Are you sure you are an Atheist?

[Acim]

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

I don't think of pink unicorns as observable within shared reality, at least with physical observation.

If we say babies are observable in shared reality, it is because we understand the definition of babies and can provide examples of them. I would imagine that there are plenty of examples of babies in shared reality. Likewise, a definition of gods (influential beings, holding power over human fortunes) clearly applies to parents, who also happen to be the creators of the creation they are holding power over and are influential towards.

I am asserting that we observers do observe parents as gods. That we may call it something else is fine. Perhaps normal. But it also leads to the interesting notion that if we were to actually observe a god within our universe, we could deny it as god regardless of whatever definitions exist for god. Our denial is that powerful, though would plausibly not take anything, in reality, away from the 'fact' that it is a god.

Similar, I think to denying that young children / newly born are in fact babies, because of some additional definition being applied and see as not applicable. Though not sure how that would work, other than as just an exercise in denial. But might be possible if one claims lack of belief and then says regardless of whatever definition you go with, I reserve the right to lack a belief.

I honestly do believe that for many theists, God (and/or gods) are akin to parents, and/or the believer views themselves as in a relationship where they are children to the parent/Creator, and that the God being is influential in their lives, holding power over their fortunes. I think some believers would even claim they are but a baby in relation to their Creator, or infantile in their understanding(s) with regards to God's Knowledge.

 

[LuisDantas]

I honestly do believe that for many theists, God (and/or gods) are akin to parents, and/or the believer views themselves as in a relationship where they are children to the parent/Creator, and that the God being is influential in their lives, holding power over their fortunes. I think some believers would even claim they are but a baby in relation to their Creator, or infantile in their understanding(s) with regards to God's Knowledge.

I agree. "God" tends to have a lot of the person's expectations in it.

 

[Acim]

I agree. "God" tends to have a lot of the person's expectations in it.

Seemingly applicable to atheists as well. Lack a belief in its existence, but expect it to fit particular definitions. Fascinating, really.

 

[Willamena]

Each firm denial of what "god" is not is, at the same time, a firm idea of what "god" is.

 

[Pudding]

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.

I'm saying i disagree with how you're making the argument and comparison that "human parents are gods" which should be enough to be a clue to atheists to convince them to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion or interpretation to the definition of god which they consider reasonable to them, but i'm oppose to your using of definition in your argument to imply human parents are gods as a reasonable evidence to convince atheist to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Maybe you can start elaborate what you actually means of "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" as it can be a little bit ambiguous of what you actually wants to means.

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.

You're making straw man arguments again.
I never say all gods are creators of the universe.
I never say my definition of god is applicable to your example of definition of god that human parents are gods.

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

My previous comment explains it.
I'm saying i disagree with how you're making the argument and comparison that "human parents are gods" which should be enough to be a clue to atheists to convince them to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion or interpretation to the definition of god which they consider reasonable to them, but i'm oppose to your using of definition in your argument to imply human parents are gods as a reasonable evidence to convince atheist to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

This was my point. Thanks for conferring it.

No problem.

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.

Your comparison is flaw.

If atheist haven't observe any universe creator god actually exists nor they find any observable evidence which can convince them to believe any universe creator god exists, they don't need to accept the possibilities that a universe creator god exists.

There're all kinds of invisible universe creator gods as told by people to people, there is no reason for me to accept the possibilities that any one of them does actually exist in reality simply because the wild speculation that human parents are baby creator gods who watching for their babies therefor similarly there could be some invisible universe creator gods who are creator of adult/baby human and watching for them in another dimension.

I don't accept the possibilities of such wild speculation and unsubstantiated claims, there's no reason i should, thank you.

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.

It's you who first bring the comparison to the discussion, not me.
And i never agree with the notion that human parents are gods.

It's indeed very fascinating that you would just keep making straw man arguments.
Never have i deny the notion that simplistic definitions of 'god' exist.

Quote of your post that it's you who first bring the comparison to the discussion, not me:

What I don't get is why atheist types can readily observe that babies have their creators (parents) watching over them, influencing their lives but then deny this would plausibly lead to outward observation that they are primary, perhaps only, examples we have of beings in a theistic type relationship.

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.

I will just disagree with your one sided opinion.
But obviously you'll not agree to disagree and you believe you can speak for my position because you believe you're right.
There's nothing meaningful to continue about it.

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.

Nothing remarkable, just more straw man arguments and miscommunications.
Done.

 

[LuisDantas]

Seemingly applicable to atheists as well.

That would be quite the logical trick, now wouldn't it?

Lack a belief in its existence, but expect it to fit particular definitions. Fascinating, really.

If you say so. I take it that you expected atheists to feel bound to, I don't know, having a full catalog of god-beliefs and expressly challenge or accept every single one?

Is it so hard to accept that lacking a belief is inherently easier than holding it? One does not need any particular reason nor justification to disbelieve.

People are entitled to just disbelieve, until and unless given an actual reason not to. Even after that, really.

 

[Quintessence]

Each firm denial of what "god" is not is, at the same time, a firm idea of what "god" is.

Not gonna lie - kinda tempted to stick that in my signature. Except my signature is full.

 

[Marsh]

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.

I suppose it would depend on your religious or philosophical approach. I, being an atheist, view a deceased person's former beliefs in the past tense. Perhaps you would describe a deceased individual as possibly holding the same beliefs as when they died? In other words your view is that when a person dies they pass on to another existence?

In interest of full disclosure I should mention that held to a belief in life after death for about five years after becoming an atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Except that to some atheists atheism is still a view, a belief and/or a topic of philosophical import.

Yes. Of course. It's easy to generalize when there's a very vocal group proclaiming otherwise.

It doesn't cease being those just because others want to impose their views.

Agree. I still maintain that real atheism and theism is very much philosophical issues. Just look at what a discussion forum is? Philosophy is to search for knowledge through dialogue, debate, reasoning, and such. What we're doing right here is philosophizing.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

They're not mistaken questions... That's an odd way of putting it.

Theism does not qualify as a philosphy IMO. It hardly not solid or complete enough.

Philosophy isn't about being solid or complete. It's about finding explanations. Philosophy, as one of my philosophy teachers explained it, doesn't find the truth, but rather finds the glue that binds truths, facts, and knowledge together.

Besides: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_theism.html

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.

The first philosophers were the first ones to use the term "theos" which is the root word for both atheism and theism. We translate it to "God" (which is a germanic word). Theology grew out of philosophy.

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

That is philosophy to think about those things. To reason about meanings is an act of philosophical process.

 

[Marsh]

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

It doesn't surprise me. The notion that atheists hate God and falsely claim to be atheists is probably wide spread among very conservative religious folk everywhere. The deeply religious, I imagine, simply can't comprehend how anyone could not believe in God and presume the atheist must be lying, or at the very least, must be fooling himself.

I don't know how the derogatory term kafir fits into this. My understanding is that a kafir is anyone who rejects the teachings of Mohammad. Atheists, though really run afoul of Islamic society and are killed or imprisoned way too often.

 

[Demonslayer]

I don't think of pink unicorns as observable within shared reality, at least with physical observation.

OK

If we say babies are observable in shared reality, it is because we understand the definition of babies and can provide examples of them. I would imagine that there are plenty of examples of babies in shared reality.

OK

Likewise, a definition of gods (influential beings, holding power over human fortunes) clearly applies to parents,

Not so OK, I still disagree with the definition

I am asserting that we observers do observe parents as gods. That we may call it something else is fine. Perhaps normal.

Yes, this. I understand the idea that, to a baby, their parent is like a God. The reason we call it something else, IMO, is to make it easier to understand what someone is talking about in the course of normal, every day conversation. If a teenager tells his friend "God wants me home early for dinner tonight" it's going to sound awfully strange, when what they really mean is my parents want me home early.

But it also leads to the interesting notion that if we were to actually observe a god within our universe, we could deny it as god regardless of whatever definitions exist for god.

Not if it's a God like the Biblical God. If that SOB comes down with chariots of fire and hordes of angels with trumpets, parting oceans and the like, there will be no doubt and no one will deny it.

I honestly do believe that for many theists, God (and/or gods) are akin to parents, and/or the believer views themselves as in a relationship where they are children to the parent/Creator, and that the God being is influential in their lives, holding power over their fortunes

Herein lies the difference in our opinions. Yes, I understand that the God/theist relationship is comparable to the parent/child relationship. I mean Christians call God "the father" after all. The idea that a God is looked on as a father or mother figure is understandable.

But a theist does not think their God and their parents are the same. There is a vast and robust difference between (take Christians for example) their parents who are merely other human beings with diminishing power over their lives that ends in the mid to late teen years, and Yahweh who is an all powerful deity with ultimate control over not only their daily lives but the fate of their eternal soul.

This is why we need different words for the two things, Gods and parents, and why I reject using the God label to describe a parent.

 

[LuisDantas]

It doesn't surprise me. The notion that atheists hate God and falsely claim to be atheists is probably wide spread among very conservative religious folk everywhere. The deeply religious, I imagine, simply can't comprehend how anyone could not believe in God and presume the atheist must be lying, or at the very least, must be fooling himself.

I see where you are coming from. But I wouldn't call those people religious, let alone deeply so. They are just prejudiced and superstitious.

I don't know how the derogatory term kafir fits into this. My understanding is that a kafir is anyone who rejects the teachings of Mohammad. Atheists, though really run afoul of Islamic society and are killed or imprisoned way too often.

Kafir is usually understood to be an insultuous word. It roughly means "infidel" or "liar" (because we are supposedly lying about our knowledge, acceptance and belief of God).

It is all in the accuser really.

 

[LuisDantas]

They're not mistaken questions... That's an odd way of putting it.

It is only natural to understand that "God" hardly has any clear, non-idiosyncratic meaning. It occupies the place where a meaningful word would be, but it isn't one.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is only natural to understand that "God" hardly has any clear, non-idiosyncratic meaning. It occupies the place where a meaningful word would be, but it isn't one.

That's why it's a discussion.

The nature of God, and if God exists, it's been discussed in insurmountable volumes of philosophical literature. If you pick up a book in introduction to philosophy, it's almost guaranteed there will be at least one chapter about it. Most of the time even more. I have a couple books about philosophy, and some of them have multiple chapters regarding theism. It's most definitely in the realm of philosophy.

 

[Demonslayer]

The notion that atheists hate God

This always kills me. Anyone who could think atheists "hate" God either:

1) have no understanding whatsoever of what an atheist is; or
2) is a world class window-licker

 

[McBell]

This always kills me. Anyone who could think atheists "hate" God either:

1) have no understanding whatsoever of what an atheist is; or
2) is a world class window-licker

false dichotomy.
For example, it could be both 1 and 2....

 

[Acim]

I'm saying i disagree with how you're making the argument and comparison that "human parents are gods" which should be enough to be a clue to atheists to convince them to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion or interpretation to the definition of god which they consider reasonable to them, but i'm oppose to your using of definition in your argument to imply human parents are gods as a reasonable evidence to convince atheist to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Maybe you can start elaborate what you actually means of "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship" as it can be a little bit ambiguous of what you actually wants to means.

I've already elaborated on this enough times and you've stated clearly you disagree with the elaboration as a fair comparison. Also stating that I'm lying. So, how about you go through my posts to find what I've already stated you are claiming as ambiguous. It is rather easily found. Also fairly simple to understand.

My previous comment explains it.
I'm saying i disagree with how you're making the argument and comparison that "human parents are gods" which should be enough to be a clue to atheists to convince them to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Everyone is entitled to their opinion or interpretation to the definition of god which they consider reasonable to them, but i'm oppose to your using of definition in your argument to imply human parents are gods as a reasonable evidence to convince atheist to accept the possibilities that "we have of beings in a theistic type relationship".

Your opposition is to the interpretation of human parents as gods. I get that. I still see them as beings that fit the definition of gods in some examples provided in the dictionary. I fully get that an atheist would resist this.

The rest of what you are conveying, including your flawed invoking of straw man is just you trying to substitute your definition of God and then saying the comparison is false based on that. Thus you are the one introducing the straw man, but suggesting it is me. The rest of it just seems to me like you are unwilling to accept any definition for gods as if they are beings that are visible to physical eyes, and if so, then refusing to interpret such beings as gods. Not sure of way around that, but strikes me as not lacking a belief.

 

[Acim]

Is it so hard to accept that lacking a belief is inherently easier than holding it? One does not need any particular reason nor justification to disbelieve.

People are entitled to just disbelieve, until and unless given an actual reason not to. Even after that, really.

The whole debate playing out with Pudding shows that the disbelief is not simple 'lacking belief.' It is asserting another interpretation (or really expectation) for what a god-belief must entail.

Like if someone told me that god is water, I'd have no problem stating that I'm agnostic of that belief, because of my expectation/understanding of what God entails. I wouldn't feign lack of belief as some sort of position when I get how they are making the connection, just that I have a personal disagreement with it currently. I don't see how they'd present evidence for the belief, since the belief is already based on the existence of water.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Yeah, but I'm certainly not granting them the right either. More that a generally acceptable definition should be used, and that in terms of specific atheists they'll always have to define terms to some degree.