Today's Question For Atheists

@WhateverWorks Property ownership? I suppose. Why not.

Class title is a good example. I'm thinking landlord. The word god means mighty/venerated. The word lord means having authority, usually granted by another.

I’m not sure why you keep trying to gloss over the common knowledge that to be a God requires deification and superpowers, not merely worship or being higher on the socially constructed power hierarchy @AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks Because deification simply means to make a god. For example, in ancient Sumer kings were deified upon their death. They were made gods after dying. A deity is a god. Look, just look up gods. In the dictionary, Google it, Wikipedia.

If you look up a simple dictionary definition it will list an influential leader, an upper balcony in a theater or the people there. Why? Because they are all mighty. They don't have to be supernatural. I don't understand why atheists and most theists don't get it. A child could understand it, it's the way we use the word. Oh, that cake was divine! Oh, he's the god of the math department. Guitar God. God of War. Godfather.

[media=https://youtu.be/OEWTaMSe64w]

I hate to break it to you, but it sounds like you’re the one who doesn’t get it. Everyone else except for you has an agreed-upon definition of what a god is and you’re claiming it’s a synonym to other leadership type words that do not align with the agreed-upon definition of god 🤷🏻‍♀️ It’s only seemingly a worthwhile proposal because the idea of God is immaterial, which suggests that you can redefine it however you want because there’s no reference point. However, the reference point is a widely agreed-upon concept that transcends the variations of perceived gods within the religions themselves. The supernaturalness/superpower of their god’/s arguably is the one commonality between all religions.

I mean fine, rocks are the same as potatoes by your logic because they’re both rounded. 🤷🏻‍♀️
@AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks Right. Yes, most people agree that a God is a being of power, typically on another plane of existance. Anything else is just an idol or fetish.

@ShadowWolf [quote]Yes, most people agree that a God is a being of power, typically on another plane of existance. Anything else is just an idol or fetish.[/quote]

Well, I think the quickest way to silence an uninformed skeptic is to ask them questions or ask them to support their claim. Let's test that theory. Support your claim in a scientific manner. Look for an answer that makes your claim wrong. Can you find it? Do a search. "Define god." Look at Wikipedia on the subject of deity. Gods. God.

It makes me wonder why no one here does that.

@AkioTsukino so… you think a widely held definition of a word/concept should be redefined simply because you want it to mean something else? And.. everyone else is wrong for not obliging your proposal?

Here you go I guess if you really need someone to drop a citation to support ‘common knowledge’ even multiculturally when it comes to god along with other terms for the concept in other languages 🤷🏻‍♀️

https://www.etymonline.com/word/god

@WhateverWorks [quote]so… you think a widely held definition of a word/concept should be redefined simply because you want it to mean something else?[/quote]

Dude. I gave multiple dictionary definitions. Not good enough. I gave Google search results. Not good enough. I gave Wikipedia references. Not good enough. I gave in depth Biblical interpretations with references. Not good enough. I gave countless examples throughout the history of mankind. Not good enough. I gave Monty Python and Marylin Manson videos. Not good enough.

I haven't changed anything. You're in denial.

[quote]Here you go I guess if you really need someone to drop a citation to support ‘common knowledge’ even multiculturally when it comes to god along with other terms for the concept in other languages 🤷🏻‍♀️

https://www.etymonline.com/word/god[/quote]

The link you gave gives the same information I have on my website, except I take it back to the Hittite language. I gave that link to my page several times. Not good enough.

The link you gave says this: "godlike person;" I've said that multiple times. Not good enough.

The link you gave says this: "Zeus: supreme god of the ancient Greeks and master of the others." I've said that multiple times and it's on my website. Not good enough.

Sounds like you’re mincing hairs because you’re hoping to make the idea of god lesser than what the vast majority of people believe/agree it to mean and if you can persuade people of this lesser significance then ‘God/s’ becomes more obtainable, material. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Everything you’ve said grasps onto fragments of definitions to rework in your favor while ignoring the sum of the whole because it doesn’t fit into your agenda. All I can say is, best of luck with that. @AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks [quote]Sounds like you’re mincing hairs because you’re hoping to make the idea of god lesser than what the vast majority of people believe/agree it to mean and if you can persuade people of this lesser significance then ‘God/s’ becomes more obtainable, material. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Everything you’ve said grasps onto fragments of definitions to rework in your favor while ignoring the sum of the whole because it doesn’t fit into your agenda. All I can say is, best of luck with that. @SemmelweisReflex
[/quote]

I'm going to provide a snip from my website. The English word God comes from the Proto-German *ǥuđán from the Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰutóm which is derived from a root word meaning to pour, libate or to invoke. So the English word was used by pagans before it was used by Christians.

That’s fine , except the concept of god (insert long list of God in other languages ) transcends the Anglo root for the term. The concept of god/s is evident in, to my knowledge, literally every religion, but you ‘re hung up on some sort of translation issue as justification to universally redefine it as a platform for your agenda. 🤷🏻‍♀️ @AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks [quote]That’s fine , except the concept of god (insert long list of God in other languages ) transcends the Anglo root for the term. The concept of god/s is evident in, to my knowledge, literally every religion, but you ‘re hung up on some sort of translation issue as justification to universally redefine it as a platform for your agenda. 🤷🏻‍♀️ @SemmelweisReflex[/quote]

The meaning of god in every language of all time means anything/anyone attributed might and or venerated. Most religions are atheistic.

[quote]The meaning of god in every language of all time means anything/anyone attributed might and or venerated. Most religions are atheistic.[/quote]

That is definitely inaccurate, but I wish you the best with your efforts to persuade the many into accommodating your revamped, more material definition.

@AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks [quote]That is definitely inaccurate, but I wish you the best with your efforts to persuade the many into accommodating your revamped, more material definition.[/quote]

Okay. What is the meaning of god? What does it mean to be a god?

That varies from religion to religion and ’ ‘spiritual sect‘, but the commonality universally is that God is supernatural with superpowers 🤷🏻‍♀️ You keep trying to sidestep that. @AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks [quote]That varies from religion to religion and ’ ‘spiritual sect‘, but the commonality universally is that God is supernatural with superpowers 🤷🏻‍♀️ You keep trying to sidestep that. @SemmelweisReflex[/quote]

No. For example I give the Oxford Dictionary definition again, in my own words.

God: In Christianity, the creator and ruler of the universe; supreme being and source of all moral authority.
One having power over nature and human fortunes. An idol or the conventional personification of fate.
An adored, admired or influential person or anything given supreme importance. Money, for example.
A god can be a gallery, that is, the upper balcony in a theater or the people seated there.

We keep going round and round. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I don’t agree with your cherry picking for your own agenda. You’ve decided that cherry picking is sufficient for your intended purposes, so no one is going to be able to present a counterpoint . There’s nothing more to talk about. @AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks [quote]We keep going round and round. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I don’t agree with your cherry picking for your own agenda. You’ve decided that cherry picking is sufficient for your intended purposes, so no one is going to be able to present a counterpoint . There’s nothing more to talk about. @SemmelweisReflex[/quote]

Bullshit! I gave you the definition which included your own definition. Oxford Dictionary gives four examples of the word god. All of them fit my definition. Only 1 or 1 1/2 fits yours. I give you the orchid, you are the one cherry picking.

You’re only fixated on the cherry picked aspects that work for you within these descriptions though, so there’s nothing anyone can say to you. You intentionally pluck what aligns with what you want then use those fragments to compose a premise for your ideas 🤷🏻‍♀️ That only works if your audience is oblivious to all the information you have willfully excluded because it doesn’t work with your goal.

Long-game. my guess is that your goal is, with your new definition, to diminish the ethereal/unobtainable aspects of God into a more material, obtainable, generalizable concept. By this new definition many things, particularly the things you want to be able to call god can then be reclassified. This would allow ‘new gods’ to gain greater influence/power than they previously held as non-god status within the psyche of man.

In my opinion, that just sounds like a bunch of post-modern, manipulative BS that aims to toy with whatever it is that makes many humans want to believe in the ineffable power/influence of gods.


@AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks What is, in your opinion, my goal?

As I've said, there's the definitions (common use) I say all of those examples are gods. You disagree? If so why? I say god simply means mighty. All of those examples fit. Only 1 of yours fit. Why? Where am I wrong?

[i]Again[/i].. tongue and cheek, to everyone but you, A God is not merely mighty. You are cherry picking and I have nothing left to offer you 🤷🏻‍♀️because you can’t effectively discuss topics with someone who willfully only identifies with what they want and continuously references only what they want to hear. It goes round and round. You quote a fragment of a definition. Someone sends you a more extensive definition. You then point to the tiny part within that definition, which you first quoted and is the premise of your argument. They point out that there is more to the definition than what you were focused on. On and on it goes. You have already decided that you do not acknowledge the expanded version’s validity. @AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks [quote]You quote a fragment of a definition. Someone sends you a more extensive definition. [/quote]

This is a direct lie. I post the full definition and gave the source. Not one of you has successfully refuted it, and no one has provided a more extensive definition.

We’ve already gave you more extensive definitions than your snippet. You don’t acknowledge them as valid… so… that’s that. 🤷🏻‍♀️ @AkioTsukino

@WhateverWorks Show me where anyone has given me a more extensive definition.

I personally gave you a more extensive description than the little Oxford one @AkioTsukino