Don't limit yourself. — Harry Hindu

Using a more precise and specific term – "anti-supernatural" in this case – is no more limiting (imo) than using a better, perhaps the best, tool for the job.

Is it not relevant in a thread discussing religion and metaphysics to assert that religion is a type of delusion?

I didn't say or imply "delusional" is not "relevant" in this context but that it's too broad and psychologistic rather than a precise and metaphysical term like supernaturalistic.

And does this assertion provide a non-dual "bridging" between theism and atheism ...?

No. Atheism, as I've pointed out up-thread (p. 2), implies nonduality by rejecting theism which consists of (e.g. creator-creation, spirit-flesh, supernatural-nature) duality.

Would the answer to the thread's question ...?

I suppose that depends on how one answers ... which thread question? :chin:
.

I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. I am aware that there have been many debates on the topic on the forum. Also, there are various philosophical positions, including substance dualism and deism, so it is a complicated area. Here, in this thread, I am focusing on the idea of non-duality and asking do you see the idea as helpful or not in your philosophical understanding, especially in relation to the concept of God? — Jack Cummins

From my point of view non-duality means monism (there is only one substance) and duality means dualism (two substances). But I am not a substantialist. Substance means that which is absolute, exempt from relation that conditions its existence or its being.

For me the classical concept of God is framed in substantialism and dualism. So the only way that atheism can be closer to theism is to the extent that such atheism is substantialist and such theism is not dualist. Therefore the first meeting point is monistic pantheism.

If dualism refers to the mental thing and the material thing, the classical theism of a personal God cannot be in agreement with a monistic pantheism, since it starts from the distinction between spirit and matter, etc.

From my point of view non-duality means monism — JuanZu

I studied non-dualism (actually Advaita) as a unit in comparative religion, and one of the first things we were taught is that non-dualism is *not* monism. I’m now vague on exactly what was said, but it was along the lines that, in order for there to be ‘one’, there has to be another in order to be aware of it. Non-dualism means, rather, ‘not-divided’ or ‘not-two’ - actually the meaning of Advaita is literally that, as ‘a-‘ is the negative particle in Sanskrit (equivalent to ‘un-‘ in English) and ‘dvai’ is ‘dual’ or ‘divided’. So the meaning of Advaita is really ‘undivided’ or ‘not two’, and what it really means, is overcoming or dissolving the sense of ‘otherness’ that normally pervades all of mundane existence. As such it’s dangerous to make a theory or hypothesis out of it, as it is not a matter of propositional knowledge, but a state of being (designated sat-chit-ananda, ‘being-knowing-bliss’.)

As I remember, advaita philosophy resorts to a process of identification just like monism. As I understand it, there are three metaphysical realities that identify themselves: Brahman the Absolute, jīvātman as individual sentient entities, Jagat as the physical universe. It is hard to not understand this as classic monism. Also I don't think that the via negativa (such as negative theology, "neti-neti") is enough for exclude advaita from monism since there is such identification in metaphysical realities.

I wonder how different the atheism of substance dualism is from theism. I know that there have been threads on substance dualism and that I have engaged with you on the topic many times. At one point, I remember you comparing it with the difference between an Afro hairstyle and a bald head, an interesting analogy but I am not sure if it is that clearcut.

The difference may be theism often speaks of God as a being and nondualism with Being itself as the foundation of everything. I wonder about how different this really is and such theism and atheism as a different linguistic stance as opposed to an entire difference in metaphysics. In particular, even though Buddhism doesn't portray a specific 'God' the understanding of consciousness may be similar to ones that speak of the 'divine'. Ancient thinkers, such as Stoicism, thought in such a way rather than the dichotomy between theism and atheism which arises in the phllosophy of religion as it stands presently.

The division between matter and spirit is an interesting one. It may involve the visible and invisible and it may not be completely distinct, with quantum physics showing this to be a fuzzy area, such as Davis Bohm' s idea of the indifference between the implicate and replicate order. It may be about processes itself in the nature of manifestation in nature and life.

the dichotomy between theism and atheism — Jack Cummins

Bald is not a hair color; there is no "dichotomy" between bald (atheism) & blonde (theism). I can't follow the rest of your post, Jack.