What Is Atheism

@AkioTsukino Are you coming back to reply to these comments today? I put in a lot of work on this comment last night.

@ShadowSister I don't know what your number system means so I will ignore that. (from 1, 2, 3 etc.)

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes/No. Some do some don't.
5. Yes, though I wouldn't phrase it that way. The dictionary would say God or gods, not a god or gods.
6. Atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
7. Yes/No. What is belief? Someone may not believe in someone else they know to exist. To believe may be to trust, have faith in. I don't believe in the CDC means I don't trust their scientific integrity.
8. No. Read the OP. Only the definition of Atheism is nonsensical. Not believing in God is rational, atheism as the antithesis of theism is completely logical.

@ShadowSister Allow me to cut thru the muck and simplify the propositions presented.

[b](1)[/b] Anything can be a God.
[b](2)[/b] Someone somewhere might worship volcanoes, for example.
[b](3)[/b] Volcanoes exist.
[b](4)[/b] Therefore God exists.
[b](5)[/b] Therefore atheism is irrational.

Notice that slight of hand between [b](3)[/b] and [b](4)[/b]?
That's why this "argument" is pure sophistry.

I have nothing that I ‘worship as a god’. I don’t consider ‘worshipping’ anything makes it a god. Therefore,I do not consider that god(s) exist. 😀
@ElwoodBlues

@AkioTsukino
[quote]Read the OP.[/quote]

I can't take a position on whether I agree or disagree with you because your argument is unclear to me. And I have read and reread your OP several times.

The numbering system I added was arbitrary, not intending to add to your argument. It was just to facilitate ease of conversation. When you responded point-by-point using their number, that's exactly what those were there for.

I want to press you for clarification on your example of Zeus (which I arbitrarily numbered proposition 2). Which of the following are you arguing for?
2A. Zeus is an example of a god who does not exist because (as you and I would agree on) he likely never existed.
2B. Zeus is an example of a god who exists because people do/did worship and venerate him.

You did not state either position explicitly. I'm sure you have spent a lot of time with this argument outside of writing the post, so I'm guessing that whichever one you meant seems obvious to you. But it was not obvious to me. That is why I am asking for clarification in good faith.

@Kowabunga The Jehovah's Witnesses know they have to be careful about letting anything become more important to them than Jehovah, their God. Why? Because anything can become a god. If it becomes the most important thing to you in a sort of impractical way. Drugs, alcohol, sex, boating, knitting, gambling, sports, music, art, fashion, television, antique cars, stamp collecting, bird watching, travel, the sun, the moon, the stars, anything. It isn't that all of these things are always gods, it's that any of these things can become gods.

Don't equate God as being exclusively Jehovah. I'm not saying that television is Jehovah, I'm saying television can be someone's god.

@ShadowSister Thank you for such an articulate, respectful and thoughtful inquiry. I'm not arguing, specifically, for the existence of God in this case. Some gods exist, some don't. I agree with both 2A and 2B. Both are true.

@AkioTsukino Then that is where I am getting lost. 2A and 2B are contrary positions. They can't both be true in the same sense. Doesn't that commit you to a logical contradiction?

@AkioTsukino [quote]Because anything can become a god. If it becomes the most important thing to you in a sort of impractical way.[/quote]
You are claiming "most important to" == "God"
No. That's another lousy definition of "God."
Another insult to theists. Try again.

@ShadowSister They are not contradictory, they are both true. Think of it like beauty. It's in the eyes of the beholder. What is beautiful in one's eyes may be ugly in another's eyes. Both examples you gave are true because though Zeus never existed in a literal sense, he did exist as a god. A god doesn't have to exist. Some do, but they don't have to. Just like men. Men don't have to exist. Some men are legends or fictional characters.

People worshiping a god they know doesn't exist do so because they represent something to them. Safety, fertility for offspring and crops. Sex. The male or female genitals. It isn't necessarily the literal gods themselves that are important, but the thing they represent.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]You are claiming "most important to" == "God"
No. That's another lousy definition of "God."
Another insult to theists. Try again.[/quote]

I'm afraid you don't know anything about it.

@AkioTsukino Oh, I get it!
In your definition, "God" is entirely an interior experience.
In your definition, "God" is a feeling many humans have.
In your definition, because many people have this feeling, "God" has to be real.

Sorry, that definition is insulting to deists, almost all of whom believe in a very much exterior God.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]n your definition, "God" is entirely an interior experience.
In your definition, "God" is a feeling many humans have.
In your definition, because many people have this feeling, "God" has to be real.

Sorry, that definition is insulting to deists, almost all of whom believe in a very much exterior God.[/quote]

I'll try to explain it again. I believe Jehovah exists, you do not believe Jehovah exists. Neither one of us knows for certain.

I've made Jehovah my God, you have not. Jehovah is God. He is one of countless gods. He is not your God because you don't believe in him, [b]BUT[/b], and I want to make this absolutely clear . . .

[media=https://youtu.be/bDe9msExUK8]

@AkioTsukino
[quote] I believe Jehovah exists, you do not believe Jehovah exists. Neither one of us knows for certain. I've made Jehovah my God, you have not. Jehovah is God. [/quote]
Yeah, if you look at it closely in your description, it's your own [i]interior experience[/i] that creates deity. The fact of your [i]belief.[/i] NOT the exterior existence of divine infinite power.

BTW, you mischaracterize me. I honestly don't know whether or not your Jehovah exists. I have skepticism on both perspectives; existence & non-existence. I think it's unlikely he exists, but that doesn't leave me denying his existence with certainty; just very skeptical.

See I'm an instance of the excluded middle in your flawed definition of atheist. You can't simply say everyone who doesn't have a "most important to" in their life is an atheist. MANY of us remain in skepticism. MANY of us find it rather foolish to convert doubts about existence of X into certainty of non-existence of X.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Yeah, if you look at it closely in your description, it's your own interior experience that creates deity. The fact of your belief. NOT the exterior existence of divine infinite power.[/quote]

Exactly! See, you guys aren't all hopeless! They said at the office . . . well . . . good work!

[quote]BTW, you mischaracterize me. I honestly don't know whether or not your Jehovah exists. [/quote]

I told you, I guess it was you, I don't know you from Adam, but I told someone, neither one of us knows for certain whether or not Jehovah exists. They call it faith, apparently.

[quote]See I'm an instance of the excluded middle in your flawed definition of atheist. You can't simply say everyone who doesn't have a "most important to" in their life is an atheist. MANY of us remain in skepticism. MANY of us find it rather foolish to convert doubts about existence of X into certainty of non-existence of X.[/quote]

I don't know what you're talking about, but I do marvel that y'all seem to have to lump everything together. Black or White. I can't have a god because you don't know if it exists or not.

It's irrelevant.

@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!"