British Theism And Atheism

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Nope - I'm not trying to negate any claim of 'God': if a claim of 'God(s) is made and not substantiated then it is a failed claim, so there is nothing to negate.

If it's claimed to be a god then it's a god. It doesn't need to await Vogon or Atheist approval. It's immediately a god. 

Not being English I would be delighted if the claims of the current UK monarch were confined to England, but that aside all you're really doing here is riffing on equivocation again.

Never mind. I'm done. 
 

[splashscuba]

Atheists are CONSTANTLY saying that their being atheist means ONLY that they don't believe in gods. How stupid and myopic. That's like saying being a theist means ONLY I believe in gods.

First of all, it involves more. Open your eyes.
Secondly, in a strictly literal sense it's obvious.

In other words of course the words atheist or theist imply strictly only one thing but that one thing involves and effects who knows how many things. Either it's pointless to be either atheist or theist and it effects no aspect of your life in any way or your just stupid and of course it effects many aspects of your life.

You obviously have a different interpretation of atheist, so I'm going to say I'm not an atheist. I'll have to think of another word that describes someone who doesn't believe in gods. For now I'll use agodist. Please don't call me an atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times?

Just repeating a mistake doesn’t thereby make it not a mistake.

Anything or anyone can be a god.

Depends which meaning of the term you’re attempting.

Being a god only means that one is considered mighty or venerated.

In the colloquial use of that term, yes it does – it’s a description of how one feels about a known object with no reference to whether it exists at all, and not to whether it’s non-material.

That is what the words MEANS!

No, that’s just one of the word’s meanings. There are other, epistemically very different meanings too though.

The word means NOTHING ELSE!

That’s plainly not true. Another meaning of that word requires a non-material entity, generally freighted with additional qualities (able to function outwith the laws of nature etc).
 

It is applied to ANYONE OR ANYTHING that qualifies simply by being MIGHTY or VENERATED according to the PERSON or PERSONS who's GOD IT IS!

Yes, in the colloquial sense it is applied in that way. In the religious sense though fundamentally different criteria must apply too – non-materiality for example. 

Saying that an idol is a god doesn't mean there is any confusion about it being any other god.

There is if you don’t distinguish which meaning you’re attempting. If you assert “god exists” are you merely expressing your feelings about, say, Clapton’s guitar playing, or are you instead claiming the existence of a non-material entity? Unless you tell us, there’s no way of knowing so the discussion becomes incoherent. 

If you are Jewish or Christian or apparently residing in Western culture then you say God which means that to you or in context to your statement the god of the bible is the specific God to which you refer but that doesn't mean IN ANY WAY that that is the only GOD and any quality of any other God or god or goddess or deity is necessarily the same as any other.

But it does mean that they’re referring either to their supernatural god, or to the supernatural gods of other people. If the Jew or Christian is referring instead to the value judgements applied to guitarists, then they’re using the term in a completely different sense. The same strictly monotheistic Jew or Christian might for example quite happily say “Clapton is god” because he’d be using a different meaning of the term with a different context.       

Fucking hell it isn't that difficult to understand. It's the same thing as lord, or man, or king.

It’s easy to understand that you’re wrong. Calling Elvis “the king” doesn’t thereby make him a member of a royal family. Again, you’re lost in the relationship between language and reality.     

You people act like you're mentally retarded.

“You people” are actually acting like we’re right – because we are. 

If someone from one place says King, their King or a king, that is the same as saying God, their God, a god. Except for a God instead of a King.

And they’d be making the same mistake that you do if they think just calling someone “king” thereby makes him the ruler of an independent state, rather than just describes how they feel about his abilities.     

GET IT?

Much better than you do.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Depends which meaning of the term you’re attempting.

There is only one meaning.

In the colloquial use of that term, yes it does – it’s a description of how one feels about a known object with no reference to whether it exists at all, and not to whether it’s non-material.

Colloquial, informal or everyday mundane language doesn't imply belief or disbelief or lack of belief or anything else to do with belief. It's just informal. Nor does the word god itself imply anything to do with belief. Using the term God colloquially, which you incorrectly suggest, was used by the writers of the Bible in describing many gods, some who existed and some who didn't. Some who were mortal men and some who weren't.

Jesus and Moses were gods according to the Bible. What is the difference between those two and any other gods as far as divinity or godliness goes? Nothing. The differences between the two and other gods may be remarkable but those differences aren't anything to do with what it means to be a god. And being a god isn't dependent upon belief by anyone than the one making them gods. 

In other words it doesn't matter what atheists say about it. They are still gods.     

No, that’s just one of the word’s meanings. There are other, epistemically very different meanings too though.

Uh-huh. Present those.

That’s plainly not true. Another meaning of that word requires a non-material entity, generally freighted with additional qualities (able to function outwith the laws of nature etc).

The only thing that makes anyone or anything a god is the might and or veneration attributed to them. It has nothing to do with material, qualities or function.
 

Yes, in the colloquial sense it is applied in that way. In the religious sense though fundamentally different criteria must apply too – non-materiality for example.

No. There is no such criteria. Jehovah and Jesus demonstrates that. One material the other non-material. Both gods in the religious sense. In fact, religious or non-religious sense has no bearing on deity.

All of these things you are mentioning are only lame attempts to wriggle out of the definition of gods at the end of the definition of atheism so the only way you can justify that is to explain what those gods mean and how you suppose they don't exist as gods. You can't do that because it doesn't make sense, so I'm done with this discussion unless you can do that. So far no one has been able to define god in any way shape or form that remotely resembles accuracy. It's very simple but you can't do it. It's like there's a wall built up in you. Built, I think, early on in school or after leaving a false religion.

That wall and what it does to the atheist, without their knowledge apparently, is what I find so fascinating (but simultaneously annoying) about atheists. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

You obviously have a different interpretation of atheist, so I'm going to say I'm not an atheist. I'll have to think of another word that describes someone who doesn't believe in gods. For now I'll use agodist. Please don't call me an atheist.

Normally I try to use the more inclusive terms believer or unbeliever. That way someone won't say "Well, I'm agnostic-strong-atheist-blah-blah-blah"

As far as sensibility goes, the order of the list would be atheism, antitheism, theism and agnosticism. The rest are just distractions as far as atheism / theism. Meaning they don't fit or apply or are just unnecessary schisms. 

To me the atheist position is most logical because it's immediately apparent and doesn't require faith.

The term antitheist makes a little less sense because it takes up a contradictory position. Yes religion sucks but why define yourself by that or put yourself in harms way. I would, mind you, but that doesn't mean I think it's the most logical or reasonable thing to do.

Theism comes next on the list, because it requires faith. It doesn't seem to me a logical or reasonable position.

Agnosticism is just lazy ineffectual stupidity and is last on the position. 

[splashscuba]

Normally I try to use the more inclusive terms believer or unbeliever. That way someone won't say "Well, I'm agnostic-strong-atheist-blah-blah-blah"

As far as sensibility goes, the order of the list would be atheism, antitheism, theism and agnosticism. The rest are just distractions as far as atheism / theism. Meaning they don't fit or apply or are just unnecessary schisms. 

To me the atheist position is most logical because it isn't immediately apparent and doesn't require faith.

The term antitheist makes a little less sense because it takes up a contradictory position. Yes religion sucks but why define yourself by that or put yourself in harms way. I would, mind you, but that doesn't mean I think it's the most logical or reasonable thing to do.

Theism comes next on the list, because it requires faith. It doesn't seem to me a logical or reasonable position.

Agnosticism is just lazy ineffectual stupidity and is last on the position.

I also don't believe in leprachauns, fairies, ghosts etc. So you see not believing in gods is just one of an infinite things I don't believe in. It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in chocolate teaports hiding behind Jupiter.

[SusanDoris]

TS

That wall and what it does to the atheist, without their knowledge apparently, is what I find so fascinating (but simultaneously annoying) about atheists.

You certainly seem, a bit like AB really, to have built up an impenetrable wall of conviction around yourself, although you do look out from behind a window of unbreakable, hurricane-proof glass to see what those outside are saying, I suppose.

[Outrider]

If it's claimed to be a god then it's a god. It doesn't need to await Vogon or Atheist approval. It's immediately a god.

As a principal, though, that falls over as soon as you have competing claims from differing religions, or differing sects of religions:Catholicism says that salvation can only be reached through the church, Protestantism says that salvation is a personal matter between their God and the individual; Islam says Jesus was a prophet, Christianity says Jesus was an avatar of Yahweh; Judao-Christian sects claim there is only one god, Shintoism, Hinduism and others say there are many gods...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

There is only one meaning.

This is bizarre. Try looking at a dictionary. Do you see the list of different meanings for the word "god" it contains?

QED

Colloquial, informal or everyday mundane language doesn't imply belief or disbelief or lack of belief or anything else to do with belief. It's just informal.

Of course it does. No-one who says “Clapton is god” means by it that he’s supernatural.

Nor does the word god itself imply anything to do with belief.

It does if you’re attempting the religious meaning of that term.
 

Using the term God colloquially, which you incorrectly suggest, was used by the writers of the Bible in describing many gods, some who existed and some who didn't. Some who were mortal men and some who weren't.

I didn’t suggest that but, if they were describing both deities and mortals, then they were engaged in separate and different categories of meaning.

Jesus and Moses were gods according to the Bible. What is the difference between those two and any other gods as far as divinity or godliness goes? Nothing.

Everything: one was (supposedly) a man/god hybrid, the other was just a man.

The differences between the two and other gods may be remarkable but those differences aren't anything to do with what it means to be a god.

Of course they are. They’re fundamentally epistemically different categories of meaning.

And being a god isn't dependent upon belief by anyone than the one making them gods.

Describing how someone feels about someone else as a “god” (colloquial sense) doesn’t thereby by imbue them with the properties of a "god" (religious sense). 

In other words it doesn't matter what atheists say about it. They are still gods.

In other words, it’s nothing to do with what atheists specifically think – it’s to do with what anyone with a grasp of the relationship between language and reality think.     

Uh-huh. Present those.

1. God: a non-material deity outwith nature

2. God: a description sometimes applied to persons as a colloquial comment on their outstanding talent or ability 

The only thing that makes anyone or anything a god is the might and or veneration attributed to them. It has nothing to do with material, qualities or function.

Bullshit. Buy yourself a freaking dictionary willya.
 

No. There is no such criteria. Jehovah and Jesus demonstrates that. One material the other non-material. Both gods in the religious sense. In fact, religious or non-religious sense has no bearing on deity.

Different religious senses – one is non-material (theological), the other isn’t (colloquial). 

All of these things you are mentioning are only lame attempts to wriggle out of the definition of gods at the end of the definition of atheism so the only way you can justify that is to explain what those gods mean…

It's not my “lame” attempt at anything, nor is the lame attempt of atheists. If you don’t like that language sometimes uses the same terms with fundamentally different meanings then take it up with whoever decides these things. In the meantime though, if you want to make claims and assertions about “god”, then it’s your job to define first which meaning you intend.

… and how you suppose they don't exist as gods.

I don’t. Yet again, all I do is to determine that your reasons for thinking god(s) (religious sense) do exist are wrong – a trivially easy thing to do. 

You can't do that because it doesn't make sense, so I'm done with this discussion unless you can do that. So far no one has been able to define god in any way shape or form that remotely resembles accuracy. It's very simple but you can't do it. It's like there's a wall built up in you. Built, I think, early on in school or after leaving a false religion.

Being American, I suppose I should forgive you for having little sense of irony. If you do buy a dictionary to look up the multiple meanings of the word “god” though, try looking up that word too. You clearly had a very bad idea a long time ago and are now so heavily invested in it that no amount of reason or evidence is allowed to talk you out of it. Why though are you wasting other peoples’ time with it?       

That wall and what it does to the atheist, without their knowledge apparently, is what I find so fascinating (but simultaneously annoying) about atheists.

It’s your straw man. If you find it interesting nonetheless, that’s a matter only for you.

As for language, context and reality though…

…let’s say that you took a history class where the lecturer taught you about the kings of England, and for your assignment asked you to write about some other kings. And let’s say that you duly handed in your essay in which you talked about Clark Gable (“The King of Hollywood”), Elvis Presley ("The King of Rock and Roll") and Benny Goodman (“The King of Swing”).

And let’s say too that when your essay was marked “F” (as it surely would be) with the added comment, “TS – You clearly knew this course to be about royal heads of nations, not about popular nicknames for performers” would you tell him he was a “retard” in reply?

Why not? 

See? Context and meaning is all. Context and meaning…

Try again.

[ekim]

Normally I try to use the more inclusive terms believer or unbeliever. That way someone won't say "Well, I'm agnostic-strong-atheist-blah-blah-blah"

As far as sensibility goes, the order of the list would be atheism, antitheism, theism and agnosticism. The rest are just distractions as far as atheism / theism. Meaning they don't fit or apply or are just unnecessary schisms. 

To me the atheist position is most logical because it isn't immediately apparent and doesn't require faith.

The term antitheist makes a little less sense because it takes up a contradictory position. Yes religion sucks but why define yourself by that or put yourself in harms way. I would, mind you, but that doesn't mean I think it's the most logical or reasonable thing to do.

Theism comes next on the list, because it requires faith. It doesn't seem to me a logical or reasonable position.

Agnosticism is just lazy ineffectual stupidity and is last on the position.

That could depend upon your definition of agnostic.  An agnostic tends to accept that he does not know.  A gnostic is one who claims to know rather than just to believe in the indoctrinated stupidity of the believer.  The gnostic would be top of the list as in his view he knows the 'truth'.  The unbeliever would be next as he has not been convinced of the alleged truth of the believer.  The agnostic would be next as the truth to him is that he honestly does not know. The believer would be in last position as he neither knows the truth nor has the honesty to admit this.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

I also don't believe in leprachauns, fairies, ghosts etc. So you see not believing in gods is just one of an infinite things I don't believe in. It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in chocolate teaports hiding behind Jupiter.

I don't believe in leprechauns, fairies or ghosts either. Believing in gods is just one of many things I believe in. It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.

[Owlswing]

I don't believe in leprechauns, fairies or ghosts either. Believing in gods is just one of many things I believe in. It doesn't define me any more than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.

I can tell you one thing that you seem to believe that you know about that, in actuality, you know two-thirds of three-fifths of naff-all about and that is what the BRITISH think when it comes to religion, Christian or otherwise.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

I don't believe in leprechauns, fairies or ghosts either.

See what you did there? You actually got the analogy with atheism right (“I don’t believe in” etc rather than “leprechauns etc don’t exist”). It’d help then if you stopped mischaracterising atheism as the latter henceforward when you try to talk about it

Believing in gods is just one of many things I believe in.

Which meaning of “gods” are you attempting here – are you claiming as an objective fact non-material beings, or just saying that sometimes people use that term to describe other people who are especially talented? 

It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.

Are you trying to say evolution itself, or the theory of evolution that explains it (this relationship between language and reality thing really has got you foxed hasn’t it)? Either way, by all means have a go at demonstrating (rather than just asserting) either to be a “failed metaphysical experiment”. Good luck with that.

Incidentally, going back to the violence you do to linguistic meaning for a minute do you reserve that abuse just for theological terms or is it a generalised habit? If, say, you said “I’m going to use a means of transport (or “transportation” as presumably you’d put it) to travel from New York to San Francisco”, and I asked which type (‘plane, train, bus, car etc) would you also shout “THERE IS ONLY ONE MEANING OF TRANSPORTATION”, call me a retard etc?

Just wondering.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

Incidentally, deciding that the only meaning of “god” is “that which is venerated” is arbitrary and wrong too. It’s quite possible in some belief systems for there to be gods that aren’t venerated  – see “misotheism”, “dystheism” etc. Are the gods from these traditions (the Nigerian Yoruba for example) not gods according to your personal taxonomy then?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

bluehillside Retd.

When you have something sensible to say I'll be more than happy to respond. Keep repeating stupid don't do it for me. Sorry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

TS,

bluehillside Retd.

When you have something sensible to say I'll be more than happy to respond. Keep repeating stupid don't do it for me. Sorry.

By "sensible" you seem to mean "agree with my mistakes rather than correct them". Given your abuse of language generally, this doesn't surprise me.

Anyway, your latest efforts are now in pieces at your feet. Try at least to deal with that or not as you wish, but you won't learn anything if you don't.   

[Stranger]

It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon and the theory of evolution is an explanation backed up by copious evidence. So you've now told us a fantastical (and rather self-contradictory) story about what you believe regarding your own idea of god, without the first hint of any reason as to why you believe it, and now the equally baseless assertion that an observed phenomenon and the scientific theory that explains it is a "failed metaphysical experiment".

How about stopping the silly nonsense about the meaning of the word 'god', and actually attempt to back up your own claims with some reasoning and/or evidence?

[Owlswing]

Evolution is an observed phenomenon and the theory of evolution is an explanation backed up by copious evidence. So you've now told us a fantastical (and rather self-contradictory) story about what you believe regarding your own idea of god, without the first hint of any reason as to why you believe it, and now the equally baseless assertion that an observed phenomenon and the scientific theory that explains it is a "failed metaphysical experiment".

How about stopping the silly nonsense about the meaning of the word 'god', and actually attempt to back up your own claims with some reasoning and/or evidence?

Because there is neither "reasoning" nor  "evidence" as we understand the terms,

It might very well be that our friend from the other side of the Oggin is on a huge wind up to see just what we can be convinced is fact rather than Deadpool type fiction.

Trying to show that the U S of A is more advanced in its thoughts on the subjects of religion, God, etc than the 'Old World.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Owls,

Because there is neither "reasoning" nor  "evidence" as we understand the terms,

It might very well be that our friend from the other side of the Oggin is on a huge wind up to see just what we can be convinced is fact rather than Deadpool type fiction.

Trying to show that the U S of A is more advanced in its thoughts on the subjects of religion, God, etc than the 'Old World.

So far as I can tell TS is serious in his intent. He’s invested heavily over several decades in his beliefs though, so acknowledging that they’re nonsense is difficult to do – likely unacceptably difficult. He’s planted a set of fantastical claims (angels, Adam & Eve etc) on foundations made of sand, so cannot entertain the reason and logic that washes them away. That’s why he spits the dummy when he sees arguments he doesn’t like rather than tries to rebut them. That way, the citadel is safe.

Dishonest? Yes. Understandable though? I think so.         

[ippy]

I was thinking about these posts of T S, I know, ippy thinking? 

Anyway you only need to take a look & listen to a few of the Americans that phone in to Mat Dillerhunty on YouTube, say about four or five contributors, and that's being generous, these poor devils make T S look like Einstein by comparison.

By the way I don't see any value in arguing with anyone that disputes the T O E, other than when they try to stop the best evidence we have to hand being taught to our next generation especially when the evidence for evolution has, quiet obviously to most people, achieved the equivalent of game set and match.

ippy.