Atheism And Gods

[epronovost]

For me atheism is the requirement that people prove any god or gods exist.

Okay. Tammuz was a Sumerian King. The Sumerians always deified their kings upon their death. Do you deny that he existed? 

The Dictionary definition above lists a god as a respected leader and a theater gallery. Do those things exist? Why are they called gods. 

Eric Clapton is a god. Does he not exist? 

Here is a link to a photograph of a Hindu god.

That was easy.

I don't think anybody denies that some things and people are called gods or even that there is such a concept called ''god'', but it doesn't mean they should be considered as such by everybody or that they all share the same level of existence.

[Ima Believer]

I don't personally use #3 in the definition, except when joking. 

A god, any god(s) are the product of the human mind, they do not exist in reality. Humans may find comfort, inspiration, guidance, destiny, fear, punishment, reward, manipulation ............. in what has been attributed to these mental constructs, yet they remain a product of the mind. In short, a fantasy. Once the person believes they actually exist outside of the mind, the god(s) become a fantasy delusion.  

Don't get all bent out of shape about me using the word delusion until you look it up. It doesn't mean that you're necessarily a head case.

I know what the word means. You say you don't use #3 except for as a joke. Okay, what about 2 "wooden gods" and 4?

[Ima Believer]

I don't think anybody denies that some things and people are called gods or even that there is such a concept called ''god'', but it doesn't mean they should be considered as such by everybody or that they all share the same level of existence.

A person, being, object either exists or it don't. Atheism states that there are no gods, does it not? By dictionary definition that statement is nonsense. You may deny the existence of some fictional, metaphorical, humorous, and mythological gods, but that doesn't negate the existence, by dictionary definition, of other gods that are material. Of the natural world. Human. Existent.

[skyking]

a dictionary definition cannot be conflated into material existence.

[epronovost]

I don't think anybody denies that some things and people are called gods or even that there is such a concept called ''god'', but it doesn't mean they should be considered as such by everybody or that they all share the same level of existence.

A person, being, object either exists or it don't. Atheism states that there are no gods, does it not? By dictionary definition that statement is nonsense. You may deny the existence of some fictional, metaphorical, humorous, and mythological gods, but that doesn't negate the existence, by dictionary definition, of other gods that are material. Of the natural world. Human. Existent.

That's why you must think about the usage of the word ''god'' in a specific context and not only about its definition. The usage of the term ''god'' is different between those two statements.

The word god exists. Some things are considered gods by some people. Those who consider no thing or concept to be THEIR god are called atheist. Those people, hte atheist, might require others to prove that their god is worthy to be considered god by them and that its existence is more then simply imaginary or a figure of speech.

[Ima Believer]

a dictionary definition cannot be conflated into material existence.

See folks? What did I say? You can't get an atheist to comprehend the simple meaning of the word god, which means simply mighty, respected, venerated. 

It can't be done.

[skyking]

none of those things are material

[skyking]

show me the fabric of venerated, the weight of respect, the length of veneration. These are other ideas, concepts. material things exist and can be measured, weighed, observed.

[epronovost]

a dictionary definition cannot be conflated into material existence.

See folks? What did I say? You can't get an atheist to comprehend the simple meaning of the word god, which means simply mighty, respected, venerated. 

It can't be done.

Didn't I just did that in my last post? Didn't I solved your conundrum?

[Free]

Please understand the meaning behind "Zeus is a god." The very word "is" expresses an actual existence in time and space. For something to trully exist it must be capable of being experienced in time and space and observed by at least one of our senses.

So, then, Zeus isn't a god?

No.

For something to be "is" means that it must exist in universal reality, in time and space, and be capable of being observed by all.

For anyone to say that something exists, they hold the burden of proof, and therefore the standard of what qualifies it as an existence must be met. To claim something to be in existence is to claim it to be an axiomatic truth. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon whoever makes the claim.

If this standard was not correct, we could then claim that anything and everything is true. For example, if someone imagined that you murdered another person, we would have to accept it as truthful, and send you to jail.

Therefore, let us reason together.

[Deesse23]

Jesus F. Christ.

[Old Man Marsh]

Gods are merely the projections of believers. Gods are interesting only insofar as what they say about the people who believe in them. Outside of that, gods are pretty boring and don't merit much attention, in my view.

We can test that. Do the gods behave better than the humans?  

Maybe Thoth. Maybe....

[Thumpalumpacus]

For me atheism is the requirement that people prove any god or gods exist.

Okay. Tammuz was a Sumerian King. The Sumerians always deified their kings upon their death. Do you deny that he existed? 

The Dictionary definition above lists a god as a respected leader and a theater gallery. Do those things exist? Why are they called gods. 

Eric Clapton is a god. Does he not exist? 

Here is a link to a photograph of a Hindu god.

That was easy.

Certainly, once equivocation is adopted as a tool of reason.

[Ima Believer]

show me the fabric of venerated, the weight of respect, the length of veneration. These are other ideas, concepts. material things exist and can be measured, weighed, observed.

So, what you are saying, then, is that might, veneration, respect, love, gods, Moses, black holes can't exist or are you saying they exist only as concepts and ideas? Or are you saying that those things can't exist until / unless we can measure them as material things? Only material things exist?

[Ima Believer]

Certainly, once equivocation is adopted as a tool of reason.

If the examples I give aren't gods then tell me why they aren't gods.

[Ima Believer]

none of those things are material

What things? Who are you talking to?

[Ima Believer]

Didn't I just did that in my last post? Didn't I solved your conundrum?

Certainly not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For me atheism is the requirement that people prove any god or gods exist.

Okay. Tammuz was a Sumerian King. The Sumerians always deified their kings upon their death. Do you deny that he existed? 

The Dictionary definition above lists a god as a respected leader and a theater gallery. Do those things exist? Why are they called gods. 

Eric Clapton is a god. Does he not exist? 

Here is a link to a photograph of a Hindu god.

That was easy.

Different issue. The claim that you can become a god vs the claim that gods exist. In the Sumerian case the "god" is actually a bald assertion. You can dance definitions around but Morris Dancing is still absurd.

[skyking]

you used the term material. that was your choice.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Certainly, once equivocation is adopted as a tool of reason.

If the examples I give aren't gods then tell me why they aren't gods.

Because you haven't proven they are gods. Just making claims isn't proof.

[skyking]

none of those things are material

What things? Who are you talking to?

my post is directly below your post. no need to quote you in that case. quit being obtuse.

[brewerb]

I don't personally use #3 in the definition, except when joking. 

A god, any god(s) are the product of the human mind, they do not exist in reality. Humans may find comfort, inspiration, guidance, destiny, fear, punishment, reward, manipulation ............. in what has been attributed to these mental constructs, yet they remain a product of the mind. In short, a fantasy. Once the person believes they actually exist outside of the mind, the god(s) become a fantasy delusion.  

Don't get all bent out of shape about me using the word delusion until you look it up. It doesn't mean that you're necessarily a head case.

I know what the word means. You say you don't use #3 except for as a joke. Okay, what about 2 "wooden gods" and 4?

Yeah, don't use #4 because it's not used in every day speech, at least not around me.

I addressed #1 and 2, but you didn't seem to get it. #2 is simply a human attempt to materialize the concept of #1. Ever see a Superman movie?

Continuing to discuss your very over simplified position is pointless. Your responses have nothing of substance. All they do is poke at our responses, which is not a discussion. 

Listen, if you want to believe your god(s) exist in reality, fine by me if you need that mental crutch. But do all of us a favor and stop the "I know better than atheists" crap. You're behaving like most other christians who show up with a false sense of entitlement. This behavior is what turns atheists into anti-theists.

[skyking]

thanks brewerb

[epronovost]

Didn't I just did that in my last post? Didn't I solved your conundrum?

Certainly not.

How so?

If god, as you conveniently pointed out, is simply that which is mighty, venerated and respected (to an extremely high degree I would have added for clarity purpose), an atheist is simply a person who doesn't venerate, respect and considers anything to the point it can be called a god. That's a logical conclusion one can derive from your first post in which you mentionned that atheist was simply the opposite of theism. You define theism as the act of venerating, respecting something that is mighty. Thus, an atheist is someone who doesn't venerate or respect something that is mighty or doesn't believe the thing in question to be mighty in the first place. An atheist doesn't believe in the godly status of a thing or even that a godly status can be given to anything legitimately; that those things named "god" or "goddess" are simply boasts and lies, a bit like if you claimed to be one of the smartest person alive. That you gave yourself the title, even if some people agree with you, doesn't make it so. We will accept this claim to be true only if you can prove to our satisfaction you are more than just boasting and lying. In the meantime, you are not one of the smartest person alive in our eyes; we disbelieve that claim. You see, considering the number of definition and usage of the title "god", there are some athesits will believe are pure fantasy, the product of our imagination and others that, while existing, don't deserve such a title like in the case of God-Kings like Hammurabi.

How is that point unconvincing? What did I missed?

[Alan V]

God: an adored, admired, or influential person.

Defining a "god" in this way is metaphorical rather than literal. It makes no sense at all to accuse atheists of being inconsistent in not recognizing the existence of metaphorical gods, since they don't literally exist as gods.

It's difficult to "have a civil and intelligent discussion on the subject of atheism and gods" if you are just looking for "gotcha" moments.

a dictionary definition cannot be conflated into material existence.

See folks? What did I say? You can't get an atheist to comprehend the simple meaning of the word god, which means simply mighty, respected, venerated.

It can't be done.

You misunderstood the point, obviously.