What Is Atheism

In my opinion atheists would not recognise Zeus as god, with atheism, by its very definition, implying there are no gods?
@DDonde

@Kowabunga They recognize that Zeus is a god but not that Zeus is real.

There's a lot of semantics nonsense going on in this thread

I would say that by not recognising the existence of ANY gods would make them doubt the existence of Zeus anyway. Therefore, they couldn’t consider Zeus to be a god, even if they agreed that Zeus existed in the first place 😀@DDonde

@AkioTsukino [quote]Yeah, I don't think so[/quote]

and that automatically makes it incorrect, does it?

Perhaps details and specifics would help show why..?

[quote]That don't sound like a god to me[/quote]

So you agree that there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods.

Excellent... as agnostic atheists you and I are therefore in agreement, and all done 👍

@AkioTsukino He's nothing more than a human being.
Worshipping someone as a god doesn't make them an actual god.

@Entwistle [quote]Worshipping someone as a god doesn't make them an actual god.[/quote]

Yes it does! Being a god doesn't mean being Jehovah God. Being a god doesn't necessarily mean you are supernatural or anything else. Just that someone has deemed you mighty in some capacity. That's all a god is.

@SW-User I want you to practice reading comprehension. The term atheism is completely rational, the definition is nonsensical.

@AkioTsukino
In the context you’re using it. Which is obscure and obsolete at best.
In the Bible, bats are referred to as birds, and insects. They have wings, they flap, they also travel in large numbers or swarms. Despite those classifications , no one today considers bats to be either anymore. Your definition of random objects or people being gods to individuals is ridiculous. As is your take on Atheism.
There is little reason to debate if the existence of a rock, or stick, etc. when it’s there in front of you. If you want to call it god , it’s your choice, but it’s unlikely you’ll find many others that share that terminology. Let alone agree with it.

@BlueVeins Well, I uh . . . never mind. Carry on.

@AkioTsukino mark? is that you?

@BlueVeins No. I'm Dave. I had a younger brother who's name was Mark, but he died in 2012.

@ninalanyon Masks aren't protecting anyone. They are harmful. You're not wearing them to protect anyone, your wearing them because it creates the illusion of being kept safe by the people who sell you addictive, carcinogenic, petrol based pharmaceuticals. It reminds you of not only who you need to think is keeping you safe and thus ultimately in control. Beware! Be afraid! Be very afraid. The bogeyman is gonna' getcha'! We'll protect you! Take this.

I'm 55 years old. I have heart disease, kidney disease, I'm clinically obese, borderline diabetic and I'm a smoker. I caught the Covid from my dad who was fully vaccinated and wore a mask like his life depended upon it. He got it from the hospital staff who were also fully vaccinated and forced to wear what they knew were harmful masks. It was like almost getting a mild chest cold. If the media hadn't hyped it and the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies couldn't make trillions of dollars from it while virtually destroying small businesses, the competition in corporate America, you wouldn't know Covid existed.

Corona viruses have been around as long as man if not longer. There are 4 strains of the corona virus that are common colds. That means roughly 70% of the global population had natural immunity. You ever hear of memory cells, science boy? The T and B cells.

Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease, which is a department of the National Institutes of Health, funded a 2018-2019 study for treatment of Ebola virus in Africa. It used Remdesivir along with three other therapeutics.

Remdesivir had the highest mortality rate (53.1%) of all the drugs used in the trial. It was removed from the trial after 28 days. Remdesivir causes acute kidney failure.

Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993

New England Journal of Medicine, December 12, 2019

Hospitals get 20% bonus (total $ 3200) for prescribing lethal Remdesivir compared to the safe inexpensive alternative Ivermectin only pays them $125.

Source: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/covid-19/new-covid-19-treatments-add-payment-nctapCMS.gov Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

So the medical establishment, hospitals in the USA, are being payed off to prescribe Remdesivir, which isn't effective or safe, instead of prescribing the inexpensive effective treatment. Ivermectin is approved.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2e/NIH Approved Treatments of Covid-19

https://rumble.com/vndj1p-830pm-106-dr.-bryan-ardis-exposes-covid-19-hospital-protocols-that-are-murd.html

Dr. Bryan Ardis Exposes Covid-19 Hospital Protocols that are Murdering Americans & Why NOT to Take the Vaccine

@AkioTsukino If Ivermectin is so good why isn't Merck promoting it?

@ninalanyon [quote] If Ivermectin is so good why isn't Merck promoting it?[/quote]

You tell me.

@AkioTsukino Yet you have not shown it to be incorrect. Build your argument against it

@newjaninev2 My argument is correct. There's nothing to add. You haven't refuted one single point. Your denial of the obvious doesn't constitute a problem for me.

@AkioTsukino [quote]My argument is correct[/quote]

You haven’t made an argument.

I repeat... if everything and anyone whatsoever can be a god, then being a god becomes the new normal, and gods are indistinguishable from non-gods, so there’s neither point nor purpose to even postulating gods.

Please repeat the argument you made in that regard

@AkioTsukino [quote]but I do marvel that y'all seem to have to lump everything together. Black or White.[/quote] Here I am dividing things into THREE lumps, and you accuse me of making TWO lumps, [b]LOL!!![/b] Read what I wrote again about the excluded middle. It's a THIRD group.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Here I am dividing things into THREE lumps, and you accuse me of making TWO lumps, LOL!!! Read what I wrote again about the excluded middle. It's a THIRD group.[/quote]

Well, it's all the same. It's all meaningless. A sort of trinity of meaninglessness.

@AkioTsukino Okay, you hold both X and not-X, but you're saying it is not a contradiction because it is X with respect to one thing, but it is not-X with respect to another thing. Is that correct?

[quote]Zeus is a god with respect to being venerated and worshiped by some humans.
Zeus is not a god with respect to ontological existence.[/quote]



So I will not disagree that the definition of atheism is nonsensical in reference to objects that are venerated and worshiped. But yet, your position that Zeus is both a god and not a god could similarly be called nonsensical, since you believe that Zeus both is a god and is not a god. Thus, if your defense works for Zeus, then it should also work for atheism.

So then all we would need to do in introduce the same distinction into the definition of atheism.

[quote]Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [i]with respect to ontological existence[/i][/quote]

And indeed, I am confident that this is exactly what people generally mean by "atheism." To my knowledge, no one disputes that objects of worship and veneration exist.

This is how words work. No one expects all the possible definitions of a given word to be used in all circumstances. School can mean both a place of learning and a group of fish. But a child who is caught playing hooky to go fishing will not escape punishment by claiming, "It's nonsensical to say I was not at school. I [i]was[/i] at school. I was with a group of fish all day!"

@pentacorn Well, I'm not the only one to be congratulated. You have successfully conveyed your own opinion, and you only had to be a little bit snarky before you abruptly announced our discourse discontinued. Why do you think you felt the need to make that announcement? Sociopolitical frustration with theocracy in general? That wouldn't comport with the predicated exchange of opinions, though, would it? At least not with the semblance of integrity necessary in the art of debate. Orwell said all art is propaganda. Picasso said art is a lie that enables us to see the truth.

Jesus spoke in illustrations. I think that is what you must have been doing.

@AkioTsukino you made the post, so it's on you to expect a wide variety of responses. i'm not here to coddle you. i'm an atheist. get over it

@pentacorn It's on me to expect a wide variety of responses including several after your own dissolution of the discourse but not to be coddled by you in the process?

And that is because you are an atheist or should I expect that of all manufacturers of dairy food products?

Well, sir, thanks for making that abundantly clear at this stage in our relationship, but I was aware of all of this prior to your having set it out so clearly in the written form.

You, uh . . . you realize that my being theistic will have to be gotten over by you before I can get over your being atheist, don't you? Or is that going to be in some upcoming revelation in our doomed discussion?

PS You do realize I'm just pullin' your chain?

@AkioTsukino
Yesterday you stated that Bullshit can be god.
I’ll stay with god is Bullshit, and leave it at that.

@DocSavage [quote]Yesterday you stated that Bullshit can be god.
I’ll stay with god is Bullshit, and leave it at that.[/quote]

What's the difference?

@AkioTsukino
Context. As I explained before.

@Pikachu If everything is a god, then nothing is a god. Not having gods becomes an unavoidable consequence... therefore atheism is inevitable

@newjaninev2

Yeah i'm really not persuaded by his proposed qualifications for godhood.

@Pikachu Yes indeed. The claim that atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of gods fails when faced with:

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

[b]Not a belief in sight[/b]

@AkioTsukino Associated with, of course. But they are not themselves the deity.

@ninalanyon [quote]Associated with, of course. But they are not themselves the deity.[/quote]

Well . . . I'm bored. And you?

@AkioTsukino
Obviously a false statement. Everyone knows David Bowie is god.

@Ryannnnnn Okay. My point is really, really, really simple. Even if you don't agree with it you should get it but no one does because it threatens their world view.

I'm a man. My name is David Henson.
The God of the Bible is a god. His name is Jehovah.

There are many men. Some of them literally exist or existed and some of them didn't. Those that didn't are fictional, mythological or fabricated.

There are many gods. Some of them literally exist or existed and some of them didn't. Those that didn't are fictional, mythological or fabricated.

With some men and some gods it is unknown whether or not they exist or existed. People must decide for themselves without knowing for certain. That requires faith.

Faith is trusting in something or someone without knowing for certain. For example, the Latin term credit means faith/trust/belief. Trust should be, but is not always, based upon experience and knowledge. If you give credit to someone, for example, it's best to have good reason for doing so.

[sep]

[media=https://youtu.be/MqbQC81_74k]

@AkioTsukino What I read is that we're doing mental gymnastics around the term "god" to make it so it's whatever you believe it to be.

@Ryannnnnn [quote]What I read is that we're doing mental gymnastics around the term "god" to make it so it's whatever you believe it to be.[/quote]

Okay. Fair enough. How do we test our theories on gods. I've given definitions. I've given examples. I've given examples. I've given histories. I've given applications of the word god. What I've got from the collective is disagreement with not much reason.

@Tastyfrzz Yup 😀

I often hear "what’s an agnostic atheist?", so perhaps I should first define the term.

First, let's split the world up into theists and atheists.
A theist is anyone who has some sort of god or gods
An atheist is someone who has no god or gods

Now, this division is further divided into two more groups the gnostic and the agnostic
Gnostic means: having specific knowledge about something.
Agnostic, obviously, means: not having specific knowledge about something
(Yes, I know that 'agnostic' is commonly used as an adjectival noun, but it's actually an adjective. It seems to me that using it as an adjectival noun leads to confusion)

So now we have four groups:
1. Gnostic theist: this is usually someone who subscribes to a particular religion. This person has a god or gods, and claims to have specific knowledge about their god or gods.
2. Agnostic theist: this is someone who has a god or gods, but does not claim specific knowledge about that god. Such people often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘.
3. Gnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, and who claims to know as a certainty that there are no gods.
4. Agnostic atheist: this is someone who has no god or gods, does not claim to know as a certainty that there are no gods, but also sees no need for them.
OK, let‘s look at each of these in more detail

Gnostic theists have the problem that they carry a burden of proof. This is because they claim to have knowledge about their gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. Of course, they can‘t (otherwise everyone would be theists), and they end up saying that ‘you have to have faith’ which means ‘I have no proof for my claims’ (faith is pretending to know something that you do not know)

Gnostic atheists have the same problem. They claim to know for certain that there are no gods, and therefore it‘s up to them to prove their claims. They too carry a burden of proof that they cannot meet (otherwise everyone would be atheists).

Agnostic theists aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have gods, but that they don't know anything about those gods (other than that they are, presumably, god-like).

Agnostic atheists have the easiest position. They aren't making a claim, and have no burden of proof. They are saying that they have no gods. There‘s nothing to know and nothing to discuss.

Most of the arguing about these matters comes from gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. Both groups claim to have evidence and both groups endlessly debate that ‘evidence‘ with each other. In fact, there is no evidence, and neither group is able to support its claims. It's rare to meet a gnostic atheist, but gnostic theists are ubiquitous (fortunately it‘s quite easy to deal with them).

These days people are tending to eschew organised religion, so there are probably more agnostic theists around than there used to be. Agnostic theists often describe themselves as ‘spiritual‘ and say that ‘there must be something‘, but without saying why there must be something.

As I said, agnostic atheists have an easy time of it (you’ll have worked out that I’m an agnostic atheist).
My position is ‘I have no gods‘. It is not possible to prove the existence of gods (otherwise we’d all be theists), and it is not possible to prove that gods do not exist (they might be lurking around some mountain-top somewhere). In any event, we have no need of them, so the whole argument is both unnecessary and pointless.

Whenever I tell a theist that I have no gods, they always react as if I had said ‘there are no gods‘ and they immediately insist that I prove my claim that the gods don't exist (i.e. they assume that I am a gnostic atheist). I patiently point out to them that I am not making such a claim, and that, in fact, I'm not making any claim whatsoever I'm simply saying that I have no gods. Usually, at this point, they’ll say something like ‘but you‘re saying that god doesn’t exist!‘. I then point out that isn't what I'm saying, that there's no proof that gods exist, and that there‘s no proof that gods don't exist, and as we have no need of them for anything, then I simply have no gods.

I usually summarise this as:
1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

Of course, theists desperately need all atheists to be gnostic atheists so that they can demand proof that gods don't exist. Because agnostic atheists aren't making any such claim, theists are unable to divert attention away from the burden of proof for their own claim that gods exist. It’s astonishing how, even when you’ve clearly established that you‘re an agnostic atheist and you‘re therefore not making any claims, the theist will keep trying to argue as if you were a gnostic atheist.

@newjaninev2 careful. You might make someone blow a gasket if they can't argue.

@ChipmunkErnie Think about it.

@Entwistle Atheists only believe in one less almighty god than theists do.

You mean monotheists. 'Cause polytheists . . .

@AkioTsukino I said 'almighty' god..even polytheist's have one 'almighty' god above their others.

@DocSavage [quote]Fertility symbols and idols, Pharaohs, judges. Are not gods, neither is cow shit.[/quote]

Yes judges are. And yes shit can be. Probably is. Fertilizer, crops, fertility rituals, shit in ancient medicine. It isn't a giant leap. This is why, early on in my first posting here, I said that I have never come across an atheist who could grasp the very simple concept of gods. They think gods have to have rituals, ceremonies, religion or supernaturalism. They don't. A god can be anything or anyone or nothing. Fictional, mythological, practical, or supernatural and religious.

The apostle Paul said ones belly, i.e. food was a god.

[quote]In some cases, they are viewed as agents of god, representations of gods, or human incarnations of god. But, that is only a symbolic title.[/quote]

The word angel means messenger. In the Biblical Hebrew and Greek when the words apply to human messengers the translation is messenger, but when a spirit being is referenced the translation is angel. The words for gods mean mighty, literally. That's all. In application the might depends not upon only that, as attributed by someone. Jehovah became God to Israel.

What I like to do is ask atheist if there isn't any gods are there lords? Lord means having authority, usually but not always granted by another. Jehovah is Lord, self appointed. Christ is Lord as appointed as a representation of Jehovah. The Logos. Word. Spokesperson. Mighty, but not Almighty. Christ is a mighty god, Jehovah is God almighty.

[quote]Your concept on the cow crap, also makes no sense. A useful tool or product is not usually considered as divine.[/quote]

The crap gave him warmth, sustenance, protection from predators. How much more like a god can you possibly be?!

If you're thinking a god has to be a creator or a representation of a creator how would you explain that Jehovah told Israel not to have any gods before (in importance or veneration) him, the most high (mighty)? Those other gods don't fit your interpretation of what a god is and yet are they not gods?

[quote]Which is the context in question.[/quote]

I don't know what you're talking about there. What context in question?

@AkioTsukino
I don’t believe in god, any of them. When the discussion comes up, we’re usually talking the supernatural , creator ,omnipresent kind. Not the nonsense you keep bringing up.
Tell me something . Would the cow shit still be a god, if the man didn’t invent fire first to burn it ? Your crap, can’t do anything on it’s own can it ?
And wood is a greater god. It can be used to build and to burn. Did it demand mankind to stop burning shit, and only wood from now on ?
You’re wasting our time .

@DocSavage [quote]I don’t believe in god, any of them. When the discussion comes up, we’re usually talking the supernatural , creator ,omnipresent kind. Not the nonsense you keep bringing up.[/quote]

Are you feeling threatened by knowledge or ignorance or do you think I'm trying to trap you into admitting gods exist? If you're talking about supernatural gods you indicate that either by name or by simply pointing it out. In Christian and Islamic cultures God or Allah are acceptable. The upper case G gives it away. Trouble with that is it signifies acceptance of the - oh I can't think of the word - definite article. In Hebrew the definite article is ha, the word for god is el, so Ha El means The God. Like Allah means the God. (Al lah). Similarly, the word satan in Hebrew means adversary or resister. So anyone acting as adversarial or in resistance the Hebrew word is translated as adversary or resister. The first time the word is used is at Numbers 22:22. I think that's it. If not in that chapter near there. So, an angel (messenger) of Jehovah (God) acts as a resister or adversary (Hebrew satan) to Ballam. (It's Balaam's Ass). If the word appear with the definite article (Ha Satan) it is reference to the principle adversary of God, Satan. Who, by the way, is also called a god in the Bible. The god of the world. Meaning, temporarily in charge of the world to be destroyed.

I got to get some sleep. It's been a rough day.

@ninalanyon [quote]In SW it makes life a lot easier if people quote the thing they are responding to as SW has no effective message threading.[/quote]

That's for sure, but there were two options. C'mon.

[quote]The fact that there is a Wikipedia entry on a subject doesn't bring the thing mentioned into existence.[/quote]

Do I have to repeat myself again? It doesn't matter.

@AkioTsukino If it doesn't matter why repeat it?

@ninalanyon Why repeat it? I don't know. I don't know why I said it doesn't matter. Maybe foreshadow

Win some lose some.

Here's a video for your trouble. Brian Warner. I like the part where he says:
"I never really hated the one true God
But the God of the people I hated."

Dumb rock star! He thinks there are more than one gods.

[media=https://youtu.be/GKkiCFOE-Ic]

@ABCDEF7 [quote]to start seeking to know(spirituality)[/quote]

Or understand that there’s no compelling necessity to seek

1. there's no proof that gods exist
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist
3. in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing (not even itself)... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods (I’m an agnostic atheist)

@newjaninev2 It's ok whatever way you think. If you think you don't need to enhance your experience of life, there is really no need of spirituality for you, but others may think otherwise.

When you have become agnostic, you have come one step ahead from being atheist by accepting that "there's no proof that gods don't exist". You should not be looking backward to being atheist when you have already realized that "there's no proof that gods don't exist". In other way, you are willing to focus on your life and yourself, instead of aimlessly arguing if there is god or not.

[media=https://youtu.be/Y9c5uJ0dlGQ]

@canusernamebemyusername Nonsense. We people invented science and for the most part scientists have been we people. You're not following the logic you're following the groupthink.

@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP Atheism means no part of theism just as apolitical means no part of politics. They are the same in that way.