The term "god" or "deity" has a pretty standardized meaning.
People just like to appropriate it for its emotional value so as to apply that emotional value to a different definition.
Diety certainly has a standardized meaning. Certainly 'God' does too. Fortunately, many words mean multiple things to multiple people, and can still be true. How about red? Think of the color red.
Was that lipstick red, fire engine red, blood red, stop light red or what? Still red, though right? So variations of shade really don't alter the meaning of the word. As long as you were thinking of something that approximates my understanding of what red should be, then our definitions are close enough to be meaningful. My definition of 'God' for example, is arguably spot on in terms of Biblical translation and application, and is in practice, not different enough in any meaningful way as to be unconsidered within the typical 'squishy' definition of the term.
Yeah, the original wasn't so much about the reality as it was about what this thread says atheism should be... as far as I understood it.
But I'm not sure if I really agree with making this now Reason Yes/No distinction as far as policy (personal or governmental) goes. It's easy to single out religion and say it doesn't belong in politics, but weeding out unreasonable ideologies and socio-economical theories is a whole lot more difficult.
a) God told me to use kittens for money. (Catticus 25:11)
b) I have 50 studies citing the positive effects of using kittens as currency.
We can rule A out since it's a religious argument. B on the other hand isn't unreasonable until the proponents of it believe it even after the studies have been proven fallacious or if they refuse to argue it critically.
(And unlike what Richy seems to believe, holding an opposing point of view doesn't make you deluded or unreasonable)
The term "god" or "deity" has a pretty standardized meaning.
People just like to appropriate it for its emotional value so as to apply that emotional value to a different definition.
Diety certainly has a standardized meaning. Certainly 'God' does too. Fortunately, many words mean multiple things to multiple people, and can still be true. How about red? Think of the color red.
Was that lipstick red, fire engine red, blood red, stop light red or what? Still red, though right? So variations of shade really don't alter the meaning of the word. As long as you were thinking of something that approximates my understanding of what red should be, then our definitions are close enough to be meaningful. My definition of 'God' for example, is arguably spot on in terms of Biblical translation and application, and is in practice, not different enough in any meaningful way as to be unconsidered within the typical 'squishy' definition of the term.
In which case we have to use an entirely different word for the sake of discussion, because you have made the term "God" abso-fucking-lutely useless.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Diety certainly has a standardized meaning. Certainly 'God' does too. Fortunately, many words mean multiple things to multiple people, and can still be true.
Using your personal definition of god is changing the subject: it's not what other people are talking about, or even something they care about. I can declare myself the winner of an argument if I declare the act of winning an argument to be the act of not eating breakfast before noon--but so what?
In short, you're being silly, not to mention pretty off-topic.
Sarcastro, not to be an ass on the language aspect, but you've seen the way people spell words like "existence" and "deity". They're in your quotes. Make the transition.
Gotta keep in mind that the word "god" has an actual defined meaning.
So it's like naming a radish "Vishnu."
I've discovered a proof of God!
1) God means toaster.
2) Toasters exist.
QED
It's disgusting how many times that's actually happened in a debate.
But God is love. You'd question the existence of love?
Actually, that's not too far from some sentiments I have encountered. Specifically, "You're not sure that God exists? Who the hell do you think created us?" So as much as I like to dream, I don't see some people embracing the rational universe anytime soon.
Diety certainly has a standardized meaning. Certainly 'God' does too. Fortunately, many words mean multiple things to multiple people, and can still be true.
Using your personal definition of god is changing the subject: it's not what other people are talking about, or even something they care about. I can declare myself the winner of an argument if I declare the act of winning an argument to be the act of not eating breakfast before noon--but so what?
In short, you're being silly, not to mention pretty off-topic.
We are discussing proposed changes to the definition of religion and atheism, yes? Since I am essentially a 'religious atheist', I chose to outline why. The two are not as diametrically opposed as people seem to think.
Not to mention your own argument here on the chains of definition is ridiculous. It obviously cuts both ways.
1.) I'm looking for God. I open a dimensional door and find a big guy with a white beard creating Earth 2.1 while universes shoot out of his left hand. He is wearing a nametag clearly labeled 'God'. He proves it.
2.) I take off his nametag, scribble out God, and write in 'Henry'.
3.) The next guy pops in his head and asks "Hey, I'm looking for God, have you seen him?"
4.) And you say, no man, sorry. This is Henry. Keep walking.
This is essentially what has happened to [YHWH]. It used to be a representation of logic and reasoning applied to a situation. Slowly that meaning has been scribbled out, and a meaningless, arbitrary symbol has been put in its place. It is still attached to the cultural phenomenon it spawned though, so any enemies looking for weak spot will surely find it there. 'Look at this Symbol' they cry, 'It is meaningless and arbitrary! Only a fool would ever believe in such a thing! Flying men? Supernatural Powers? Baloney!'
And they are right, because it is.
It wasn't always like that, but it became that.
You've got it completely backwards. There used to be a definition of a God that was far more interventionist and which came along with a whole host of other beliefs - a young Earth, one week's creation, one breeding pair to begin the human race, a Ptolemaic universe etc. etc. This has all retreated under the onslaught of science - it's religious people that have redefined God because they've realised that yes, only a fool would believe in such things. Churches have tried to minimise their weak spots by backing away from all those claims; it's utter bullshit for you to say that God has become an arbitrary strawman.
The term 'god' when not being used in an ironic or metaphorical sense, means, roughly, a supernatural entity of vast power and sacred significance, generally with some sort of anthropomorphic traits, etc etc etc.
If you want to use it in any other way in this thread, please use a proper qualifier to distinguish it. If you want to speak of "Television as God," for instance, make sure to qualify that with "metaphorical" unless you actually feel that a television set is a divine being comparable to Zeus, Ra, Odin, Mithras, and so forth.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
'Look at this Symbol' they cry, 'It is meaningless and arbitrary! Only a fool would ever believe in such a thing! Flying men? Supernatural Powers? Baloney!'
And they are right, because it is.
It wasn't always like that, but it became that.
Regardless of what early Christians thought of god (which I highly doubt is anything like what you describe), that's just not what we're talking about. 'Bogus' used to mean 'an apparatus for counterfeit coining.' Now it means spurious or fictitious. If two people are talking about a bogus claim, then you'd have to be retarded to bust in and tell them that they were confused, and that there is no such thing as a bogus claim, since bogus means counterfeit press.
(And unlike what Richy seems to believe, holding an opposing point of view doesn't make you deluded or unreasonable)
Ah yes. I guess I should have been clearer when I wrote the OP of the thread, in which I claimed everyone religious was delusional.
Except I didn't write the OP, nor any other post that argued people who disagreed with me were deluded or unresonable.
I do have a problem with a certain specific person, if that's what you mean, but not so much because he hold an opposite viewpoint from me, as because he publicly calls me a delusional, sick man who's the root of all evil in this world. But that's going off-topic.
You've got it completely backwards. There used to be a definition of a God that was far more interventionist and which came along with a whole host of other beliefs - a young Earth, one week's creation, one breeding pair to begin the human race, a Ptolemaic universe etc. etc. This has all retreated under the onslaught of science - it's religious people that have redefined God because they've realised that yes, only a fool would believe in such things. Churches have tried to minimise their weak spots by backing away from all those claims; it's utter bullshit for you to say that God has become an arbitrary strawman.
This is a truthful opposite of what happened, like the negative of a photo. It is accurate but from the opposing side. God has always been exactly the same, thats part of what being [God] means. It is the understanding of the world that changes and so what God is understood as being has also changed. One reason the term is not supposed to be coined as an actual word, is because doing so relies on the application of a current collective understanding.
As the understanding of that collective changes, so to the meaning of the term would change. This is counter to the foundational premise of [God], in that it is infinate and unchanging. This is not possible if the word ever becomes coined and falls into popular use. See Also: The Seventh Commandment.
Regardless. If you're using a non-standard definition, qualify it, for fuck's sake.
Fuck that, every denomination has it's own little twist. It's one reason why different denominations exist. Not to mention different religions. By your terms God = Vishnu. Which is retarded.
Tell you what captain, instead of just saying I'm wrong, how about you come up with one bit of original authoritative scrit that disagrees with me.
We were using the word god as it is commonly understood in English. Let's check the OED--dictionaries are where we write down the meanings of words, after all:
II. In the specific Christian and monotheistic sense. The One object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. (Now always with initial capital.)
Well there you go. You may have some notions about the bible and whatever mumbo jumbo, however, that doesn't change the fact that you are using language in an idiosyncratic way, not the rest of us.
You've got it completely backwards. There used to be a definition of a God that was far more interventionist and which came along with a whole host of other beliefs - a young Earth, one week's creation, one breeding pair to begin the human race, a Ptolemaic universe etc. etc. This has all retreated under the onslaught of science - it's religious people that have redefined God because they've realised that yes, only a fool would believe in such things. Churches have tried to minimise their weak spots by backing away from all those claims; it's utter bullshit for you to say that God has become an arbitrary strawman.
This is a truthful opposite of what happened, like the negative of a photo. It is accurate but from the opposing side. God has always been exactly the same, thats part of what being [God] means. It is the understanding of the world that changes and so what God is understood as being has also changed. One reason the term is not supposed to be coined as an actual word, is because doing so relies on the application of a current collective understanding.
As the understanding of that collective changes, so to the meaning of the term would change. This is counter to the foundational premise of [God], in that it is infinate and unchanging. This is not possible if the word ever becomes coined and falls into popular use. See Also: The Seventh Commandment.
Yes, the meaning of the 'God' concept has changed. It's gone in exactly the opposite direction to what you described. God is being constantly redefined by Churches because the old versions simply don't stand up under scrutiny any more. He's become more like your personal definition, not less.
I bloody hate that the Abrahamics took the term "god" and, like an employee calling their boss "Boss," caused it to be treated as a proper noun, thus confusing the term's usage forever.
And dogmatism and gullibility exist in the atheist movement. Case in point: no one gifted with reason, after thinking things through, would reach the conclusion that Nazism, Communism and religions are all the same. That's something someone would read off the internet and decide to blindly follow without thinking because it makes him feel good.
You: Silly religious people will delude themselves into believing anything. Not like rational atheists like me.
Me: You deluded yourself into believing something ridiculous in the OP of this very thread. So, no.
...but it did seem very much like you were calling the OP a delusion and therefore false... rather than first proving it false and then saying the people still believing in it were delusional.
I'm sure there could've been better examples of dogmatism and delusions in the atheist movement.
Well, if I misunderstood what you were saying, Richy, I apologize...
...but it did seem very much like you were calling the OP a delusion and therefore false... rather than first proving it false and then saying the people still believing in it were delusional.
I'm sure there could've been better examples of dogmatism and delusions in the atheist movement.
No, you're right, I did call the OP delusional. That had slipped my mind until now. I withdraw my claim that I never called someone delusional in this thread.
In my defense, though, I don't consider it delusional because it's an opposite point of view from mine. I don't want to start this debate again, but it was an OP I considered to be so wrong as to be a delusion (and not the other way arond as you understood it). But I could (and should) have made a better case for it though.
Sometimes some arguments just cut through me and make me lose it
By "believing in religion," I mean recognizing a significant categorical distinction between "religious" phenomena, and those that are "nonreligious" or "secular."
By "believing in religion," I mean recognizing a significant categorical distinction between "religious" phenomena, and those that are "nonreligious" or "secular."
....
The hell? We do? I was not aware of this.
I think he means "we" in the general sense of atheists at large.
By "believing in religion," I mean recognizing a significant categorical distinction between "religious" phenomena, and those that are "nonreligious" or "secular."
....
The hell? We do? I was not aware of this.
I think he means "we" in the general sense of atheists at large.
But don't atheists see it all as "phenomena" and only the crazy people see one sort of thing as religious and other sorts of things as non-religious?
I have a question about terms here. Correct me if I'm wrong. An agnostic is not sure about religion. They will not make a commitment to organized religion since, to them, there's a lack of concrete evidence to support claims made by said organized religions. There may be a God or not but they're not taking oaths until they've firmly decided.
Atheists take a shine to reason, empirical evidence, and history and refuse to believe in higher beings unless they understand how those beings fit into the natural order.
Deists believe that existence was created by a supreme power but now that power is dead or gone and we have to rely on ourselves.
Then you have the Soviet-types whom I'm not not sure how to label. They believe in man and the state and that humankind's survival depends on humans. If God physically and undoubtedly appeared over Earth and floating around orbit in a golden throne, conversing with all the peoples of the world, this kind of person would say, "Thanks for giving us life and free will, God. We're still not going to worship You and we'll take care of ourselves from now on. Thanks anyways." I don't quite believe this is covered by Marxist - unity through the State and rejection of God but it doesn't seem like a solid fit.
If God physically and undoubtedly appeared over Earth and floating around orbit in a golden throne, conversing with all the peoples of the world, this kind of person would say, "Thanks for giving us life and free will, God. We're still not going to worship You and we'll take care of ourselves from now on. Thanks anyways."
That's pretty much how most atheists would react too.
I have a question about terms here. Correct me if I'm wrong. An agnostic is not sure about religion. They will not make a commitment to organized religion since, to them, there's a lack of concrete evidence to support claims made by said organized religions. There may be a God or not but they're not taking oaths until they've firmly decided.
Depends. A weak agnostic is like that- requires evidence first. A strong agnostic claims it is impossible to ever have evidence.
Atheists take a shine to reason, empirical evidence, and history and refuse to believe in higher beings unless they understand how those beings fit into the natural order.
No; it's the belief that such beings could never fit in the natural order. God is by definition supernatural. Atheists don't believe in the supernatural; if miracles or magic ever appeared, atheism would no longer be a defensible position.
Deists believe that existence was created by a supreme power but now that power is dead or gone and we have to rely on ourselves.
Close. The Prime Mover or Great Clockmaker might be around, just doesn't or can't intervene.
They believe in man and the state and that humankind's survival depends on humans. If God physically and undoubtedly appeared over Earth and floating around orbit in a golden throne, conversing with all the peoples of the world, this kind of person would say, "Thanks for giving us life and free will, God. We're still not going to worship You and we'll take care of ourselves from now on. Thanks anyways."
Theophobes, I guess. Those that acknowledge the reality of a deity but refuse or reject worship of it.
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited April 2007
NONONONONO. No strong vs weak anything, it is not a productive distinction in atheists, theists or agnostics. And it always, always makes threads get bogged down in large amounts of boring.
Secondly, atheists can believe in the supernatural, just not deities. The thing is that most atheists are philosophical naturalists because the same reasoning that most rational atheists use for deities apply just as well to just about everything else supernatural. Atheists are not rational by neccessity, an atheist who is an atheist because it came to him in a dream or upon the instruction of the magic pixie upon his shoulder is no less an atheist than we rational atheists are and can still believe that dreams have power, in shoulder-situated pixies, magic or kelpies.
No; it's the belief that such beings could never fit in the natural order. God is by definition supernatural. Atheists don't believe in the supernatural; if miracles or magic ever appeared, atheism would no longer be a defensible position.
Just a note: Atheism does not imply asupernaturalism, as it were. It is a very very specific term regarding -one- class of being. It may imply other a-isms, but it does not guarantee them. Many atheists believe in the supernatural, and may even consider it sacred, hence why the notion "atheists are non-religious by definition" is so completely absurd.
Atheism, belief in the supernatural, and religiosity do not neccissarily have anything to do with one another EXCEPT that someone who does not believe in the supernatural is, of course, an atheist; even if they believe in some sort of supreme entity, it would have to be wholly natural, rather than supernatural, and a deity is a supernatural being.
Basically, most of these arguments break down to the problem of stereotypes and vocabulary.
Atheism has ONE meaning: Godless.
Religion's meaning is far, far more variable, but for many people, including scholars, it means "Sacred Organization"
Sacred does not imply supernatural, but rather an emotional connection. Love is sacred. Honor is sacred. Etc.
However, many people find it difficult to understand anything natural as being sacred, largely due to long histories many cultures have of considering the world, and this life, to be the equivalent of boot camp.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
What he seemed to be trying to do is say "you accept that a cross is religious therefore you agree that Jesus Christ was the Son of God QED."
No, what he was saying, in part, is that "religion" is amazingly non-distinct when actually comparing religions against numerous other social and individual movements and beliefs.
What he seemed to be trying to do is say "you accept that a cross is religious therefore you agree that Jesus Christ was the Son of God QED."
No, what he was saying, in part, is that "religion" is amazingly non-distinct when actually comparing religions against numerous other social and individual movements and beliefs.
That argument is less stupid. I don't necessarily agree with it, (social and individual movements are extremely malleable depending on, well, social and individual status.) but an argument can be made.
Tell you what captain, instead of just saying I'm wrong, how about you come up with one bit of original authoritative scrit that disagrees with me.
We were using the word god as it is commonly understood in English. Let's check the OED--dictionaries are where we write down the meanings of words, after all:
II. In the specific Christian and monotheistic sense. The One object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. (Now always with initial capital.)
Well there you go. You may have some notions about the bible and whatever mumbo jumbo, however, that doesn't change the fact that you are using language in an idiosyncratic way, not the rest of us.
This definition only serves to confirm what I have said, and prove I am using the term as defined.
[God] is still The One, (as being Everything, there can be only one), the object of supreme devotion and respect (something to which one can dedicate their life to), and The Creator and Ruler of The Universe. (The Rules which allowed the Universe to begin, unfold, and continue). [God] is consistant with the teachings of Christ, and again, since [It] is only One and by it's nature disallows any others to exist, [It] is monotheistic.
I have met every qualification of this definition. If you would like clarification on any one these qualifiers, by all means.
Posts
Diety certainly has a standardized meaning. Certainly 'God' does too. Fortunately, many words mean multiple things to multiple people, and can still be true. How about red? Think of the color red.
Was that lipstick red, fire engine red, blood red, stop light red or what? Still red, though right? So variations of shade really don't alter the meaning of the word. As long as you were thinking of something that approximates my understanding of what red should be, then our definitions are close enough to be meaningful. My definition of 'God' for example, is arguably spot on in terms of Biblical translation and application, and is in practice, not different enough in any meaningful way as to be unconsidered within the typical 'squishy' definition of the term.
But I'm not sure if I really agree with making this now Reason Yes/No distinction as far as policy (personal or governmental) goes. It's easy to single out religion and say it doesn't belong in politics, but weeding out unreasonable ideologies and socio-economical theories is a whole lot more difficult.
a) God told me to use kittens for money. (Catticus 25:11)
b) I have 50 studies citing the positive effects of using kittens as currency.
We can rule A out since it's a religious argument. B on the other hand isn't unreasonable until the proponents of it believe it even after the studies have been proven fallacious or if they refuse to argue it critically.
(And unlike what Richy seems to believe, holding an opposing point of view doesn't make you deluded or unreasonable)
In which case we have to use an entirely different word for the sake of discussion, because you have made the term "God" abso-fucking-lutely useless.
Using your personal definition of god is changing the subject: it's not what other people are talking about, or even something they care about. I can declare myself the winner of an argument if I declare the act of winning an argument to be the act of not eating breakfast before noon--but so what?
In short, you're being silly, not to mention pretty off-topic.
But God is love. You'd question the existence of love?
Actually, that's not too far from some sentiments I have encountered. Specifically, "You're not sure that God exists? Who the hell do you think created us?" So as much as I like to dream, I don't see some people embracing the rational universe anytime soon.
We are discussing proposed changes to the definition of religion and atheism, yes? Since I am essentially a 'religious atheist', I chose to outline why. The two are not as diametrically opposed as people seem to think.
Not to mention your own argument here on the chains of definition is ridiculous. It obviously cuts both ways.
1.) I'm looking for God. I open a dimensional door and find a big guy with a white beard creating Earth 2.1 while universes shoot out of his left hand. He is wearing a nametag clearly labeled 'God'. He proves it.
2.) I take off his nametag, scribble out God, and write in 'Henry'.
3.) The next guy pops in his head and asks "Hey, I'm looking for God, have you seen him?"
4.) And you say, no man, sorry. This is Henry. Keep walking.
This is essentially what has happened to [YHWH]. It used to be a representation of logic and reasoning applied to a situation. Slowly that meaning has been scribbled out, and a meaningless, arbitrary symbol has been put in its place. It is still attached to the cultural phenomenon it spawned though, so any enemies looking for weak spot will surely find it there. 'Look at this Symbol' they cry, 'It is meaningless and arbitrary! Only a fool would ever believe in such a thing! Flying men? Supernatural Powers? Baloney!'
And they are right, because it is.
It wasn't always like that, but it became that.
If you want to use it in any other way in this thread, please use a proper qualifier to distinguish it. If you want to speak of "Television as God," for instance, make sure to qualify that with "metaphorical" unless you actually feel that a television set is a divine being comparable to Zeus, Ra, Odin, Mithras, and so forth.
Regardless of what early Christians thought of god (which I highly doubt is anything like what you describe), that's just not what we're talking about. 'Bogus' used to mean 'an apparatus for counterfeit coining.' Now it means spurious or fictitious. If two people are talking about a bogus claim, then you'd have to be retarded to bust in and tell them that they were confused, and that there is no such thing as a bogus claim, since bogus means counterfeit press.
God doesn't mean what you describe. The end.
Except I didn't write the OP, nor any other post that argued people who disagreed with me were deluded or unresonable.
I do have a problem with a certain specific person, if that's what you mean, but not so much because he hold an opposite viewpoint from me, as because he publicly calls me a delusional, sick man who's the root of all evil in this world. But that's going off-topic.
This is a truthful opposite of what happened, like the negative of a photo. It is accurate but from the opposing side. God has always been exactly the same, thats part of what being [God] means. It is the understanding of the world that changes and so what God is understood as being has also changed. One reason the term is not supposed to be coined as an actual word, is because doing so relies on the application of a current collective understanding.
As the understanding of that collective changes, so to the meaning of the term would change. This is counter to the foundational premise of [God], in that it is infinate and unchanging. This is not possible if the word ever becomes coined and falls into popular use. See Also: The Seventh Commandment.
Tell you what captain, instead of just saying I'm wrong, how about you come up with one bit of original authoritative scrit that disagrees with me.
Fuck that, every denomination has it's own little twist. It's one reason why different denominations exist. Not to mention different religions. By your terms God = Vishnu. Which is retarded.
We were using the word god as it is commonly understood in English. Let's check the OED--dictionaries are where we write down the meanings of words, after all:
Well there you go. You may have some notions about the bible and whatever mumbo jumbo, however, that doesn't change the fact that you are using language in an idiosyncratic way, not the rest of us.
Yes, the meaning of the 'God' concept has changed. It's gone in exactly the opposite direction to what you described. God is being constantly redefined by Churches because the old versions simply don't stand up under scrutiny any more. He's become more like your personal definition, not less.
I bloody hate that the Abrahamics took the term "god" and, like an employee calling their boss "Boss," caused it to be treated as a proper noun, thus confusing the term's usage forever.
...but it did seem very much like you were calling the OP a delusion and therefore false... rather than first proving it false and then saying the people still believing in it were delusional.
I'm sure there could've been better examples of dogmatism and delusions in the atheist movement.
In my defense, though, I don't consider it delusional because it's an opposite point of view from mine. I don't want to start this debate again, but it was an OP I considered to be so wrong as to be a delusion (and not the other way arond as you understood it). But I could (and should) have made a better case for it though.
Sometimes some arguments just cut through me and make me lose it
....
The hell? We do? I was not aware of this.
Slaying the Eldar Pantheon. For Sarc, there is only Slaanesh.
I think he means "we" in the general sense of atheists at large.
It's because you're an emotional Frenchman.
But don't atheists see it all as "phenomena" and only the crazy people see one sort of thing as religious and other sorts of things as non-religious?
The whole blog post doesn't make much sense.
I guess I'm confused.
We have a cross, a doughnut, and a television. We say the cross is "religious".
We have a turnip, a fern, and a duck. We say the fern is "green".
If all the blog post says is that "human beings categorize things" then...so what?
What he seemed to be trying to do is say "you accept that a cross is religious therefore you agree that Jesus Christ was the Son of God QED."
Atheists take a shine to reason, empirical evidence, and history and refuse to believe in higher beings unless they understand how those beings fit into the natural order.
Deists believe that existence was created by a supreme power but now that power is dead or gone and we have to rely on ourselves.
Then you have the Soviet-types whom I'm not not sure how to label. They believe in man and the state and that humankind's survival depends on humans. If God physically and undoubtedly appeared over Earth and floating around orbit in a golden throne, conversing with all the peoples of the world, this kind of person would say, "Thanks for giving us life and free will, God. We're still not going to worship You and we'll take care of ourselves from now on. Thanks anyways." I don't quite believe this is covered by Marxist - unity through the State and rejection of God but it doesn't seem like a solid fit.
That's pretty much how most atheists would react too.
Depends. A weak agnostic is like that- requires evidence first. A strong agnostic claims it is impossible to ever have evidence.
No; it's the belief that such beings could never fit in the natural order. God is by definition supernatural. Atheists don't believe in the supernatural; if miracles or magic ever appeared, atheism would no longer be a defensible position.
Close. The Prime Mover or Great Clockmaker might be around, just doesn't or can't intervene.
Theophobes, I guess. Those that acknowledge the reality of a deity but refuse or reject worship of it.
Secondly, atheists can believe in the supernatural, just not deities. The thing is that most atheists are philosophical naturalists because the same reasoning that most rational atheists use for deities apply just as well to just about everything else supernatural. Atheists are not rational by neccessity, an atheist who is an atheist because it came to him in a dream or upon the instruction of the magic pixie upon his shoulder is no less an atheist than we rational atheists are and can still believe that dreams have power, in shoulder-situated pixies, magic or kelpies.
Just a note: Atheism does not imply asupernaturalism, as it were. It is a very very specific term regarding -one- class of being. It may imply other a-isms, but it does not guarantee them. Many atheists believe in the supernatural, and may even consider it sacred, hence why the notion "atheists are non-religious by definition" is so completely absurd.
Atheism, belief in the supernatural, and religiosity do not neccissarily have anything to do with one another EXCEPT that someone who does not believe in the supernatural is, of course, an atheist; even if they believe in some sort of supreme entity, it would have to be wholly natural, rather than supernatural, and a deity is a supernatural being.
Basically, most of these arguments break down to the problem of stereotypes and vocabulary.
Atheism has ONE meaning: Godless.
Religion's meaning is far, far more variable, but for many people, including scholars, it means "Sacred Organization"
Sacred does not imply supernatural, but rather an emotional connection. Love is sacred. Honor is sacred. Etc.
However, many people find it difficult to understand anything natural as being sacred, largely due to long histories many cultures have of considering the world, and this life, to be the equivalent of boot camp.
Can I go ahead and say that that argument is stupid, and the guy who made it is stupid? Would that be an acceptable ad hom?
No, what he was saying, in part, is that "religion" is amazingly non-distinct when actually comparing religions against numerous other social and individual movements and beliefs.
Saying the argument is stupid is redundant ending the string before we get to the potential ad hom. IANAM but I figure you should be in the clear.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
That argument is less stupid. I don't necessarily agree with it, (social and individual movements are extremely malleable depending on, well, social and individual status.) but an argument can be made.
This definition only serves to confirm what I have said, and prove I am using the term as defined.
[God] is still The One, (as being Everything, there can be only one), the object of supreme devotion and respect (something to which one can dedicate their life to), and The Creator and Ruler of The Universe. (The Rules which allowed the Universe to begin, unfold, and continue). [God] is consistant with the teachings of Christ, and again, since [It] is only One and by it's nature disallows any others to exist, [It] is monotheistic.
I have met every qualification of this definition. If you would like clarification on any one these qualifiers, by all means.
Atheism isn't just about aversion to monotheism in whatever-the-hell form.