Is it any wonder that anti-theism exists?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

So when you defined God as anything anyone venerates, you don't actually believe that.

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please? 

And what is 'Jehovah'

What is Jehovah? Do you want me to say that Jehovah is a God of many gods? The same as the other gods I mentioned somewhere. In this thread or the other. They've blurred. Too fast. Too many mind. 

[Nearly Sane]

Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please? 

What is Jehovah? Do you want me to say that Jehovah is a God of many gods? The same as the other gods I mentioned somewhere. In this thread or the other. They've blurred. Too fast. Too many mind.

The logic is you don't appear to 'venerate' Eric Clapton.

I don't want you to give any particular statement. I like the poetry of the rest of the post but it's not useful for any discussion.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

The logic is you don't appear to 'venerate' Eric Clapton.

Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.

I don't want you to give any particular statement. I like the poetry of the rest of the post but it's not useful for any discussion.

It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. Well, what does that mean? If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.

Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.

So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.

It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. Well, what does that mean? If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.

Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.

So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.

Bored now

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.

No, “Zeus” is (or was) a belief that he exists and is a god.   

It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god.

That’s called the shifting the burden of proof - a fallacy. If theists want to claim as an objective fact “god” then it’s their job to tell us what they mean by it. Technically by the way the response to the failure to do so is ignosticism – ie, “I don't know what you’re talking about, and nor it seems do you”.

Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods.

They’re not the same thing – it’s a lack of belief (as a response to being given no good reason to think otherwise).

Well, what does that mean?

It means the atheist has been given no sound reason to think there to be god(s).

If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.

Now you’re hiding behind the ambiguity in the word “faith”. I explained this to you over in the other thread, but you seem to have ignored it. Again then: I have “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow – it’s a good make, it’s well-maintained, it’s always started in the past etc. This use of “faith” means, “reasoned confidence based on evidence and practical experience”.

“Faith” in the religious sense on the other hand is the magic dust you need to take you from guessing to assertion. It's what you need when the logic or evidence runs out. There’s no reasoning or evidence to justify it, it’s just – well – faith.

It gets worse. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow is only a statement of probability - I think it more likely than not to start, but for all I know something could fail so it won’t. “Faith” (religious sense) on the other hand deals in certainties, in immutable claims of objective fact: “There certainly is a (ie, my) god” etc.   

Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural.

Because s/he has no reason to, yes.
 

Here's the definition of god.

“The” definition?...

A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.

Ooh you semantic trickster you. Again, you’re just hiding behind ambiguity in the term "god". “Eric Clapton is god” is just a (tongue in cheek by the way) way of saying he’s a terrific guitarist. The term in that context bears none of the weight or meaning it has when religious people use it – ie, as a supernatural “something” who intervenes at will in human affairs (provided he receives the right propitiations, sacrifices etc) able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc.

If instead though we do accept your open-ended definition of “something that’s venerated” then, provided you can find someone to venerate it, anything is a god. My pet rock is a god. And the problem this gives you is that you’ve thereby redefined the term from its religious sense of an objective fact to a description just of the way people subjectively feel about things. And that's game over for theism. 

[Stranger]

Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.

So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.

You're just playing silly word games now. If you make the definition of 'god' broad enough then of course they exist but in a completely uninteresting and trivial way. I could say the pebble on my desk is a god or that god means the same thing as "the universe" but what's the point?

[Gordon]

Nor I don't venerate Zeus. I don't worship Zeus, don't believe Zeus existed. Zeus is, nevertheless, a god.

It is useful because atheist are seemingly incapable of defining the simple term god. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in gods. Well, what does that mean? If one believes in their sister, brother, wife, husband, child, government, money etc. it means they have faith in them in some capacity. Expectations held though results unseen. You don't know your wife will be faithful you have faith or believe that she will. As for her existence, you are sure of that. No theist is sure of God's existence, it's faith.

Okay, so an atheist has no belief or lacks belief in gods. Gods. Plural. Here's the definition of god. A gallery in a theater or the people seated there because they were typically considered mighty and often venerated. An adored, admired or influential person. An image, idol, animal or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god. Representations of the male or female genitalia in fertility religions. The cross for example, is a Roman phallic symbol worshiped long before Christ. Eric Clapton is a god. He exists. Gods exist.

So, if the atheist thinks no gods exist they are just wrong.

All you're doing here is indulging in equivocation and hoping, wrongly as it turns out, that nobody notices. Wordy wibble does not an argument make.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Bored now

No, you're not bored, you're ideologically possessed. An ideologue who has been confronted with real facts. Fundamentalist militant atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

No, you're not bored, you're ideologically possessed. An ideologue who has been confronted with real facts. Fundamentalist militant atheist.

None of those, apart from the atheist but then you are misrepresenting what that is. You have a simplistic jejune approach and I find it boring. Willow was right.


ETA -  I am  an igtheist rather than atheist. Your contradictory definition of a god is both one I have see seen many times and one that is obviously a logically contradictory one since Eric Clapton is both god and not god in your approach.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

No, you're not bored, you're ideologically possessed. An ideologue who has been confronted with real facts. Fundamentalist militant atheist.

Well, it didn't take much scratching for you to reveal you true colours did it.

For what it's worth:

1. He's not an ideologue (unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is ideological).

2. So far, you have haven't presented any facts - real or otherwise.

3. He's not a "fundamentalist" (again, unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is fundamentalism). 

4. He isn't militant. People who attack or kill people are militant. He doesn't do either (so far as I know). 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I am  an igtheist rather than atheist. Your contradictory definition of a god is both one I have see seen many times and one that is obviously a logically contradictory one since Eric Clapton is both god and not god in your approach.

For an igtheist on a discussion forum you get bored with definition?

The relevant part of that announcement is the claim that Eric Clapton is both god and not god in my approach, which you've apparently mistaken while seeing many times because Eric Clapton is a god. The same as Jehovah is a god, and Jesus, the judges of Israel, Tammuz, Moses, Satan.

God isn't a name. Goddamnit isn't using God's name in vain because it isn't a name.  People use the term God to apply to their God being above or before all other gods. Similar to the term Allah, which means the god.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

TS,

Well, it didn't take much scratching for you to reveal you true colours did it.

No scratching at all. My true colors are transparent.

For what it's worth:

1. He's not an ideologue (unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is ideological).

He got bored with preferring reason?

2. So far, you have haven't presented any facts - real or otherwise.

That you agree with. Like the dictionary (common use) of the term god in application to people, places and things which undoubtedly exist in the natural world and are well known.

3. He's not a "fundamentalist" (again, unless you think preferring reason over asserted guessing is fundamentalism).

Fundamentalist: a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion. 

Reason has little to do with it.

4. He isn't militant. People who attack or kill people are militant. He doesn't do either (so far as I know).

Militant Atheism

[Theoretical Skeptic]

TS,

No, “Zeus” is (or was) a belief that he exists and is a god.

No Zeus was a mythological god. His divinity doesn't depend upon his existence. Frodo Baggins was a god in the mid to late 1960s when Zeppelin were writing all of those songs about the Misty Mountain and Gullum sneaking away with the girl. He didn't exist literally but was a god nonetheless. Atheism subscribes to the nonsensical nonexistence of gods so how could any god possibly exist to an atheist?   

That’s called the shifting the burden of proof - a fallacy. If theists want to claim as an objective fact “god” then it’s their job to tell us what they mean by it. Technically by the way the response to the failure to do so is ignosticism – ie, “I don't know what you’re talking about, and nor it seems do you”.

Is that all the fashion now? I, a theist, am telling you what the word god means in ancient Hebrew, common Greek, Latin, English and any other language as given clearly in the English dictionary and you are telling me I'm wrong? Okay. What does the word god mean? What is a god?

They’re not the same thing – it’s a lack of belief (as a response to being given no good reason to think otherwise).

Accepting good reason or being given good reason? How can the default position, the position at birth be atheist if no reason at all had been given to think either way?

It means the atheist has been given no sound reason to think there to be god(s).

Good is a subjective term. See above.

Now you’re hiding behind the ambiguity in the word “faith”. I explained this to you over in the other thread, but you seem to have ignored it. Again then: I have “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow – it’s a good make, it’s well-maintained, it’s always started in the past etc. This use of “faith” means, “reasoned confidence based on evidence and practical experience”.

Yeah . . . so? You and I don't know that Jehovah of the Bible exists. We have faith that he does or he doesn't.

“Faith” in the religious sense on the other hand is the magic dust you need to take you from guessing to assertion. It's what you need when the logic or evidence runs out. There’s no reasoning or evidence to justify it, it’s just – well – faith.

It has nothing to do with magic. If there's no reasoning or evidence to justify theism then there can't be any to justify atheism. Science, for example, can't test the supernatural. Science is a method of investigation not a belief system. Atheism is a belief system. 

It gets worse. My “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start tomorrow is only a statement of probability - I think it more likely than not to start, but for all I know something could fail so it won’t. “Faith” (religious sense) on the other hand deals in certainties, in immutable claims of objective fact: “There certainly is a (ie, my) god” etc.

1. Belief in Jehovah God of the Bible is faith based. No need to be defensive. 2. Religious faith pertains to a specific doctrine, i.e. Catholicism. Baptist. Faith is a) complete trust or confidence in someone or something, and b) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. So we have no real argument on faith.     

“The” definition?...

Ooh you semantic trickster you. Again, you’re just hiding behind ambiguity in the term "god".

No, I'm exposing the atheistic inability to comprehend the simple definition of the word god as I've given from the English dictionary due to ideological possession. 

Let me ask you this. No gods exist? Do lords exist?

“Eric Clapton is god” is just a (tongue in cheek by the way) way of saying he’s a terrific guitarist.

Ehhh ... sort of. Eric Clapton is considered a god because the definition of god includes an admired, skilled or influential person because god means anything or anyone venerated or attributed a might that is greater than the one attributing it. If you look at the dictionary definition of god it will give several examples. The Christian god, supernatural gods, mortal men as gods. Again: the Bible calls Moses, the judges of Israel, the Sumerian King Tammuz and Jesus gods. All mortal men.

The term in that context bears none of the weight or meaning it has when religious people use it – ie, as a supernatural “something” who intervenes at will in human affairs (provided he receives the right propitiations, sacrifices etc) able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc.

[Laughs] That is only an example of one god. That isn't a prerequisite for divinity. For being a god. 

If instead though we do accept your open-ended definition of “something that’s venerated” then, provided you can find someone to venerate it, anything is a god. My pet rock is a god. And the problem this gives you is that you’ve thereby redefined the term from its religious sense of an objective fact to a description just of the way people subjectively feel about things. And that's game over for theism.

Why are you ignoring everything I say? Your pet rock can be a god. I hate to do this because I'm sick of it, but let me give my illustration of a god.

A tired hungry man stumbles across the cold dark prairieland, wolves following close behind. There's no fuel for fire until he stumbles upon a dried clump of bullshit. Bovine excrement. Feeling around in the dark he finds more. Gathering them he eats the bugs crawling underneath them and builds a fire. He makes that shit his god. It is a god. It exists and is his god. No one, no atheist can take that away.

Another question; was Jehovah a god before he created anything?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You're just playing silly word games now. If you make the definition of 'god' broad enough then of course they exist but in a completely uninteresting and trivial way. I could say the pebble on my desk is a god or that god means the same thing as "the universe" but what's the point?

All you're doing here is indulging in equivocation and hoping, wrongly as it turns out, that nobody notices. Wordy wibble does not an argument make.

I know it seems like that to you but it isn't silly. The point, NTTS, in the case of the pebble and the universe is deification. God is in the eyes of the beholder. If I say the pebble and the universe are beautiful then, to me, they are beautiful. Beauty exists. If I say the pebble and the universe are my gods then they are gods. Gods exist.

The reason for the inability of atheists to comprehend the very simple term god is that they have been indoctrinated into thinking that God is limited to one example of a god. Do you think I make this stuff up?

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 - For even though there are those who are called "gods," whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many "gods" and many "lords,"  there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.

Philippians 3:18-19 - For there are many, I used to mention them often but now I mention them also with weeping, who are walking as the enemies of the torture stake of the Christ, and their finish is destruction, and their god is their belly, and their glory consists in their shame, and they have their minds upon things on the earth. (Paul says a person's belly can be their god.)

Exodus 4:16 - And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.

Exodus 7:1 - Consequently Jehovah said to Moses: “See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet. (Jehovah God makes Moses God.)

Psalm 82:1, 6 - God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One;  “I myself have said, ‘You are gods, I myself have said, ‘You are gods,
And all of you are sons of the Most High. (Jehovah calls the human judges of Israel gods.)

John 10:34-35 - Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods"'? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, (Jesus refers to the verses in Psalms above.)

Isaiah 9:6 - For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Jesus, a mortal man, was prophetically called a mighty god)

Ezekiel 8:14 - So he brought me to the entrance of the gate of the house of Jehovah, which is toward the north, and, look! there the women were sitting, weeping over the [god] Tammuz. (Tammuz was the Sumerian king Dumuzi. Also known as Nimrod in the Bible. The Sumerian practice was to deify kings upon their death.)


 

[Nearly Sane]

For an igtheist on a discussion forum you get bored with definition?

The relevant part of that announcement is the claim that Eric Clapton is both god and not god in my approach, which you've apparently mistaken while seeing many times because Eric Clapton is a god. The same as Jehovah is a god, and Jesus, the judges of Israel, Tammuz, Moses, Satan.

God isn't a name. Goddamnit isn't using God's name in vain because it isn't a name.  People use the term God to apply to their God being above or before all other gods. Similar to the term Allah, which means the god.

Do you venerate Eric Clapton? Do you regard Eric Clapton as the same as 'Jehovah'?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Do you venerate Eric Clapton? Do you regard Eric Clapton as the same as 'Jehovah'?

You don't have to venerate something or someone for it to be a god. Jehovah and Eric Clapton isn't your God but that don't mean they aren't gods. I see Eric Clapton and Jehovah as the same in the sense that they are both gods. That don't mean they are equal.

Jehovah is God to me. I like Clapton's music and know he loathes being called god but it isn't up to him or me.

A god doesn't have to be supernatural or immortal. A god doesn't have to be a creator. A god doesn't have to be anything but mightier than or venerated by the ones who He/she/it is god to. That's the only prerequisite for being a god.

I've asked repeatedly for definitions of the word god and have seen none. Tell me what a god is or tell me of a god that doesn't fit the requirement which I insist upon.   

[Owlswing]

All you're doing here is indulging in equivocation and hoping, wrongly as it turns out, that nobody notices. Wordy wibble does not an argument make.

Which is why I wonder why so many posters of intelligence and intellect waste so much time and effort in bothering to answer Vlad and his ilk who post the same garbage over and over and over again just changing the wording to produce the same argument in so many different forms!

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Which is why I wonder why so many posters of intelligence and intellect waste so much time and effort in bothering to answer Vlad and his ilk who post the same garbage over and over and over again just changing the wording to produce the same argument in so many different forms!

Who is this legendary Vlad so oft spoken of derogatorily and yet who's nomenclature is obstinately persisting in its absence?

As far as I can tell Appalled to the core of my being appears to answer to Vlad?

[Owlswing]

Maybe. The same could be said of many things. Democracy, love, politics, money, land, power. Theism, including Christianity, is just another tool in the hands of mankind.

I agree, BUT the Bible states - categorically, the Sixth Commandment, I think - "Thou shalt NOT kill"

[Owlswing]

Oooh, look, distraction Carnifex! http://miniaturepainters.com/tyranid-carnifex/

O.

Note to Self - Must get out my Sisters of Battle and start painting again!"

)O(

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I agree, BUT the Bible states - categorically, the Sixth Commandment, I think - "Thou shalt NOT kill"

Yes, but the law of Moses only applied to ancient Israelites until Pentecost 33 CE, for one thing. At Exodus 20:13 the Hebrew word ratsach is used, which means deliberate and unlawful killing. At Numbers 35:27 the avenger of blood is lawful. War sanctioned by God is another example. Though that too wouldn't apply to Christians, only to ancient Israelites.   

[SusanDoris]

You don't have to venerate something or someone for it to be a god. Jehovah and Eric Clapton isn't your God but that don't mean they aren't gods. I see Eric Clapton and Jehovah as the same in the sense that they are both gods. That don't mean they are equal.

Jehovah is God to me. I like Clapton's music and know he loathes being called god but it isn't up to him or me.

A god doesn't have to be supernatural or immortal. A god doesn't have to be a creator. A god doesn't have to be anything but mightier than or venerated by the ones who He/she/it is god to. That's the only prerequisite for being a god.

I've asked repeatedly for definitions of the word god and have seen none. Tell me what a god is or tell me of a god that doesn't fit the requirement which I insist upon.   

But you make a difference (I checked by listening to characters) between God,* the supposed one God, and god* in general.  Do you think that is a consistent approach?

*One a proper noun and one a common noun

[Stranger]

I know it seems like that to you but it isn't silly. The point, NTTS, in the case of the pebble and the universe is deification. God is in the eyes of the beholder. If I say the pebble and the universe are beautiful then, to me, they are beautiful. Beauty exists. If I say the pebble and the universe are my gods then they are gods. Gods exist.

The reason for the inability of atheists to comprehend the very simple term god is that they have been indoctrinated into thinking that God is limited to one example of a god.

This is simply not true. There is a world of difference between anything anybody refers to as 'god', no matter how colloquially, is a god and thinking about just one example.

Jehovah is God to me. I like Clapton's music and know he loathes being called god but it isn't up to him or me.

A god doesn't have to be supernatural or immortal. A god doesn't have to be a creator. A god doesn't have to be anything but mightier than or venerated by the ones who He/she/it is god to. That's the only prerequisite for being a god.

You seem to be doing a motte-and-bailey fallacy here. You're trying to undermine atheism by using a very broad definition of 'god' (which really has nothing to do with atheism) and then introducing this idea of "Jehovah", which you haven't defined (unless I missed it), which (assuming it's defined in a broadly similar way to the way other people who use the same word) actually would be a supernatural creator.

As I said before, you're just playing word games - you are trying to conflate two different senses of the word god (senses 1 and 2, with sense 3). What's the point? It's just childish and silly. In order to have any sort of sensible discussion, we'd have then to come up with some other word for all the 'supernatural' beings people actually worship (or did historically worship) as part of their religions: godchecker.

In any case, you've said Jehovah is your god, so how do you define it and what reasons do you have to believe it?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

But you make a difference (I checked by listening to characters) between God,* the supposed one God, and god* in general.  Do you think that is a consistent approach?

*One a proper noun and one a common noun

Not consistent because they are not the same for the reason you give. One is proper and the other common. So Paul says there are many lords and many gods but to us only one Lord and One God. Now, god means mighty and venerated and lord means having authority, usually but not necessarily granted. So of all the lords Jehovah is Lord foremost because he has, as sovereign, all of the authority, but he has granted specific authority in relation to us only to Christ Jesus. In that sense Jesus is Lord and Jehovah is God of gods. But now Jehovah also appointed Moses as God, not god, to Pharaoh and Aaron.

The upper case only signifies, in these cases, a specific Lord or God of many lords or gods. You could say Jehovah is Lord and Jesus is Lord and you could say Jehovah and Jesus are lords in a general sense. There is an almost superstitious stylization that the upper case has some significant meaning of respect or whatever by using uppercase in many unnecessary manifestations like He. Jehovah is sovereign Lord and He is almighty God which I never incorporate because I think it's just silly and without reason.

You've probably noticed that my English grammar sucks, so I may not be the guy to ask and you might want to check that out for yourself. I was, uh, uninterested in grammar in school, preferring to sit in a corner and read Frank Herbert or Douglas Adams so . . . of all the crap they teach in school that is the only thing I regret not applying myself to any more than to get a passing grade.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

No scratching at all. My true colors are transparent.

Maybe.

He got bored with preferring reason?

No, he got bored with condensing words with multiple meanings into one so as to hide religious meanings behind prosaic ones. Your taxonomy suggests that anything someone “venerates” is thereby made a god. “How’s your cheesecake Darling?” “Divine”. Bingo, another god is made – albeit (presumably) destroyed shortly afterwards.

If you insist on diluting terms like “god”, “spiritual”, “faith”, “divine” etc that far though there’s nothing left of the religious meanings of them. Any theology I know of doesn’t do this though – it thinks the objects of its truth claims are other than cheesecake: they’re “supernatural”, able to operate outwith the laws of nature etc. They stand in a different category from the material and naturalistic.             

That you agree with. Like the dictionary (common use) of the term god in application to people, places and things which undoubtedly exist in the natural world and are well known.

That’s cheating. There are various dictionary definitions of “god” – the traditional religious ones as well as the colloquial ones. You’re trying to elide them into one.   

Fundamentalist: a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.

Which he clearly is not. 

Reason has little to do with it.

No, he (and I) are only “fundamentalist” in the sense that we fundamentally think reason is a more reliable way to establish truths than non-reason. 

Militant Atheism

I suppose if you rely on an online urban dictionary for your definitions you’re going to find things like this. More reputable sources though will tell you that “militant” means “favouring confrontational or violent methods”, “active, determined, and often willing to use force” etc.

This is the same trick you tried with religious terms: you’ve taken a word appropriate to describe, say, a Muslim beheading a French teacher for showing his pupils cartoons of Mohammed and diluted it to include academics who merely write books that falsify the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs. If you really want to use the term “militant” to describe the latter, what language have you left to describe the former? Or are you seriously suggesting an equivalence between them?