Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What Is Atheism

Atheism is, etymologically speaking, a completely rational term. Atheism is to theism what apolitical is to politics. The terms mean not interested in or a part of theism or politics. Atheism is the antithesis of theism.

Rationally atheism is understandable. It isn't easy to wrap one's mind around the creator, Jehovah God. Such a belief requires faith.

By definition atheism is nonsensical. A god can be anyone or anything. Natural, supernatural, person, place or thing, wood, stone, flesh and bone. Even, as Paul said, ones own belly can be a god. There are countless gods. It doesn't require belief, veneration or worship on your part. I don't believe in Zeus; I don't believe he ever existed; I don't venerate or worship Zeus, and yet Zeus is a god.

The definition of atheism as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. That's nonsensical.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

No. A God can't be "anything."
And that's why your characterization of atheism fails.

AkioTsukino · M

@ElwoodBlues Yes a god can be anything or anyone and that's why my characterization of atheism is completely accurate.

ElwoodBlues · M

@AkioTsukino If "God" is a category that includes everything, then why have a category? Your "God" label is a distinction without a difference, AKA a phantom distinction fallacy.

The word "God" is loaded with meaning in most human languages. You can't just sweep all that away in your efforts to attack atheists. Your definition of atheism is contingent upon a definition of theism, and contingent definitions are OK, but frankly your definition of theism is an insult to theists. Try again.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@AkioTsukino [quote]a god can be anything or anyone[/quote]

If every parcel is marked ‘urgent’, then no parcel is urgent... urgent simply becomes the new ‘standard delivery’

If everything can be a god, then nothing is god, because any one thing is indistinguishable from all other things in that regard.

The proposition is self-defeating and trivial.

AkioTsukino · M

@newjaninev2 [quote]If every parcel is marked ‘urgent’, then no parcel is urgent... urgent simply becomes the new ‘standard delivery’[/quote]

If every painting is deemed beautiful, then no painting is beautiful . . . beauty simply becomes the new standard?

[quote]If everything can be a god, then nothing is god, because any one thing is indistinguishable from all other things in that regard.

The proposition is self-defeating and trivial.[/quote]

Well, okay, but let me get this straight . . . every human is an ape, but a human can't be a god?

ElwoodBlues · M

@AkioTsukino [quote]If every painting is deemed beautiful, then no painting is beautiful . . . beauty simply becomes the new standard? [/quote] YES! You're catching on!! That's an excellent example of the phantom distinction fallacy.

AkioTsukino · M

@ElwoodBlues [quote]YES! You're catching on!! That's an excellent example of the phantom distinction fallacy.[/quote]

IS IT REALLY?!! Wow! Clever, that. Tell me, is every painting beautiful to you?

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@AkioTsukino every human is an ape, but not all apes are human

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@AkioTsukino Perhaps you need to do some reading around ‘particularity’.

ElwoodBlues · M

@AkioTsukino [quote] Tell me, is every painting beautiful to you?[/quote] No. I don't have much truck with distinctions that make no difference.

And also, in my mind, not everything can be a God.

AkioTsukino · M

@ElwoodBlues [quote]. I don't have much truck with distinctions that make no difference.[/quote]

Especially if you don't understand them. Got both ends of the evolutionary scale here.

[quote]And also, in my mind, not everything can be a God.[/quote]

That's odd. I thought you were on a mission from God.

[media=https://youtu.be/-4YrCFz0Kfc]

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@AkioTsukino What’s an 'evolutionary scale’? Evolution isn’t teleological, so there can’t be a scale... it simply is what it is.

ElwoodBlues · M

@AkioTsukino I'm an agnostic. And you're trying to change the subject.

A God can't be "anything." Your "God" label is a distinction without a difference, AKA a phantom distinction fallacy. And that's why your characterization of atheism fails. Also your theist vs atheist dichotomy holds no room for agnostics - that's the excluded middle fallacy.

AkioTsukino · M

@ElwoodBlues I'm done. I've got a couple days before I have to get back to work and I thought maybe I would just chill for a while. Sort of off grid.

I have enjoyed our discussions. I hope you have too. No hard feelings and, uh . . . rock on!

Some memories we've shared . . . in song . . . some of them sweet, some bittersweet.

[media=https://youtu.be/fJmzS_Redh8]

[sep]

[media=https://youtu.be/ojYK6CW8gdw]

[sep]

[media=https://youtu.be/_v2J_stvHes]

Remember me with kindness, for we have not locked swords, but shields!

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@AkioTsukino Hmm... a habit of disengaging when the going gets tough

Reminds me of some muppet on here ages ago (AliveShock, or some such name). Used to do the same thing. Went to great lengths not to actually say what he thought, dodged and weaved and obfuscated and then, once backed into a corner, suddenly had other things to do

Entwistle · 56-60, M

@AkioTsukino Nobody can truly answer that until they have seen every painting. Even then they are entitled to change their mind.

AkioTsukino · M

@Entwistle [quote]Nobody can truly answer that until they have seen every painting. Even then they are entitled to change their mind.[/quote]

Agreed. But the point is that . . . uh, what was it . . . oh, yeah! what I've said many times, a god, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So, saying that there are literal gods that exists isn't an admission of having those gods as your gods. The only thing problematic about the common use of the term atheism is that there are no gods that literally exist. That's incorrect.

Entwistle · 56-60, M

@AkioTsukino You are splitting hairs.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@AkioTsukino Let’s try for some coherence.

Are you saying that there are no gods?

or

Are you saying that there are gods?

AkioTsukino · M

@newjaninev2 Coherence? I've stated many times that there are countless gods. That a god is anything or anyone attributed might greater than that attributing it and or venerated.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@AkioTsukino and I have pointed out to you that id 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

AkioTsukino · M

@newjaninev2 [quote]and I have pointed out to you that id 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[/quote]

I know you've said that but you have no basis for it. It isn't, to use your own word, coherent.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

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

AkioTsukino · M

@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.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@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