What Is Atheism

@AkioTsukino
It’s still out of context. Atheism addresses a particular aspect or definition of god or gods. Not the loose , random, concept you’re trying to thrust into the mix.
Neil Gaiman’s book “American Gods” is an example . The new gods are a construct of that forces that influence humanity. Wealth, Media , Technology are not any individual object .just as the old gods were a personification of natural forces that influenced humans in the past. You’re distorting the context to discredit Atheism as irrational. Which it isn’t.

@Pikachu
Only one thing qualifies anything as a god. Worship.


Well. I don't see how that changes anything, but it isn't necessarily true anyway. A person's god can be a literal person, so they don't have to imagine that person exists. A god doesn't have to be supernatural. How do I know? The dictionary, encyclopedia, Bible, and the history of gods. All you need to do is explain why you think that a god has to be supernatural. Nothing says that. Atheism says no gods exist. That's wrong.


Yes. I can name countless examples. All I have to do is name two. One a literal person and one an object. Kim Jong-Un and gold.

@AkioTsukino


Bad definition. Again, it's so open-ended that it becomes meaningless and i think you can prove that to yourself.
Using your definition, tell me what or who can be excluded from godhood.
If "Might" is the only relevant characteristic that makes a god a god, what then is not encompassed by that definition?



lol well i disagree. But also it doesn't have to be a true statement for the atheist to believe that bout the world.


Well actually all you have to do is name ONE...which you haven't done here.
Kim Jong-Un is a terrible example for your case because the internal propaganda does indeed assign him supernatural powers.
"Teachers explained to them that the Kims could read the minds of everyday citizens, prompting them to think well of the tyrants."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/north-korean-children-told-kim-22634989

"After releasing images this weekend of a smiling Kim on top of Mount Paektu, an active volcano on the China and North Korea border, the nation's state media said the "peerlessly illustrious commander" can control "the nature"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/11/not-even-north-koreas-kim-jong-un-can-control-weather/939609001/

Sorry, that's an example just like Jesus where a man is said to have supernatural powers.

As for Gold...well that's not actually an example, is it? I asked you to name known gods which posses no supernatural abilities.
So unless you can point me to people who worship gold itself as a god then you're simply begging the question. That is to say, your example of gold is assuming your conclusion rather than being an example to support it.

P.S. Do please weigh in on my most recent evolution thread. I was inspired by your "I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind" thread.

@Pikachu
A god is anything or anyone deified. If it isn't deified it isn't a god. The qualities, agency, powers and influence of the thing itself aren't what makes the god, the veneration is.

If two people observe a mountain one of them may make the mountain their god and the other may not. It wasn't a god until it was deified. It becomes a god, or God, to the person and in a general sense. It would be a god if the worshiper had other gods of more significance to that person, or God if it was placed above those other gods in significance. To those who don't venerate the mountain it becomes a god due to it being venerated by others, but it doesn't become their god. The mountain may become other people's God or god as well.

Godhood is in the eye of the beholder. It is dependent only upon the veneration it receives. It doesn't require or result in any special qualities outside the respect and veneration, the might attributed to it by the one who's deity it becomes.

You keep saying you understand that there are other things that are worshipped but then you make the mistake of assuming that in order for that veneration or worship to be proper it has to be applied to a supernatural being that has control over human affairs, or whatever. It doesn't. It can, but it doesn't have to.

To say it's meaningless is foolish even if you were right about it because of the effects it has upon the culture various peoples around the globe live in. God, whether real or imagined, has a tremendous effect on Western culture, for example. Allah's influence upon Islamic cultures is similar, and Kami's effect on Japan.


Anything and anyone. If no people, and no spirit creatures attributed or had attributed godhood, as you call it, to Jehovah, or Jesus or Zeus or the cross, then none of those would have been or remain God or gods. They would go on just as they had before. Same powers, same agency, same qualities etc. but they wouldn't be gods or anyone's God anymore.


The attribution of might is subjective. It's up to the one attributing it. To some Eric Clapton is a guitar god. To others he isn't. He doesn't like being seen in that way but it isn't up to him.


I certainly don't think so, but we are talking about how the word is used. Its dictionary definition. Does atheism mean rejecting gods? Perhaps for some. Is atheism disbelief, as in no faith or trust in gods? Probably to most, but they fail to understand they can have gods without realizing it. Is it lack of belief, as in agnostic and uncertain? Sure, that's a reasonable conclusion.

It's sort of like love. You can't tell someone else that what they feel isn't love just because it doesn't subscribe to your or anyone else's standards. People have different ways of feeling love. Maybe that's why in recent history they've come up with all of these variations in title. Words and charts that describe the particular brand of atheism you most likely adhere to. I just skip all of that nonsense and say unbeliever or believer.


That's an excellent point. Nice work. I didn't bother to look closely at that because it isn't my requirement, it's yours. It's irrelevant to me. If God created us and we scattered over the globe from Babel then we would have taken those beliefs with us. But we could also have just made them up, and they intermingled and spread of their own accord, so it's a weak argument either way.

Moses and Jesus were mortal men. Well, you can argue that they both had supernatural powers and that is sort of true, but they were given those by Jehovah's holy spirit. So, the prophets and Moses and the disciples performed supernatural acts. They did it with God's force.

In the dictionary under God, as a definition it reads: "an adored, admired, or influential person." You can argue that and say it's an ironic application but what is it based upon? What attributes does the ironic application suggest? Might.

It's impossible to convince a militant atheist of any of this and what would be the point? I like to observe their reaction, though. It tells me about their beliefs.


I can't. You won't accept it. I already have. Eric Clapton. Frodo Baggins. Sumerian kings like Tammuz in the Bible, were deified upon their death. Roman emperors; the early Christians were persecuted because they didn't worship the Roman Emperors. Japanese royal family. Some of these probably were thought to have supernatural powers, but that's only - ha - natural.

Gold? The golden calf. Exodus 20:23: "Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold."


I looked all over for it and couldn't find it. If you can point me to it or link to it I would be happy to weigh in.

@AkioTsukino In your definition, godhood is conferred simply by a FEELING that someone somewhere has. Frankly that's an insult to theists. If someone decides to worship a doorknob, most people would view that as mental illness, not religion.

Your attempt to define godhood as nothing more than a feeling is a false equivalence. Just like your confusion of the map with the terrain is a false equivalence. You may have a set of definitions you believe to be internally consistent, but your definitions do not fit the concepts and definitions and behaviors of real people; neither theists nor agnostics nor atheists. Your attempt to re-define "god" just doesn't match the way the word is used.

@AkioTsukino
Ok, what you’re saying a god can by anyone, or anything. If an Atheist says he doesn’t believe in god or gods , he’s actually saying he doesn’t believe in anyone or anything. If he says, god is bullshit, then you can claim bullshit is also a god. I got that part. So the obvious loophole is to specify which god , you are referring to at the start. Wouldn’t it ?
God is bullshit = bullshit is god
But if you say
“Jesus Christ is bullshit” , is that the same as bullshit is Jesus Christ ?
Jehovah is bullshit = bullshit is Jehovah?
Making god as an all encompassing title, means the only way you can express the disbelief is to name the person or object your referring to.
It also make blasphemy harmless, because random, ordinary people, or objects are subject to criticism.
Have you really thought about what kind of opening your giving Atheist ? By making god trivial, your making all gods trivial.

@AkioTsukino

Your previous post belie your statement. As I said before. Here you clearly state that a god has some authority over me, and can hold me accountable for my actions. Evidently this god is not of my choosing, and is independent of me regardless if I worship it or not. Assuming that this accountability will take place in the next life, if not this one, you’re describing a being of supernatural powers, and authority. Obviously not a man made object, or person. So while you say one thing, you’ve shown that you do in fact consider something to be “god” after all.

@AkioTsukino For a long time, "the average person" thought the Earth was flat. That doesn't make it a worthy topic of debate, LOL!!!

@AkioTsukino I see someone reacting, a bit dramatically, to another's attempt to validate their own opinion by making a declartaion about what 'the average person' (an abstract concept) 'thinks'.

@Imsleepy I have heard of it. It is bunkum. There is no reason for it to work.

It is definitely not nonsense. That makes me think you do not really know what you’re talking about when you mention red shift, or that you’re just not familiar enough with the Hartle–Hawking proposal to give a proper rebuttal of it. @hippyjoe1955

@Imsleepy You really have not looked at the universe and the intricate tuning required for it to exist let alone function. Ever heard of Fred Hoyle?

@AkioTsukino OK , that's my experience with most of my friends. We were all "atheists" before God saved us.

@Carazaa Yeah, so was I. But I was talking about the default position. Some atheists think that we are born atheists. I don't see how that could be if we have no knowledge of a god to choose whether or not to believe in.

@AkioTsukino Satan blinds people!

@AkioTsukino they do?
For me there is a difference in someone believing something and that something actually being true

@ozgirl512
Yes. Undoubtedly.


We better have a definition.

God

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

@ozgirl512
Thanks, ozgirl, I don't think it defies rational thought because a god can be anyone or anything. Kim Jong-un, for example, is a god.

@DocSavage Thank you for that. Haven't watched him in far too long.

@ninalanyon
Every Sunday on channel 11 . The Two Ronnies, Dave Allen at Large, and Monty Python.

@EvilFairy If I were splitting hairs I would try to break down the definition of atheism; disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods into three words: belief, existence, God and gods.

1. Belief can mean trust i.e. "I believe in my son" or it can mean acceptance as true. Truth, ironically, can mean, a fact or belief that is accepted as true. So, atheism, by dictionary definition which is only the current most common use of a word, implies a rejection of God and gods. The point being that belief itself isn't dependent upon existence. This interpretation, put simply, would mean atheists reject gods whether they exist or not. That seems less problematic and pragmatic than implying the belief is dependent upon establishing whether or not those gods exist. Kim Jong-Un is a god of North Korea. He exists. Argument over.

2. Existence is problematic when discussing gods because a god doesn't have to exist in a literal sense to exist as a god. Frodo Baggins is a fictional character. He doesn't exist. In the late 1960s he was called a god, therefore he exists as a god but doesn't exist in a literal sense. Again, Kim Jong-un is a literal person and god of N Korea. No doubt he exists. As mentioned earlier in this thread, God, as in Jehovah, can't be proven to exist or not exist. One can believe or not believe.

3. A god can be anything or anyone so atheism, by definition, would be nonsensical if stated as a disbelief or lack thereof.

The thing is, what is atheism? If it's the antithesis of theism; namely, belief in the existence of a god or gods, that is complicated. But if it is having no interest or having nothing to do with theism, that's simple. Virtually all of my family and friends with the exception of my mother are unbelievers who wouldn't like the social and political implications of atheism any more than the same of theism. They would be, in this latter interpretation, atheists. I enjoy debating atheists and have for over a quarter of a century. Most "atheists" you encounter online are what I call militant atheists. Outspoken and socio-politically frustrated with theocracy more than anything else.

@scooogy I've always wondered what agnosticism, in practice, really is. Is it a lazy sort of cowardice or is it painfully obvious as being that no one can know for certain whether God exists? Either way, it doesn't address the latter part of the definition of atheism. The question of the existence of gods.

@AkioTsukino As far as I know, agnostic people neither claim there'd be no God, nor would they believe in a certain one. There is at least one God, and you can't prove any of them not to exist.

@Unlearn Thanks for the response, Unlearn. I'm curious, what exactly are mental constructs in this context?
Intelligence, motivation, anxiety, and fear?

@AkioTsukino An atheist is a person who looks at a poor, distorted, reflection of truth and makes it his/her truth. When I say mental construct, I mean it to be a distorted reflection of truth...

@AkioTsukino Out of curiosity, following your 25 years of study, you did come to the conclusion that's it's all made up fables intended to control, right?

@Ynotisay The Bible? No. Not at all. If it was designed to do that it failed miserably at it. If that was the case we wouldn't be discussing it here. The conclusion that I have affirmed in that time is that the Bible is remarkably accurate and insightful. In that time I also discovered that religion wasn't designed to control either. It was redesigned to be controlled.

@AkioTsukino Wow. OK.