Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Demonslayer]

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

By shoehorning 'a human parent' into the definition of "God" do you feel that weakens or strengthens the meaning of the word God.

Over here we have Yahweh, Creator of the Universe, Lord of the Kingdom of Heaven, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Prayer Answerer, Judger of Souls.

Over here we have my Uncle Larry, asleep on the couch at 1:00 in the afternoon after chugging 7 PBR's.

Both God. Congratulations.

 

[Demonslayer]

All praise my Uncle Larry, he hath made a child and thus he is God.

Amen

***beeeeelch***

 

[Acim]

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

The actual words "human parent" may not be found. Like saying if I don't see "human parent" in definition of evolution, that human parents are not part of evolution. Or if looking at definition of god(s) that say - influential person that is adored/respected, one might reason that applies to human parents who happen to also be creators of other beings.

 

[Willamena]

Seems to me it is the belief that fetus/baby have a god belief that is the crux...
Seems said belief is merely a belief in and of itself.

Not at all, at least not in the scenario Acim proposed in post #196.

 

[Acim]

By shoehorning 'a human parent' into the definition of "God" do you feel that weakens or strengthens the meaning of the word God.

I think it strengthens the meaning of the word god(s).

Over here we have Yahweh, Creator of the Universe, Lord of the Kingdom of Heaven, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Prayer Answerer, Judger of Souls.

Over here we have my Uncle Larry, asleep on the couch at 1:00 in the afternoon after chugging 7 PBR's.

Both God. Congratulations.

Sometimes there is reverence for god(s) to capitalize the term and presume it is Creator of all existence. For me, including human parent or physical anything would weaken the meaning of Supreme Being, but for another who wishes to deify things that clearly fit within definition of god(s), but are also observably influential and holding power over other beings, it may strengthen meaning and provide insight into the nature of god(s).

I see all humans as gods, but not as Creators of themselves. I believe (actually know) that understanding humans as divine beings leads to powerful/relevant insights about the nature of existence, at least as it pertains to my normal, everyday life. Perhaps, not as it pertains to things not seen, like the far reaches of outer space.

 

[Demonslayer]

Or if looking at definition of god(s) that say - influential person that is adored/respected, one might reason that applies to human parents who happen to also be creators of other beings.

Sure if you're striving to find the weakest, most pointless definition of God and then claim victory by pointing to the 4th of 5th definition in some dictionary. You win.

Now bow down to my Uncle Larry, we are all merely servants in his great name!

 

[Demonslayer]

I see all humans as gods,

Even Trump?

 

[Willamena]

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).

Except that to some atheists atheism is still a view, a belief and/or a topic of philosophical import. It doesn't cease being those just because others want to impose their views.

 

[Acim]

Sure if you're striving to find the weakest, most pointless definition of God and then claim victory by pointing to the 4th of 5th definition in some dictionary. You win.

I'll take that as a concession. All the added stuff is your vain attempt to weaken what is observable, everyday experience of shared reality.

Now bow down to my Uncle Larry, we are all merely servants in his great name!

Why bow? Why be in awe of that which is divine, but not Creator of own existence? Perhaps this is discussion for another thread, but deifying anything doesn't strike me as cause for awe. I find it natural to consider all humans as gods, and to literally take it for granted, as if it is natural to understand it in this way. I definitely can relate to reverence for such understanding of humanity, but see no justification for being in awe of fellow humans, nor for being servants to fellow human whims and desires, without first / foremost realizing this would equally apply to own self. Who is in awe of their own self, and then equally in awe of those who are just like them? Simple respect would cover whatever it is you think is warranted for a fellow god. For actual Creator, found within (reality of) your Being, that I can understand awe for. Though actual awe would likely be authentic once the extent of that Reality is grasped, even for just a moment.

 

[Acim]

Even Trump?

Even Hitler.

 

[Demonslayer]

All the added stuff is your vain attempt to weaken what is observable, everyday experience of shared reality.

So you think if you polled this group, more people would agree with you that human parents should be categorized as Gods, rather than agree with me in saying that this is a confusing and silly categorization? I mean if this is obvious shared reality, most people should instantly agree with you right?

Why bow?

Because Lord Larry commands it.

I find it natural to consider all humans as gods,

Nothing is less natural, nor common, than for humans to refer to themselves as gods. Take the top 20 religions and see if any of them call themselves gods.

Not saying you don't have a right to if you wish, but let's not pretend it's a common idea.

 

[Demonslayer]

Even Hitler.

Well he pretty much thought he was a God so maybe I'll give you Hitler.

 

[Quintessence]

Fine, but the initial question was surrounding what people call "God."

If by the initial question you're referencing the OP, it seems to me the intent of the OP is to avoid limiting our understanding of theology to God (as in the one-god of the Abrahamic religions). By the by when you say God do you mean God or do you mean god(s)/deities/goddess(es)?

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?

An overriding one-god is characteristic of Abrahamic classical monotheist theology - you're not going to find that in the animistic/polytheistic/pantheistic Paganisms. Syncretism happens, though - Pagan cultures that have been Christianized often continue some of their indigenous practices, meaning they identify as, say, Catholic, but still practice ancestor veneration. There's a ton of variety of practices, really... and as I said, I'm not as up on this as I'd like. It's an element of my own path that I haven't developed much, so I haven't done the deep dive yet. As such, I'm not in a good position to provide a resource list. Harvey's book, which I read somewhat recently, had a short section nothing the relevance of ancestor veneration in animistic cultures. Covered cultures like Aborigines, Maori, a few others. Schmoogle books has enough of a preview that you should be able to read the section on it, but it might not make sense without the rest of the context of his works.

 

[Acim]

So you think if you polled this group, more people would agree with you that human parents should be categorized as Gods, rather than agree with me in saying that this is a confusing and silly categorization? I mean if this is obvious shared reality, most people should instantly agree with you right?

I would say if the poll were along lines of: do you think parents are influential beings, who created their children and have power over them, that a majority would be in agreement with that. If left unexplained, and putting Gods with a capital G, I think most would not identify parents in this way. I already realize that most people don't identify fellow people as gods/divine. I'm okay with that. I accept it as I'm in a minority position. Doesn't mean my minority position, in the case of human parents as gods, is not observable within shared reality.

Because Lord Larry commands it.

Then I shall enjoy not bowing to Lord Larry.

Not saying you don't have a right to if you wish, but let's not pretend it's a common idea.

Didn't say it was a common idea. Homosexuality is not a common practice among all humans, doesn't mean it is not natural (to the physical world).

 

[Pudding]

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'll said i disagree with how you make the argument and comparison that because human parents are gods and baby creators who watching over baby according to you definition and interpretation, so why atheist deny the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" which can be interpret into that God who create the universe is also watching over babies and have a relationship with the babies which result in render the babies a theist.

The comparison is incomparable.

Atheist can visibly observe baby creator human parents' existence directly, while they haven't observe any universe creator god actually exists nor they find any observable evidence which can convince them to believe any god exists.

So why do you make that comparison and wonder about why atheist deny the possibilities of that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" when it's so obviously is basically because atheist haven't observe any universe creator god actually exists nor they find any observable evidence which can convince them to believe any god exists.

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.

There is nothing interesting that atheist have the interest in comparing gods while also lacking the beliefs that any god exists in reality, just like people have interest in comparing fictional tv drama or book's characters while also lacking the beliefs that those characters do exists in reality (is not fiction), whether the people is atheist or theist.

Another reason why atheist have interest in comparing gods is because gods are an issues which highly involve in society and effect their life, perhaps when some of those believer of gods stop imposing their gods beliefs/moral/law to atheist then atheist will probably have less or stop having interest about those gods or comparing gods. Unfortunately those some believer will probably continue to force atheist to have interest in those gods or comparing gods, so please blaming those theist instead of blaming atheist.

Your further statement is too ambiguous and need elaboration otherwise i can't comprehend it.

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

The comparison is incomparable as i've explain above.

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?

You are avoiding to response to my points and making straw man arguments.
Where have i said we can't have definitions for words? I haven't.

My points is that your statement:

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).

You misuse the word us/our, which misleadingly include me, while it's actually should be imply to you but not me.

It's observable to you not us(which include me), so why lie it's us?
It's your observations/definition not our(which include me) observations/definition, so why lie it's our?

Please be honest, thank you.

 

[Demonslayer]

Then I shall enjoy not bowing to Lord Larry.

Lord Larry is unpleased.

I would say if the poll were along lines of: do you think parents are influential beings, who created their children and have power over them, that a majority would be in agreement with that.

Fair enough.

I already realize that most people don't identify fellow people as gods/divine. I'm okay with that. I accept it as I'm in a minority position

Also fair.

Doesn't mean my minority position, in the case of human parents as gods, is not observable within shared reality.

I guess I'm confused by the term "observable within shared reality." Wouldn't that encompass everything?

 

[Pudding]

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.

My objection is that the comparison is not comparable.

 

[Demonslayer]

My objection is that the comparison is not comparable.

The comparison is not comparable as compared to what?

 

[Acim]

I'll said i disagree with how you make the argument and comparison that because human parents are gods and baby creators who watching over baby according to you definition and interpretation

Because of either misspellings or words not being clear to me, I'm compelled to quote each thought as it occurs in this post.

You are saying you disagree with how I am making the argument (and comparison) that human parents are gods. And that according to the dictionary definition I am using, you disagree this is applicable to whatever an atheist considers to be god. While simultaneously lacking a belief in all gods. So, atheists get to consider righteous definition of god, but reserve the right to say they lack a belief in all gods.

so why atheist deny the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" which can be interpret into that God who create the universe is also watching over babies and have a relationship with the babies which result in render the babies a theist.

But not all gods are creators of the universe. God, with a capital G, might be. I would concur that parents are not that type of god, but apparently the definition of god(s) are what you are saying is not applicable.

The comparison is incomparable.

From the way you have chosen to frame it, yes. From the way the dictionary defines the term 'gods' it is applicable. Also observable.

Atheist can visibly observe baby creator human parents' existence directly

This was my point. Thanks for conferring it.

So why do you make that comparison and ask why atheist deny the possibilities of that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" when it's so obviously is because atheist haven't observe any universe creator god actually exists or nor they find any observable evidence which can convince them to believe any god exists.

Because I'm comparing it to one of the few definitions that exist in the dictionary for gods. And because in this case, we see creator existing in relation with creation, watching over and influencing creation. Nurturing it. That you wish to add to it, and make it into the other definition to then deny any comparison is entirely on you and your definition of gods.

If I say water is god, you can deny that water is god, and still believe in water. Observe it. But with this particular example, it seems entirely plausible that what we are observing is the act of a god in relation to its creation. That you wish to attribute other labels/definitions of god to parents is up to you. Could just as well say that not all parents have Thor's Hammer, therefore, they are not gods.

There is nothing interesting that atheist have the interest in comparing gods while also lacking the beliefs that any god exists in reality, just like people have interest in comparing fictional tv drama or book's characters while also lacking the beliefs that those characters do exists in reality (is not fiction), whether the people is atheist or theist.

It is observable that you are comparing the gods that parents are to God as Creator of The Universe. I find that fascinating, and if anyone who claims to be atheist does this sort of comparison, it would necessary beg the question around 'lack of belief' when such comparing is occurring.

Simplistic definitions of 'god' exist. If you wish to deny those for sake of denial, that's on you, not the definition / existence of said gods.

You misuse the word us/we/our, which misleadingly include me, while it's actually should be imply to you but not me.

I have not misused the words. It clearly applies to all observers. Whether or not they conclude parents as gods, is up to them. But by the definitions of the term god, it is applicable.

It's observable to you not us(which include me), so why lie it's us?
It's your observations/definition not our(which include me) observations/definition, so why lie it's our?

Please be honest, thank you.

I have been. You think your definition of gods is the only one righteous. I find that deceptive and meandering from the simple point being made, which again is found in OUR dictionaries and the point being made is observable in OUR world.

 

[Pudding]

The comparison is not comparable as compared to what?

My quote which is in response to Acim explains that.

I'll said i disagree with how you make the argument and comparison that because human parents are gods and baby creators who watching over baby according to you definition and interpretation, so why atheist deny the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" which can be interpret into that God who create the universe is also watching over babies and have a relationship with the babies which result in render the babies a theist.

The comparison is incomparable.

Atheist can visibly observe baby creator human parents' existence directly, while they haven't observe any universe creator god actually exists nor they find any observable evidence which can convince them to believe any god exists.

So why do you make that comparison and wonder about why atheist deny the possibilities of that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" when it's so obviously is basically because atheist haven't observe any universe creator god actually exists nor they find any observable evidence which can convince them to believe any god exists.