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting my points, and ignoring everything I said, to the point almost reaching that of the argument from ignorance fallacy. Be very wary though, since that fallacy is a very dangerous route to take in debate, since it can leave the user simply looking stupid or dishonest.

You can not ever really separate, " that hard-won wisdom from the barnacles of populism it has accumulated," firstly, because the two are far too deeply entwined. Yet far more because the pearls of wisdom are few, among much dross, and often prove to be trite, shallow and banal, and easily reached by modern unassisted thinking, without the evil baggage accumulated during the past anyway.

And because you are bound to be fighting against one of the most powerful of all human drives, the wish to have your ideas and especially prejudices supported by greater authority. Which is not that hard to find from evidence, nature and reason, if you which to support something true or moral. But which is very hard for the criminal, anti-social and would be promoter of untruth to find. Which is why they naturally are drawn to religion, especially the none literal kind, because the wealth of tradition, accumulated prejudice, and freedom for interpretation found there, without any need for checks, is just too tempting a prize.

To attempt to redeem religion, especially none literal religion from the criminal, and criminality, would be a fight just too great, since the none criminal have little interest in it any longer, while it increasingly attracts the criminal. The prize it offers of indulging in total relativism of thought and action, yet offing the illusion of great authority, relativism posing as absolute objective truth, ( Whether you believe in objective truth or relativism, that is surely the worst of both world. ) is just far too tempting to the criminal.

@Fernapple
If I’ve misunderstood your words (a total possibility) I’d like to understand where and how. Please help me out.

Sometimes, when multiple points are made in a post, points can get muddled, so let’s just deal with one at a time.

In the following two paragraphs it appears to me that you are suggesting that, somewhere, somebody is both a non-literalist and a traditionalist.

“Even if that false authority derives only from an exaggerated respect for things like tradition… rather than the belief in the imagined wisdom of literal gods.”

“If there are no literal gods, then most, ( not all ) of the harms of religion, only ever came from tradition… anyway. And people will still do harm… in the name of those hollow god projections, the empty image of gods, nearly as much as for any supposed literal gods.”

But now you say:
“At no time did I say that the two exist in the same person, indeed my whole point was that the two are quite separate.”

But then you go back to speaking as if non-literalism and traditionalism are occurring somewhere together in your country:
“My point however is. That while non literal gods are quite different from literal ones, they are still able to do, and are observable to do, most of the same sort of harm. Which is what I observe in my country.”

What have I misunderstood?

@skado Sorry I have misunderstood yes. When you said, " in the same person, " I thought that you meant, both literalists and none literalists, not traditionalist. Though in fact I would think that it would be very easy to be both a traditionalist and a non literalist, since tradition is one of the pseudo-gods that it is easy to retain a belief in after you abandon literal gods.

Indeed in Jewish culture, it is common to describe many atheists, as culturally Jewish and/or in the atheists Jewish tradition.

Ps. I think that we may also be using different meanings of the word traditional. Since I think that you mean a literal believer, by traditionalist. Where I mean someone who does not literally believe anymore, but who still attends to the cultural tradition. ( This is why usages are important. )