Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Acim]

If you impose a definition of "god" on the thoughts of a baby, you mean.

I think it's more honest to acknowledge that a baby has no concept of god.

I'm saying it is what we are plausibly observing. I acknowledge the baby might not know / have any concept of it (or anything, including that they are a baby, or that concepts even exist).

But if we observe a being that is god by our definition, interacting with its creation, then we could plausibly assert that it is a theistic relationship/interaction occurring. Some of us may wish to deny that the being is a god by all the other definitions about all possibilities for a god-like entity. But, it kind of seems like we've set it up that even with definitions of god, we wouldn't even know it, if it presented itself to us. Or is presenting itself to us via other people's relationships.

Something that apparently has enormous lack of beliefs associated with it, also seems to have a whole lot of beliefs associated with it, for what it (absolutely) must be to be god(s).

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't disagree with you, and yet, if some Christians were defining atheism it would read as follows: Atheist, an individual who hates God and who falsely claims not to believe in God's existence.

Muslims too. I have seen it suggested here in these forums. It figures into the meaning of "Kafir" (infidel).

 

[LuisDantas]

Egads, another thread devolved into the "is a baby an atheist" argument?"

It's like every thread these days.

It is actually an important thing to discuss, frustrating as it turns out.

It taps into the perceptions of what is proper and reasonable regarding presumed belief stances. Which is a field in dire need of questioning.

 

[Willamena]

Do you mean, would deny a person had ever been a theist? If they are deceased then it is a safe bet they no longer have an opinion on the subject. Yes?

No, I mean that it would deny that that person is a theist. A person is identifiable as a theist despite that they have passed away.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is actually an important thing to discuss, frustrating as it turns out.

It taps into the perceptions of what is proper and reasonable regarding presumed belief stances. Which is a field in dire need of questioning.

Agree.

However, the big questions used to be: "does God exist?" and "what's the evidence for or against God?" and so on. Now it's, "what does the word atheism mean literally?"

Part of it is that theism is a philosophy. So the questions about different aspects of God, existence, non-existence, and so on are all philosophical, and it's been presented many times (at least on this forum) that atheism is neither a view, belief, or even a philosophical position anymore. Which means that atheism has been taken out of the equation of the religious discussions (unless you're a strong atheist and not just implicit or nominal).

 

[LuisDantas]

Because many atheists come out as the “know-it-all” type. Maybe they are not, but they seem to be. So, they provoke you to make a fuss about what they do not know

So you are proposing to fix a prejudice against atheists by further defaming them AND committing the mistake that you perceive others as committing?

Are you sure that is at all a good idea?

Depends on the topic. For instance, let’s say that a strong wind blows, drifts a glass of water which falls down and breaks. Now, if you correlate “god” with natural laws, it is not wrong to say that “it was the will of god for the glass to brake”, since natural laws provoked it... It is of course very funny to say something like that, but it’s not wrong.

Except that it amounts to demanding people to assume God's existence regardless of their own preferences. That is an abusive stance with good PR.

Where did this capability came from? Leave god (by the typical definition) out of it and try to explain it. Why is our intelligence so much different from anything else we know so far? Let’s assume that it is a given that there is no “almighty creator” as most religions claim.

"Most" is a very loaded qualificator here.

So, what happened?

We do not know. No big deal.

Hint: I do NOT expect a “I have no idea” answer. I’m not interested in toppings either.

Sorry, I am not interested in accepting your invitation. It has nothing to me. I doubt it is very useful or meaningful for anyone else, either.

Babies are pantheists. From the moment they are born till about their 3rd month, they can’t distinguish them selves from anything else. From their 3rd month till their 5th month, they perceive everything as their own extension. They also think that once they can’t see something, it doesn’t exist. It is on their 7th month that start to understand the difference between “me” and “everything else”.

Ask any child-psychologist about all this and s/he confirm it.

Is it even possible to be a pantheist before learning of the idea of God? I doubt it and I want to discourage such a misguided notion. Being utterly egocentric is VERY different from being a pantheist.

 

[Quintessence]

Are they all Gods though? I'm familiar with the concept, it's just I thought the idea of spirits of dead ancestors watching over was more like guardian angels or something along those lines

From the perspective of classical monotheist theologies where there is only one god and nothing else can be gods, yes, that's how it would be interpreted. Thus, that is how it is often presented in western cultures. From what little I've read about ancestor veneration here and there, though, "guardian angel" isn't quite right. It's not something I've done a lot of research on, though.

Do adherents to ancestor worship call each dead ancestor "God?"

If only there were a straightforward answer to that - there are issues in translation, and in translation there are issues with cultural bias in terms of what words are chosen to represent a concept from another culture. The words other cultures use to describe objects of worship sometimes get translated as "god" in English. Other times, it doesn't. From the standpoint of comparative religion, we can identify things in other cultures that hold an analogous place in those cultures by asking "what are the subjects of worship?"

 

[Demonslayer]

It is actually an important thing to discuss, frustrating as it turns out.

It taps into the perceptions of what is proper and reasonable regarding presumed belief stances. Which is a field in dire need of questioning.

I agree, it's just 75 threads about the same topic seems a little...unfocused?

 

[LuisDantas]

Agree.

However, the big questions used to be: "does God exist?" and "what's the evidence for or against God?" and so on.

Those were mistaken questions. They hardly have any meaning without a functional understanding of "God". And we lack such an understanding.

Now it's, "what does the word atheism mean literally?"

Part of it is that theism is a philosophy. So the questions about different aspects of God, existence, non-existence, and so on are all philosophical, and it's been presented many times (at least on this forum) that atheism is neither a view, belief, or even a philosophical position anymore. Which means that atheism has been taken out of the equation of the religious discussions (unless you're a strong atheist and not just implicit or nominal).

Theism does not qualify as a philosphy IMO. It hardly not solid or complete enough. It is just a style, an attitude of attributing certain qualities values and roles to a label and proposing that such label has existence of its own beyond the abstract concept.

What is truly at stake here is which meanings of the god-related concepts should be acknowledged as valid.

 

[Thief]

It is actually an important thing to discuss, frustrating as it turns out.

It taps into the perceptions of what is proper and reasonable regarding presumed belief stances. Which is a field in dire need of questioning.

like asking a baby for proper reasoning....
a practice I would question

 

[Pudding]

But neither identity is intrinsic to the creature. It is only intrinsic to our perspective of them. A projection of their being, if you will.

Never say i disagree with that.

Definition for god: an adored, admired, or influential person, having power over nature or human fortunes

So, while none these creatures may self identify as such definition that is applicable for them, each definition could apply to them. For a parent to a child is an influential person, creator having power over the human fortunes of their offspring.

If that is the case, i'll simply disagree with your definition, i see no useful meaning to label nature human parents "god" and compare it with those many invisible gods who give many different revelations to many prophets which result in many different holy books.
Nature human parents are not some supernature invisible gods who reside in another dimension.

Due to the fact that in each case, because the creature is unable to self identify themselves as pertaining to the inherent definition said to apply to them, this would mean in 2 of the 3 cases, our definition still applies, while in the third instance it is somehow, magically not applicable. Yet, we don't really know the beliefs of a baby, and project lacking onto them because we (or some of us) think it applicable. The ironic thing is in all cases of us, we are/were them.

According to your words, because we don't really know the beliefs of a babies whether they believe they're babies or not, so we're absurb to call them babies? And we're absurb to call wild animals wild animals?

Some gods are clearly visible. Arguably all gods are visible, and depends on how one is choosing to look for them and/or understand the effects of said gods.

But with babies, their creators/influential beings that watch over them are observable to us. If we choose to deny them as gods, then that's a personal choice we make, but is counter to our observations and definition of god(s).

There is no "us/we/our" here, your definition of god have no monopoly or authority above me.
Please understand that it's your observations and definition not our observations and definition.

It's you who use a poorly definition of god to imply you've observe visible human parents are visible gods who watching over their children in comparison that you have observe the invisible god who create the universe who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent who watching over his creation including whether human adult or human baby.

I said it's not a comparable comparison.
I have not observe or convinced that there is any invisible god who create the universe who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and he is watching over his creation including whether human adult or human baby.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree, it's just 75 threads about the same topic seems a little...unfocused?

It is. But an apparently necessary prerequisite to focus in these situations is dripping our innards out or ourselves in passioned expression of our certainties to establish our credentials.

 

[Demonslayer]

If only there were a straightforward answer to that - there are issues in translation, and in translation there are issues with cultural bias in terms of what words are chosen to represent a concept from another culture. The words other cultures use to describe objects of worship sometimes get translated as "god" in English. Other times, it doesn't. From the standpoint of comparative religion, we can identify things in other cultures that hold an analogous place in those cultures by asking "what are the subjects of worship?"

Fine, but the initial question was surrounding what people call "God." If there is a culture/religion that adheres to ancestor worship, but they don't call their dead ancestors "God" than I wasn't such a sad sack ingnant Western Johnny-Wrongpants.

Let me ask a follow up question...these ancestor worshipers...do they also have an overriding "God?" So in these cultures/religions of which my lame Western brain is less than familiar with...are the dead ancestors the only watching-spirits? Or is there some other entity supposedly floating around out there?

Backing up one more step...do you have an example of such a culture/religion that I could read more about?

 

[Demonslayer]

i see no useful meaning to label nature human parents "god" and compare it with those many invisible gods who give many different revelations to many prophets which result in many different holy books.

Everything is a God around here as it turns out. Last week someone told me "air" is God because air is very important to people with their pesky breathing addiction.

 

[Demonslayer]

Some gods are clearly visible.

Do you need one of those special blacklight thingies?

 

[Acim]

So last week I was told Gods can be "air" or "my heart." This week we're saying anyone who is a parent is also a God?

Good grief!

That is one of the really fun things about the word "god".
It can be defined to mean whatever the one using the word wants it to mean.

Particularly helpful when pushing an agenda.

And yet, the parent association with god fits with the dictionary definition. Wow, amazing.

 

[Acim]

If that is the case, i'll simply disagree with your definition, i see no useful meaning to label nature human parents "god" and compare it with those many invisible gods who give many different revelations to many prophets which result in many different holy books.

My definition equals definition that is found in dictionary. I have no issues if you wish to disagree with the definition, unless you are trying to suggest your definition of words are righteous/widely held, while mine are mine and mine alone.

I find it interesting that an atheist type would be at all interested in comparing gods while also lacking a belief. Seems like it would be begging the question of 'lack of belief' but also how I imagine atheism to work when encountering reason.

Nature human parents are not some supernature invisible gods who reside in another dimension.

And yet, still fit within definition of god(s).

There is no "us/we/our" here, your definition of god have no monopoly or authority above me.
Please understand that it's your observations and definition not our observations and definition.

Disagreed. Already spoke to this. If we have no definitions for words, then we have no idea of what babies and animals are, now do WE?

 

[Acim]

Do you need one of those special blacklight thingies?

Nope, just need not rely on perception or physical eyes to do the thing called seeing (or looking).

 

[LuisDantas]

like asking a baby for proper reasoning....
a practice I would question

That is a good thing.

 

[Demonslayer]

And yet, the parent association with god fits with the dictionary definition. Wow, amazing.

In which dictionary can I find "a human parent" as part of the definition of God?