Are you an Agnostic, but think you are an atheist? A rebuttal to RationalResponse
Offline The definition of agnosticism by RationalResponse is a modern corruption used primarily in psychology to describe god claims as ultimately unknowable. The more accepted meaning, and the one defined originally by Thomas Huxley, is that in the absence of evidence you cannot claim to know.
To say you doubt the existence of god is a knowledge claim because you are stating your position on the spectrum between truth and false. To cast doubt is to simply place yourself closer to the false position. So the question becomes, what evidence do you have to say god does not exist?
If you lack evidence yet feel this doubt in your bones, then you are indeed an atheist. To an agnostic person, an atheist is irrational, though not to the extent as extreme theists who make extraordinary claims with no evidence.
The argument of double negation used in paragraph two is illogical because of the assumption that there are only two positions you can take; believing or not believing. So why can we not take a third position, which is “I cannot claim to know either way”. This position is perfectly rational and is simply a statement of having no evidence, or that the evidence in your judgement balances equally; in either case it means that you are a traditional agnostic.
How will you answer this question; did I (author) eat cereal today for breakfast? According to your atheist double negation argument, you can only say Yes, or I doubt it. Clearly both positions are inadequate.
Further, if you feel in your bones that you are closer to the theist position, but accept you have no evidence, then again you are agnostic. It is the admission of “no evidence” that makes you agnostic. In fact this is the very position that Huxley himself took; Discussing Christian doctrine he says “Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them”.
Furthermore, what if your belief system has nothing to do with god? A spiritualist, a mystic, a belief in the interconnectedness of the universe, Serendipity, Synchronicity. The word atheist is totally inadequate because as you rightly state the root derivation of the word theist is “God” and there is no room for those who reject this supreme entity outright. Agnosticism however is compatible because instead of using the archaic concept of God, it uses a broader terminology; “anything beyond and behind material phenomena” (OED).
By the way, I am more than happy to change my own terminology as it seems many members here have.
- Login to post comments
That's funny, Blake, I propose an entity which may be that we refer to as God, but I don't worship it nor do I ask anyone else to worship it. By your own criteria....
...doesn't that make me an atheist.?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I don't have a clue how many pantheons for which I am atheist.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It would if you really weren't worshiping it, Eloise.
Eloise, worship is more than just that expressed through chanting, praying, and burnt offerings; it's a sense of veneration or adoring reverence or regard for something, generally, that one considers higher than oneself or otherwise transcendent (celebrity worship is not uncommon, though that doesn't qualify as theism since they aren't supernatural deities).
Epicureans did not necessarily disbelieve, but placed gods on the same level as humans and were apathetic to them. Buddha, likewise, seemed to have believed that beings like these existed, but that they should not be regarded as gods in that sense- they were caught in the same cycle as humans, and as devoid of any enlightenment as the most lowly peasant or emperor; that is, he taught precisely the opposite of worship. None of their world views would be even the slightest bit disturbed by the revelation that those gods didn't exist.
You, Eloise, worship this hypothetical being by the way you regard and venerate it, by the apologias you spew, and by the frantic contortions you attempt to force upon science to justify your view. You go through effort to convince yourself of it, and to explain it to others, and you *want* to believe in this thing- you adore the idea and are obsessed with it to the point of sacrificing any grasp of reality you might have had- you are by no means indifferent, as evidenced by your actions.
Even as much as you claim to respect science and logic, Eloise, your reverence for this deity must necessarily exceed that, seeing how flippantly you've given legitimate science a back seat and contorted your perceptions of it for the sake of validating your deity. Science and logic evidently mean nothing to you, Eloise, (even if not consciously) compared to the veneration your pantheistic obsession enjoys. Holding anything so far beyond the reach of rational thought is a reverence the most devout fideists could envy.
An atheist who believes these beings exist is merely ignorant, and through no fault of his or her own, with no real attachment to the idea- and one who will easily relinquish it when informed- it doesn't mean he or she will go out of his or her way to learn about them, and may still try to avoid pissing off these beings for pragmatic reasons, but for the most part any reaction would range from indifference to relief that they don't exist. Eloise, you know enough to know better, and yet you have clung to the belief regardless- your worship could not be more pronounced if you fell to your knees and started rambling in tongues in submission to your deity; you've already given over to it your capacity for critical thinking.
Unless, of course, you don't actually care about this entity and you're only clinging to the belief out of mere pride, and a fear of being proven wrong just because you came up with some absurd idea and stated it publicly... in which case, then it would be fair to say you're just a dishonest atheist who has some serious self esteem issues. I won't claim to know which one it is- it could go either way- but we both know you won't admit that, Eloise, so lets pretend that the former is the only possible option, to save your ego.
You are right sapient thats why i stop visit an agnostic site i signed with because all they do is deny deny, and make new tittles for themselfs like aAtheist and what not
this one time i asked if you believe in god or not, i got the response " i dont know" i did not ask you what you F@#$@@ know i asked what you beleive
but agnostic just cant admit it i guess
I think it's a safety mechanism from religious upbringing. They read al the stuff and realize how little sense it makes. But they don't want to say "I don't believe in the existence of gods" because they want to be able to go to heaven also - "I didn['t say I didn't beleieve. I said I didn't know."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Meh, I was just having a dig at your expense, Blake. Your "atheism" that admits belief in gods is pretty dodgy its funny to see you scramble to defend it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Agnostic Site?... Really?.... I imagine that's like being a season ticket holder for the Clippers
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I don't hold any positive belief in the existence of any gods, despite your hysterical accusations Eloise.
I would prefer to consider those certain people who believe that certain gods exist not to be 'proper' atheists, but that would be a denial of the full and historical extent of the definition. Unlike you, Eloise, I do not strive to invent my own facts.
In using a more narrow definition, those people would not be included (as I have already indicated), but in using the more inclusive one derived from the historical range in meaning (and in the argument at hand, that was the context), the term "atheist" existed (not in English, obviously) long before it was generally heard of for somebody to completely deny the existence of gods, rather indicating the mere disregard of their [the gods'] relevance.
By all means, though, ignore and contort history Eloise- you do a good job of that with science already.
lol, hysterical.
Denotation: you're doing it wrong
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
@Blake: Is there any reason to use atheist in the manner that you do? To me it just seems confusing. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use a separate word or phrase, like 'non-worshiping theist' or something rather than confuse everyone by breaking common usage?
You are the only person I've ever seen use the word atheist to describe a person who believes in some sort of deity. What benefit is gained by using that word in public discourse?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
That you do not remember the context of our original argument and what I said to you is not surprising. Think about it a little bit; you just might figure it out. My word use was a very deliberate allusion to our argument.
First and foremost, historical usages come to mind- so, historical accuracy? In the context of modern usage, though? I think it helps underscore the notion that atheists are anybody who is not a theist.
However, there is also the matter of practical categorization that comes into play. These people believe in the existence of these beings only incidentally, and they're called deities only incidentally.
"Non-worshiping theist" is kind of an oxymoron. These people are pretty rare exceptions (I'd hazard a guess that they are less than 1% of the population- "Christians" who don't go to church don't count in with this group as they still believe in and regard YHWH as their god).
By historical usage, and the most simple definition of atheism "godless", these people are certainly included. They have no god- even if they believe that other people legitimately do have one. These people may or may not believe that an assortment of deities are real beings- from YHWH to Thor- but they would reject any assertion that they follow any of them, or "believe in" (in the sense of have faith/confidence in) any of them.
As I said, the belief in their probable existence is merely incidental- as is the distinction between henotheism and monotheism (call them devils, demons, ghosts, spirits, angels or saints, or call them deities- it doesn't matter). These people would be the logical equivalent of a henotheist minus a monotheist, which amounts to nothing more than a semantic blur, and nonetheless is godless.
Allow me to review the grey area for a moment, to emphasize how arbitrary mere deity belief is:
The vast majority of the world's atheists believe in ghosts (cautiously, in that they are afraid of them) and good and bad luck, and all sorts of superstitions- China's population assures us of that, but you might be surprised how common it is in Europe as well.
Some percentage of that population of ghost believers also venerate or worship those ghosts in one way or another-- and some of those also believe that those ghosts have supernatural powers to answer prayers and affect their lives in good or bad ways.
Only incidentally are these ghosts not called gods- and that's the only thing that stops some people from 'believing on gods'. In terms of cultural anthropology, it can even be fully subjective as to whether the scholar calls them gods or ghosts.
When whether a culture is atheistic or theistic comes down to a trivial ruling on terminology and translation, that strikes me as a problem.
The only way we can disqualify these people as atheists by any metric that does not hinge on worship, if what they worship and believe in isn't technically called a god or deity, is to insist on a strict belief in scientific naturalism to qualify as an atheist. I used to insist on just that, because there is ultimately little difference between ghosts and deities in theory and practice (in fact, some deities are ghosts, or came from ghosts etc.)- that, however, is problematic...
The qualification of worship of a supernatural being just makes substantially more sense from a standpoint of practicality of classification- unless we are to insist on strict scientific naturalism.
If we consider only "belief in the existence of any deity", these people would be converted from theism to atheism by the slightest deviation in definition of a deity without any actual change in belief.
Argument: "Hey, you know, these deities... don't you think it might be more fair to call them, more generically, spirits or something? Since deity is kind of specific to something you might worship- and you don't worship them in particular."
Concession: "Yeah, I guess"
*bing* Theist to Atheist conversion complete.
Seriously? Now *that* seems confusing.
I think it helps underscore the notion that atheists are anybody who is not a theist, and reflects a more logically coherent notion of theism.
I don't know if historical accuracy is a benefit or not- probably not- but I'll throw that out there too.
Most importantly, I've seen these people define themselves as atheists, and I'm not about to tell them otherwise given the overwhelming historical context.
If the Pope declared, in the context of infallibility, that YHWH, Yeshua, and the holy spirit weren't actually accurately described as a "god", but instead should be called "tri-une angel force", or TAF, all other things being equal, would all Catholics suddenly become atheists? I don't think so.
If I went outside and convinced a random Chinese person that ghosts were called "gods" in English, and as such got him or her to admit that he or she believed in gods, would that person suddenly be a theist? I don't think so.
Unless we restrict the definition of atheism to strict scientific naturalism (against overwhelming usage, both now and historically), the next practical metric is not the arbitrary name given to the beings in question, but the relationship of worship expressed by theism (which, interestingly, would also be the most historically accurate).
@Blake: I guess I'm not sure why ghosts and such come into this at all. I don't think a ghost or a spirit would ever be confused with an actual 'god', would it?
I agree that there are many atheists who are not scientific naturalists, many of whom believe in ghosts, spirits, aliens (the anal probing kind), etc. But that just makes them atheists who are not scientific naturalists.
From your argument, I think I disagree that there is enough confusion about the concept to warrant a change in common usage. I'm not aware of many situations where ghost belief is confused with deity belief.
Maybe part of the issue is your more Asian-centric viewpoint vs. my more Western-centric viewpoint, but since most of the posters here are westerners I'm not convinced any change is needed.
I think your pope example does more to support common usage than any alternatives, after all, everyone would know Catholics are still theists. If someone believes the Greek gods are all real, but doesn't worship them, to me that person is still a theist....and I imagine most would uphold that view, right?
---------
Bah, I don't know. I understand the problem, my solution is to add qualifiers to the understood usage, your solution seems to be to make the terms more inclusive. *shrug*
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Original argument? What has that got to do with you defining atheism in such an odd way?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Only in the context of Christian culture is the distinction so concrete- that's largely because it has in the past been considered some kind of blasphemy to consider that anything beyond 'god' has powers etc.
Demons and devils are demons and devils. Angels are angels. Saints are saints. Ghosts are just ghosts. And 'god' is a god.
Those kinds of arbitrary distinctions don't go far outside of canonical Abrahamic monotheism. No modern atheists I've met who do believe in gods subscribe to that.
Within the context of pagan beliefs, spirits have powers and some may have been ghosts of people, some people are deified after death as their ghosts become gods, some people worship the spirits and they are in practice gods...
You might look into more pagan and Wiccan beliefs, as well as tribal traditions; you'll see that there are very much practicing theists who don't believe in "gods", but instead in spirits, or ghosts, or however the concept was translated, but deities nonetheless for all practical purposes- with regards to the worship and supplication to superior beings- they are theists. You'll see them praying and asking for things, giving offerings and ceremonies... it's just a matter of how powerful this particular being is, and it's quite arbitrary.
There are pagans who believe in YHWH, but believe that YHWH is not any more powerful than the nature spirits, or other gods they worship. There are people who believe that YHWH is just a naughty ghost who has some serious ego problems. It's all quite arbitrary.
Does whether they call YHWH a ghost or a spirit or a god, all other things being equal, really make that much of a difference in your view?
Splitting hairs about a definition such as what qualifies a god is really pointless, since the definition is so hazy to begin with; more to the point is the practice of worship and veneration- that is, after all, what makes a god a god.
A deity is just a supernatural being that is worshiped or requires worship- and in that sense, if you believe in the being but don't worship it, you could say that to you it isn't your god while maintaining that it is a god of Christians, or Muslims, or whatever.
Which is why the lack of distinction between ghosts/spirits and gods makes that problematic. Aliens probably don't count, though, since they're natural beings (whether real or imagined)- few believers in aliens would assert otherwise; unless they travel faster than light, then we might be able to charge them with having supernatural powers.
The most crucial factor for the definition of any deity is an element of the supernatural.
If we only consider positive belief in a supernatural being to be theism, given a lack of distinction between gods and other supernatural beings in the absence of worship or veneration, then we have no choice but to admit that anybody who believes in any kind of supernatural being is not distinct from a theist unless we really consider the arbitrary qualification of "god" that important.
That's why my comment about renaming what the pope considers to be 'god' is so important:
I think you misread my example- that's what I said- everybody would still believe that Catholics are theists. That's why it doesn't matter what you *call* the supernatural being- Angel, god, spirit, ghost, devil, demon- the important factor here is worship.
My point about the Pope and the Catholics was that their actions, opinion of, and relationship with this magical supernatural being are what make them theists- it doesn't matter if you call it a god or a ghost or a spirit- they do call the holy ghost a ghost, after all- what if they just stopped believing in the father and the son?
If changing what they call YHWH to "angel" or "ghost" would not make all Catholics atheists, then changing "ghost" to "god" would not make an atheist who believe in ghosts, now who believes in gods, a theist.
I can't see any reason not to assert that it is fully irrelevant what we call what they believe in- only the nature and fact of the belief is relevant.
If you have a distinction between ghosts/spirits/gods that holds up to logical scrutiny, I'd be glad to hear it. In all of the religions I've studied, though, I've never found one beyond the incidental matter of worship and veneration.
To the atheist who believes in YHWH, he or she may admit that it is a god to some, but it is not his or her god- it's a rejection of gods in practice, and that's godlessness. That's atheism- calling it anything else is... strange.
I'm a Westerner; it's not just Asian centric- Native American, African, Voodoo, Australian Aboriginal, Wiccan, and even ancient Greek beliefs have some profoundly unstable relationships between the concepts as well.
Anything outside of the "all powerful, all knowing, creator of the universe" notion of a god (which is a newer notion)- is ambiguous in some significant ways.
We could also just consider anybody who doesn't believe in an all powerful creator deity- merely the modern Abrahamic idea of a god- to be an atheist. I don't think that would be accurate, though, considering how many other gods (including "spirits" that are only incidentally not called gods) out there are being worshiped.
Not likely.
Traditionally, the Greeks themselves accused those people as being atheists; because they didn't acknowledge and properly revere the gods. Throughout history, people who didn't believe gods were real things were profoundly rare if they ever existed before the enlightenment and the discovery of science (possibly with the exceptions of Jains)- people couldn't understand how everything could exist otherwise- but they did realize that these were beings that cared about humanity, and that these beings did not need reverence.
Epicureans did not disbelieve in the gods, but were apathetic to them, did not believe in worshiping them, did not hold them in any particular regard or reverence- absolutely didn't care, and insisted that the gods would be made of the same matter everything else was made from. As a historical group, they're probably the oldest and most famous examples of atheists.
I can go into the history, but the bottom line is that somebody who doesn't and won't even acknowledge these beings, despite incidentally believing that they probably exist out of simple ignorance, can't be a theist proper.
In the case of the Epicureans, like the Catholics, it is their actions, opinion of, and relationship to those beings, regardless of their incidental beliefs that define them as atheists or theists. To an Epicurean, it wouldn't matter if you called the beings gods or ghosts or spirits. They don't care about them, they don't regard them, and they don't acknowledge them as their gods. To a Catholic, it probably would matter, but even if you changed the word they used, you wouldn't change them into atheists in so doing.
I don't think I'm making them more inclusive than historical usage indicates. More inclusive than some believe them to mean, perhaps, but only insofar as it is logically coherent.
As far as common usage goes...
I believe that if you were to present a Christian theologian with the question: "If somebody believes that YHWH exists as a supernatural being or creature of some kind, but rejects him, does not revere venerate or worship him any any way, and denies that he is benevolent, all powerful, all knowing, or the creator, would that person be an atheist or a theist?" You might get mixed answers.
I'll try to do this the next time I'm in an English speaking country.
@Blake: *Shrug* I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with your decision about language. I don't really care what historical usage was (well, I'm interested, but I don't care for the context of this discussion), modern usage is about deity belief. If someone believed in YHWH but did not venerate that deity, I would still call them a theist. I also agree with you that the line between god and spirit is vague, but again, I'm just not sure how it is germane to the conversation because your usage doesn't help clear it up any more than mine does.
I guess it comes back to categorizing and I don't see any dilemma in calling those people theists, then adding a qualifier to explain their belief. I still think all you are accomplishing by that usage is generating confusion, or at best making yourself sound like an elitist linguophile.
In your last example, I think most Christians would call that person a heretic, not an atheist. After all, Christians don't think Satanists are atheists and they fit that description.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
So, lets say we have a guy, 19 years old. He incidentally believes that there's probably something there to YHWH, he rejects it as his deity, thinks YHWH is probably some kind of evil demon or something (upon having read the bible and come to an understandable conclusion), and wants nothing to do with it. He doesn't worship it or acknowledge it, and he self identifies as an atheist, and expressed disdain for religion and all theism.
You're going to tell him he's a theist? @_@
I think you missed my point... My usage makes it irrelevant (god, ghost, spirit), because my usage is dependent upon worship and interaction, and not on incidental belief or titles.
Under my usage, it doesn't matter what the person calls it- so splitting hairs about the distinction is irrelevant- if they worship some supernatural being, that's theism.
That was my whole point. Because there isn't a distinction, we need to use a better metric.
Well, the first practical concern would be that it ticks them off- and I'm friend with some of them, so I'm not keen on that- particularly when historical usage is on their side.
I don't see how it could confuse anybody, though- the definition of non belief is much more confusing, given the ambiguity of what a 'god' is.
Satanists fit that description?
I suspect most Christians would agree that said person is an atheist, but as I said, I really need to survey the clergy for a more binding opinion on that.
Sure. Why wouldn't I? If a Christian believes in God but disagrees with everything in the Bible, and follows an internally created system of worship that consists entirely of ignoring the deity, would they still be a theist? I think so. They believe in a deity. Your hypothetical teenager is just a non-worshipping theist, but they are still a theist.
Having said that, I would want to talk to this hypothetical person and figure out what the hell they mean. I would imagine it means they are confused and intellectually lazy.
Fair enough, I still don't think it has enough purpose to justify your definition though.
If you want to define a term to salve an ego that is fine, but honestly I am surprised at you. I would have guessed you would chew on them until they either rejected theism or accepted it, and damn the emotional fallout.
You don't know how it would confuse anyone? Really? This single thread should show that it confuses people. You can admit your usage is not common, can't you? What more do you need?
Sure they do. Why wouldn't they? They usually believe in God but don't worship him, they might even actively oppose him.
Why would you want clergy? Aren't we talking about common usage? If you found a bunch of curmudgeonly old priests you *might* talk them into accepted an outdated definition but I don't think that is applicable to my point. If your only point is you can get some pedantic people to agree on your non-common usage, I don't have any problem with that.
I know you like to bicker but I don't understand your insistence on this point, it seems pretty clear to me that you have a special usage that goes against common usage. I doubt anyone would care if you had not spent a few posts badgering someone about using special usage over common usage
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
If ignoring a deity were a form of worship? That's a bit odd, though.
Yes, generally.
That's probably the most distinct point upon which we differ, then. I feel like the greater logical coherence of the definition justifies it, in itself. A definition that is not consistent is not very useful to its purpose, IMO.
The definition of atheist as strict scientific naturalist would also be coherent- however, I just I think my inclination is closer to common usage.
You asked for more practical reasons
Actually, if I didn't agree with them in their use of the definition, I *would* do precisely that. I do chew at them to reject the superfluous supernatural beings- whether they are ghosts or spirits or deities. (I consider all of those essentially equal)
A minor deviation (and in a more historical direction) of a definition from that understood isn't *that* confusing, and I believe it ultimately serves to be less confusing because it eliminates the ambiguity posed in the qualification of a deity.
By the definition you're going by, Catholics *would* become atheists if the pope redefined 'god' as a special type of angel, rather than a "god", all other things remaining exactly the same.
I believe that's far more confusing and contrary to common sense than my qualification.
*Unless* we stick to a definition of pure scientific naturalism for atheism- either way, I believe the ambiguity needs to be addressed in the definition.
A definition that does not rather clearly delineate between what is and isn't that thing is a fail definition- that's my primary contention.
Either that, or we need to propagate a new term like semi-theist to over the grey areas...?
It was my understanding that Satanists disbelieve in any god (including Satan), and that the terminology is more metaphorical.
Because the herd inherit their opinions on matters theological from their leaders, and the average person is unlikely to even understand the question. More common where I grew up would probably be the "If you aren't a Christian, you're an atheist and you worship the devil!"... so, yeah...
@Blake: Well we're just about at the point where we agree to disagree then, so that is a good thing.
Could you explain how your pope example would actually change them to atheists? It seems sort of illogical to me, because the Pope couldn't change God to a special type of angel without changing something else. I really do understand what you are saying, I just think it is a bad example. I think we've hashed out the core problem already.
I would actually prefer a new term, if that group is sufficiently large to need such a thing. It is just personal preference, but I would rather leave common use alone and just make a specific descriptive word. Of course that is why I don't get into the agnostic vs. atheist debate...when someone says they are agnostic I can ask if they are atheistic or theistic agnostics and get a good answer (If they claim to be a true agnostic, then they are probably an idiot). To me, the whole push to abandon the word agnostic in favor of atheist isn't a linguistic debate, it is a conversion tactic used by atheists to get people to re-think their positions. Many here might disagree though, but that is how I see it.
I don't think Satanism is coherent enough to really define specifically. Some worship Satan rather than God, some are spiritual anarchists, some occultists, most are kids in the throes of some terribly exciting teenage rebellion.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Ooohh, interesting discussion.
It does generate confusion, but only because it's not commonly used at all. For practical purposes, I think Blake's definition would definitely be a more useful distinction than the current definition of atheism. It distinguishes between those who worship any supernatural entity and those don't, instead of belief in a category of supernatural entities. Nevertheless, it does generate confusion, so...the amount of confusion it would cause vs. the fact that it's a more logical distinction. In the end, I would prefer to avoid the confusion as well. So, I guess I agree more with mellestad.
That said, since it is a different distinction, why call it theism/atheism? If we give it another name, wouldn't we have it both ways? We can have the more logical distinction and avoid the confusion.
Edit: Oh, mellestad already suggested it. **** it!
I'm an aworshipist? Oh God, that sounds stupid.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
He could just say:
And thus, all Catholics are atheists, because YHWH has been promoted from mere "god" to "king f*cking super angel"
That is, if we go by your definition :P If we go by mine, they're still theists, regardless of how much crack the Pope snorts.
Right, well, common usage of "atheist" is actually pretty unstable at the moment- the new atheist movement, stirred it up more than it has been in hundreds of years. It's easy to identify the most accurate historical usage *cough* mine *cough*, but as to common usage, I've seen quite a bit of argument and misconception already.
So, I'm not entirely sure how common common usage is.
Could be; I don't see anything wrong with it so long as it is still, strictly speaking, the most legitimate usage.
I'll always chose coherent logic over tip-toeing around the possibility of confusing somebody. If what somebody believes isn't logical, then they're already confused anyway- but without realizing it, so it's even more dangerous.
I would argue that, where the people hold notions that are on shaky logical footing, those people *need* to be confused a little bit- it could even encourage them to (god forbid) use their brains.
I also lean strongly towards historical usage unless there's a very good reason not to- and here, I see all the more reason to use a more historically accurate (and logically consistent) definition.
@Blake: But that is the thing, my definition is already broad enough to encompass it, just because it says, 'believes in a deity'. Unless the Pope redefined something else, his renaming of God does not change that being into a non-deity. Here we get into the issue we already agree on, deity is a wishy-washy word, but in this case I don't think anyone would be confused.
I don't have any problem with the agnostic vs atheist debate either, I just don't have a personal stake in it. I think if the word atheist did not have so much negativity associated with it, people would use agnostic less anyway.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Lol, I like it.
Besides, if you are an aworshipist you're probably an idiot anyway, so you wouldn't mind.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Of course it does; all he has to do is assert that is isn't a deity, in the same way that he asserts that angels, saints, and demons are not deities. In the same way that you yourself seem to assert that ghosts and "luck" are not deities for those atheists who believe in them.
You mean they'd all agree that Catholics were now atheists?
Regarding aworshipists;
Don't forget that we're all aworshipists, most of us just happen to be positive atheists and scientific naturalists in addition.
An 'angel' with all the attributes of the Catholic God would still be a deity.
As far as atheists believing in those things, I would need to know their specific beliefs case by case to decide if they believed in something I would consider a deity or not.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
So a theist can pray to a deity, worship a deity, live his life according to a book allegedly written by a deity and financially support a place where the people worship that deity.
If he denies that what he's worshipping is a deity then BOOM! he's an atheist?
This is your logic - if it sounds loony when it's thrown back at you don't shoot the messenger.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Then you would confess one who holds belief in that which is a god called, with but only the lineaments of an angel, qualifies only as an atheist?
So, then, no matter what somebody believes, it is entirely subjective as to whether that person is theist or atheist?
In other words; the distinction is completely arbitrary?
Personally, I think you both have some interesting logic games going on.
Blake seems to be saying that one can worship a deity and be an atheist (as long as he denies that he's worshiping a deity)
Mellestad seems to be wanting to analyze a person's beliefs to determine whether what they're worshiping is a God or not (despite what the "believer" calls it).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
@Blake: If that angel-thing meets the definition of a deity, sure. For many common types of angel beliefs I think that would qualify as theism. They ask for their help, they think they intercede, they think they have supernatural power, etc. It would be a very crude deity, but animism is crude too and we still call that theism. Why call angelists atheists but animists theists?
As to your second question, it is as arbitrary as the definition of deity.
@JC: Of course it is a game. The whole point is absurd and has zero relevance to anything of import. No matter who's definition you prefer, to get any real data you have to add qualifiers to make the data useful. I just think it is confusing to say, "10% of this group are atheists, and 5% don't believe in a deity". To explain the difference, you would then say, "Well, in *historical* usage the word atheist doesn't mean atheist..."I'm pretty sure most people would say, "wtf?"
You've summarized my viewpoint succinctly.
Edit: Blake's going to disagree with your summarization of his though. He thinks you can *believe* in a deity and still be an atheist, not *worship* a deity and still be an atheist. Then it gets muddy about what worship is, but we're sort of hashing that out now.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
jcgadfly, as mellestad already pointed out, that isn't remotely my argument- that is my exposing the flaw in his. I encourage you to read the conversation more carefully from the beginning.
Good job, you beat me to my point. That is, degree of power doesn't qualify a deity.
Which brings me to:
How how arbitrary, exactly, is the definition of a deity?
Well, when you get down to it, there are only two important characteristics. Stated a little crudely (without getting into too many details):
1. Supernatural with some form of supernatural power
- And this would be fully inclusive of ghosts, and even the concept of luck (which can easily be argued to be a sentient and willful force under any postulate of its existence)
2. Worship (or, that is, being worshiped)
- this would cover the attitude of most people towards an all powerful creator, a fan towards a movie star, or even a pseudo-intellectual towards the deist god.
Having one quality, without the other, would tend to disqualify the being. Do you agree? Having both would tend to qualify the being- right?
So, for those teeny-boppers swooning over movie stars, those movie stars just don't happen to be supernatural, so the squealing teens can remain atheists (assuming there aren't any other supernatural beings of note in their lives that earn their worship).
For the believer in ghosts, if worship doesn't factor, said believer is still in the clear, right?
You can probably tell where I'm going with this; I want to see if you can beat me to my point again.
Obviously I don't agree that you need both, or we wouldn't be having this debate. If I've beaten you to your point, then I beat you there at the start of this conversation.
I think you're wrong about a deistic God, those people would, by your terms, usually be atheists. If you dilute worship to a such a degree that deists qualify, how are you in a better position than my stance relying on a wide definition of deity?
I fully understand the slight dilemma that the definition of deity causes: Sometimes defining deity is not a straight forward thing and so it creates gray areas. I choose my dilemma over your dilemma for the sake of clarity, explained many times already.
I don't know why we are still discussing this. We both know the reasoning of the other person, we simply made a different choice at one fork in the process. As said above, we both have to use qualifiers to actually describe a person with clarity anyway. At least when I say atheist I think most people would know what I mean. This thread has illustrated that when you say someone believes in a god, but is an atheist, it generates confusion.
Either we can agree to disagree, or you can inevitably crack under the weight of my perfectly simple, yet dramatically profound arguments.
(Edited to fix bad structure)
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Ohhh... I didn't realize that you didn't recognize the need for worship in qualifying a deity- that's what deifying is all about. I thought you were saying it needed to be called a deity, in addition to just fulfilling the requirements.
Well, in that regard, you're quite wrong.
But lets not stop just there *drum roll please*
Note my emphasis please.
The "Christian Scientists" have a special new definition (which I can get into if you're going to be anal), but beyond "special" definitions, no dictionary or competent scholar fails to recognize the importance of worship in the qualification of a god.
The acceptance of worship as one of the qualifiers for a god/deity was not inconsistent with your arguments, so I assumed you were using standard definitions there since you didn't say otherwise.
Are you willing to use standard definitions of what qualifies a god/deity, or are you actually trying to confuse the definition of a god even more than it already is?
I'm not sure if all deists are theists- it's possible that very many are not. Deism has long been held to be discrete from theism- only wherein they are worshiping in some manner would I call them theists. I think I have been clear on this point? If not, I apologize.
Give the interweb a poke with the term "atheistic deism", and you'll see what I mean. Even, just review descriptions and definitions of deism as distinct from theism.
Worship is an action of feeling in accordance to/pursuit of adoration/reverence/veneration of the being in question.
I believe rationalizing evidence against one's position and performing logical acrobatics while practicing willful ignorance for the sake of belief in this being qualifies as worship in any proper sense of the definition- they aren't doing it for their respective healths.
In that regard, I do not believe that I am diluting it in the slightest- I'm even being charitable not to call what they do something significantly more demeaning.
A fully ignorant deist could be an atheist- that is, an 'atheistic deist' as they like to call it- an educated one would find avoidance of theism almost impossible.
Dictionary.reference.com goes into more detail:
I present no logical dilemma; merely a surfacing and correction of a confusion that already exists undiscovered and unaddressed.
I wasn't aware that you were denying the most important aspect of a god as part of the definition- and in many like respects, I don't think you fully understand my reasoning.
The same argument could be used to tell you that you can't call yourself an atheist, because you "aren't atheist enough". Only the most positive atheists in the world could be called atheist without confusing anybody.
Stupid people are bound to get confused no matter what you do; better to use a more logically consistent definition that has the potential to resolve that confusion in the long term- not to mention the more cognitively motivational reasons.
( http://lolmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/orly.jpg )
An image seemed appropriate.
Waiiiit, wait, wait.
What does deify have anything to do with anything? Deify is a verb, we aren't talking about defining people who deify gods/spirits, we're talking about people who believe in gods/spirits *without* deifying them....right? You can believe in a deity without deifying it, which you know since that is your point. Obviously where we differ is what to call that person, besides confused.
If you are willing to qualify worship as, "I believe rationalizing evidence against one's position and performing logical acrobatics while practicing willful ignorance for the sake of belief in this being qualifies as worship in any proper sense of the definition- they aren't doing it for their respective healths." then this whole thing is even more pointless than it is because your atheist/theist/believer/non-believer/aworshipist friends are all still worshipers by your terms and they meet *both* of our definitions for theism. Hell, if you make 'worship' wide enough (Say, fear or awe of a supernatural force?), I might be comfortable including it in *my* definition of deity belief because I could probably argue that includes anyone who believes in any deity anyway, regardless of whether or not they 'really' worship it.
As to your last relevant point, there are many people who do say many atheists aren't atheist enough. Since we've both previously agreed that 'scientific naturalistic skeptical atheism' is not the only form of atheism, what does it matter? That argument seems to be based on the fact that people can use words in whatever way they want...which is what both of us are doing. I could likewise argue that, "By your argument, someone can say worshiping is only real worship if there is organized ritual involved, therefore all those hippy new age fuckers are atheists, and only Catholics are true theists anyway!" But I wouldn't say that, because it is a silly slippery slope argument.
You keep trying to make it complicated, it isn't. Which version of atheist is less confusing to the average, mildly educated reader? I wish we could do polls on this site. Although, if we did, I imagine we'd find no-one is even reading, having passed out after the first go-around.
And finally, if your argument is going to consist of quoting dictionary sites then:
Dictionary.com
a·the·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Webster:
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic (Emphasis mine): ungodliness, wickedness
2
a: disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
We're talking about both, kind of, because we're discussing our respective usages.
Deification is essential, because it explains the process by which your run of the mill ghost/spirit becomes a deity- it is very relevant to the conversation because the process of deification is the difference between a ghost/spirit and a deity/god- and thus the difference between an atheist and a theist by the definition of atheist merely indicating lack of belief in a "god". That is- by your definition.
I'm trying to explain to you *why* worship is absolutely necessary to draw any distinction between ghosts and gods- and the very definition of distinction; otherwise you're back to scientific naturalism.
And what is deification? It's worship.
My point is that the difference between a ghost and a god is worship, not any other arbitrary qualifier. You can't deny that and simultaneously assert that believers in ghosts are not theists, because without worship, you have no basis at all for saying those ghosts are not gods.
Can you, though? Really? Can we really say, regarding that person who does not deify the being, that the belief is then in a deity with respect to that person?
Either a deity is relative to the people who worship it- not properly being a deity with respect to belief in the cases of people who do not- or a deity is absolute and becomes a deity for *everybody* the moment *anybody* worships it.
If we can call this being a legitimate deity with respect to that person's belief despite the lack of worship, that means the being in question only has to be deified by somebody, anybody- and not even the believer in question.
If person X believes in the ghost of Elvis, but does not deify it, and person Y then comes along and both believes in said ghost and deifies it, that ghost is now a deity for person Y and person X (in accordance with this postulate of absolute deification). So, through no action or change of belief, person X became a deity because person Y came around and deified what person X believed in?
If you accept that the Elvis ghost believer who does not worship said ghost is a theist, then, well- fine. I'll accept that you believe the qualification for what makes a deity a deity to be absolute. You'll be very hard pressed to find a single supernatural being or category of beings that aren't worshiped by anybody, though, so you're more or less stuck with strict scientific naturalism.
If you still deny that worship is the most crucial qualifier of a deity, then you're going to have to accept one of the following to resolve that:
1. all ghosts are just as much deities as anything else (making atheists *only* strict scientific naturalists)
2. only the strict modern definition of a 'ultimate' deity/"GOD" qualifies (making ancestor worshipers and most pagans atheists)
3. the term is completely arbitrary and useless (that's it's just as accurate to call Einstein a theist and Catholics atheists as it is the other way around, because it's all a matter of opinion)
I disagree- that can only be the case if they are not explicitly ignorant. Most of these atheists who believe in the beings that are other people's deities merely do so out of ignorance.
My use of the term worship is broad, but not *that* broad. In particular, it excludes even educated people from pre-scientific enlightenment days.
If you haven't been presented evidence, or haven't encountered it, then you can't rationalize it away.
I'll note that, before, I also gave the possibility of pride as a reason for rationalizing- that is, if one actually doesn't care about the concept of the deity, but is merely prideful and unable to admit a mistake, rationalization may occur without qualifying as worship.
I don't think that argument could really be made.
Those 'mildly educated' readers are already confused without realizing it; I'm not worried about presenting something that will make them think and resolve that confusion with a more logically consistent and historically accurate definition.
My argument does NOT consist only of referencing dictionaries; you know that.
In that definition, I'll note that the first qualifies only positive atheism, and is entirely ambiguous, and the second qualifies only disbelief in the modern definition of a supreme god, and would include most pagans and ancestor worshipers in it's scope of atheism- it is more broad than even my usage.
That's obviously neither fully inclusive, nor contextual, as it doesn't contain your definition at all. If you disagree with my citations, you can find your own- I'm just trying to demonstrate that your concept of what qualifies a deity (which appears to be merely your opinion, without any consideration for any other more objective factors) is thoroughly incorrect.
For good measure:
( http://typo.graphr.net/images/owl-nowai.jpg )
Jesus, the verbiage!
OK, at least to me this last post loosens your defining characteristics. If "I disagree- that can only be the case if they are not explicitly ignorant. Most of these atheists who believe in the beings that are other people's deities merely do so out of ignorance." then sure, they can be an atheist. If someone thinks, out of ignorance, the Christian God is equitable to a minor ghost, and they believe in ghosts in a minor non-deity way, fine, they can be a ignorant, non-naturalistic atheists. However, it is a heck of a stretch for an informed person to say these people, 'believe in the Christian God'. All they 'believe' in is a mis-applied label.
Knowing that, no-one would ever be confused about these people anyway. If that is the case, we could have avoided a lot of typing had you been more clear originally.
If you think someone could believe in the Christian God, knowing full well all that entails then I still think that person is a theist, regardless of worship.
If I've got that wrong, I'm back to being flummoxed about your reasoning.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Oh ho! We have made progress!
Well, not all of them believe in a "minor ghost"
For example (these are approximate, partially hypothetical, some based on real people):
Atheist X believes that the universe was created as a simulation on a super computer by a programmer in a "higher" dimension, and that that universe, likewise, created in the same way in another higher dimension, and so on and so forth infinitely. This programmer- "god" - who evolved from primitive primates, quite mortal in all reasonable respects in the context of his reality, with his pocket protector and thick framed glasses, happens to be nearly omnipotent to us because he can shift around a bit of code and change anything he wants. But he is no better than any of us, no more enlightened, not omniscient nor omnibenevolent- he's just a schmuck who happens to be simulating us. Atheist X doesn't worship this being or think much of it.
Atheist Y believes that volcanoes and other natural phenomena are kinds of gods, with a vague sentience, and with some kind of ego that like to be stroked. He thinks islanders can appease those beings by making sacrifices to them to, say, avert natural disasters- not unlike how people would appease sprites and brownies in the middle ages by leaving them milk and cookies, or other gifts, to they wouldn't cause mischief. These beings are not omnipotent, certainly not omniscient or creators of our world, and just as easily described as titans or spirits. He neither worships them nor really worries about them; he'd just rather keep his distance, because he thinks they're crazy and not worth dealing with.
Atheist Z has studied the bible extensively, as well as other mythology and occult texts, and believes that YHWH is an evil god/spirit that has deceived people in order to consume their will/life essences. He cites that YHWH has even lied in the bible, so none of it is really reliable and probably all an exaggeration. He also cites the "Iron chariots" which YHWH could not defeat, and the common belief that Iron is anathema to evil spirits (which is why YHWH was turned). He does not believe that YHWH created the world, but is a product of it- a kind of life sucking vampire spirit that formed from human fear- he believes that this is the Christian god, and that Christians are misled and lied to about the qualities of their god to make them worship it- that when the Christians pray and feel the holy spirit, this is in fact YHWH leeching out their life energy and free will to sustain itself.
I could go on...
Whether the label is mis-applied or not is a matter of interpretation. If the Christian god is what is defined in the bible, and the bible is self contradictory with itself and canon, then there are many interpretations that could be drawn that might qualify as the Christian god YHWH, despite how blasphemous some of them might seem to most Christians.
I was clear that the being or beings these people believe in usually differ in quality from the typical interpretation of the Christian god.
I will elaborate that, in particular, it probably must necessarily lack certain qualities of ultimate transcendent perfection and omnibenevolence, lest mere belief in those qualities- which are a recognition and veneration in themselves- qualify worship.
I think you're being a bit narrow on "all that entails"- but I agree that if they believe this being is perfect and pure good, that is a form of worship in itself (recognizing something is perfect and pure good is about as extreme as veneration can get).
I don't think that's the only interpretation of the Christian deity, however. There are even some very few Christians on this forum who would argue that point, I believe.
The important point that made epicureans and Buddha atheists is that they explicitly denied the qualities of transcendence or "better than us", or any worthiness of worship to these beings- these beings, according to them, were of the same materials, and equally in and subject to this world's rules. The Epicureans, at least, were called blasphemers for doing so- denying the gods the most important elements of their natures. Some Buddhists later kind of reverted back to worshiping some gods despite being told there's no reason to, and that those beings were no better than anybody else- people will do what they will do- though some few still remain atheists.
"He does not believe that YHWH created the world, but is a product of it- a kind of life sucking vampire spirit that formed from human fear- he believes that this is the Christian god, and that Christians are misled and lied to about the qualities of their god to make them worship it- that when the Christians pray and feel the holy spirit, this is in fact YHWH leeching out their life energy and free will to sustain itself."
Isn't this almost a form of "anti-worship"? By not worshiping in the traditional sense, Atheist Z believes that he is depriving this being of power?
Atheist Z still respects this being enough to believe it must be stopped and that he has the means.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It is a tricky thing to define, isn't it?
I enjoyed reading your x-y-z examples, they are all such gray areas! I would be surprised if any of those individuals could hold those beliefs and avoid falling into some sort of theism, but I don't doubt that they could convince themselves they were not theists.
Would these hypothetical/non-hypothetical people self-identify as atheists, do you think?
I don't think I'm being too narrow with 'it entails'. I think if you buy into just about anything in the Bible you are going to logically fall into some sort of theism. Even stripping away the bulk of the magic you still have an immortal being, capricious, capable of mortal intercession from providing food all the way up to granting immortality. I'm not sure how you could rationalize belief in that being without inevitably rationalizing, at a minimum, fear of said being and turning it into a 'real' deity.
-----------------------
You know, in the broad sense, if I were able to wave a wand and change the meaning of words, I would make atheist mean scientific naturalist atheist and make a new word for supernaturalist athiests. It would probably simplify things quite a bit.
One thing this site has taught me is that when someone self identifies as an atheist it doesn't mean much.
atheist-wooer. adeitytheist. Hmm.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yes, and proudly so.
Which just about everything? There are plenty of contradictory just about everythings in there.
Believing said being is distinctly powerful and can hurt you if you don't worship it, you do have to be pretty damn brave not to. Not everybody is a push-over, though. Some few people believe they will be sent to hell, and proudly hold out against this bully-ghost saying, "Do your worst you twisted f*ck!"
Anyway, I'd say that there are some features that mere belief in them constitutes worship- such as omnibenevolence (you can't revere something as the source of ultimate good without effectively worshiping it- if I said Obama was pure good, I'd be worshiping him in doing so [I do not so say]).
There are some qualities, though, which merely make it overwhelmingly probable that a person will worship said being, while excluding those few brave (and maybe slightly insane) people who will go against it.
LMFAO!
When you think you're evaluating me, you get it all so completely wrong. When you think you're evaluating someone else, strangely, it sounds like me. Funny that.
How do you figure? Sounds like non sequitur to me.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Per the original post, I find the terms "atheist" or " agnostic" to be excessively inflammatory and demeaning. In contrast I usually refer to myself as simply an infidel or an apostate or just plain wicked.
Also, so far I am finding this thread to be exceptionally entertaining. It's like watching a bar room brawl. Keep it up !
Okay. Let's try this as an experiment.
Hi guys! I am an atheist. I believe that Jesus is someone's savor. The Lord is definitely created everything around us and he is great, but I do not worship him. Maybe I am ignorant, maybe I am lazy, maybe both. But I never go to the Church and I never pray. All this because I am an atheist, the one who does not worship gods.
And I do not understand many of you guys. Why do you need any extra rights other than those already given by some God to all of us? If you think you do not believe and you don't go to a Church, no one is going to force you to go there. Stay home, be safe, be cool. If you are told that God created USA and those who against this should be extradited out of the country at minimum, why don't you simply accept this? God exists, you just don't have to worship Him.
With all my atheistic love,
0%Atheist
I think Mellestad has given up. So much for all of the big talk!
Nobody else has really made a coherent point worth arguing; it looks like the edge-of-your-seat action is over.
So, as your "atheist Z" believes that YHWH is an evil spirit that is worthy of respect and is enough of a threat that he must be stopped by depriving him of worship. But as long as he doesn't worship that being, he's still an atheist?
Seems to me like he's empowering this being instead of stopping it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I don't know where you got any of that- everything you said is almost exactly wrong. He has more contempt for this being than anything else.
The only way in which he respects it in that he considers it damaging, note emphasis:
At the most, he could respect it in the way I respect mosquitoes... or the pope. I definitely pay attention to mosquitoes when they bite me, and I "respect" them by smashing them, and I follow what the pope says because I feel it is dangerous, and important to stay informed.
You can stretch the definition if you want, but that definition of respect has no relationship with difference, positive regard, or veneration, and has nothing to do with worship. The *other* definitions of respect may, but you are not using it in that way, and it wouldn't apply with respect to those definitions' and this context.
Either way, he may even completely disregard the being- it is not a threat to him.
If you consider it on a threat ranking, it is substantially below "banana peel"- to him.
He is primarily concerned with simply not surrendering his life force and will to it himself. He considers it a dangerous being, but he is in the clear so long as he doesn't give himself to it- and he doesn't suspect that he might "accidentally" do so.
That is, this being is only a harmful to you if you give yourself to it.
It's very much like paying special heed to a pile of crack because you might accidentally and spontaneously snort it all up and become a crack head. That's not a very likely or practical phobia.
That is, it isn't even remotely likely that he's going to worship this being, or invite it into his heart to drain his life force and deprive him of free-will. He's not very worried about it.
He's actually more worried about YHWH's followers than the creature itself- his feelings mirror more closely pity for them for having their free-wills taken away by this being (or, actually, that they gave them away). It's not unlike out pity for crackheads, to extend my analogy. We aren't afraid that we will accidentally become crack heads, but we can pity those who have chosen to become crack heads (possibly because they were ignorant, uninformed, or too weak to resist).
Does one empower crack by saying "no thanks, I'd rather not be a crack head"?
I don't believe I ever said anything about him trying to stop it. His rejection of YHWH is not to weaken YHWH, but to save his own free will and life essence, which he isn't keen on willfully surrendering to an evil spirit- very much as my rejection of crack is not to *stop* crack from existing, but to not be a crack head and suffer very similar symptoms.
Note: No offense to crack-heads; I don't mean to suggest that crack is as bad as religion- it's just a useful analogy.
Where did I get that? I quoted you in an earlier post.
And yes, what you describe was not respect. I did not choose the word well. It is, in fact, veneration.
He fears YHWH as a threat and gives him an inordinate amount of reverence for being a threat.
Then again, he also claim to not want to do anything for people who he believes are being harmed by this threat. That makes him as much of a dick as the source of the perceived threat. And here I thought no one could out-dick YHWH.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No, you pulled it out of your ass and then tried to put it in my mouth. I don't like the taste of that very much.
You're probably just playing stupid deliberately- if it is deliberate, it is a pretty good act.
It isn't respect, it's contempt. CONTEMPT. Look it up, and stop trying to replace the appropriate description with something analogous to respect.
Reverence and respect are right out; the only potentially negative emotion you'll find in this definition is several degrees removed.
If you follow awe, which is only part of the feeling of veneration, you will find that some definitions include- potentially- the power to cause or feeling of overwhelming fear, dread, or terror.
Not only are those not the only qualifiers for awe, or the most important, but awe is only a part of veneration, which is overwhelmingly positive.
Either way, the notion of that magnitude of fear, dread, or terror is simply not applicable here- at all.
There is no overwhelming fear, dread, or terror in this instance sufficient to inspire awe, nor is there awe sufficient to qualify veneration (if awe even were sufficient in its own right without respect).
I already explained this, but you ignored everything I said. You're as bad as any creationist at paying any attention, and as adept at constructing pointless and insulting straw men.
Do you even know what inordinate means? Do you have any clue what reverence means? You're just throwing words around like feces from an angry monkey. I don't know why.
Yeah...
You clearly outdick them all, since you frequently claim to enjoy sexing up small children, right?!
Oh, wait, is it not 'put words in people's mouths day'? We must have missed the memo huh?
If you're incapable of addressing the actual argument, why do you even try? Not only is this incorrect, but ad hominem is really not a point.
Poor baby, you don't remember what you wrote.
Let me help.
Remember this?
"Atheist Z has studied the bible extensively, as well as other mythology and occult texts, and believes that YHWH is an evil god/spirit that has deceived people in order to consume their will/life essences. He cites that YHWH has even lied in the bible, so none of it is really reliable and probably all an exaggeration. He also cites the "Iron chariots" which YHWH could not defeat, and the common belief that Iron is anathema to evil spirits (which is why YHWH was turned). He does not believe that YHWH created the world, but is a product of it- a kind of life sucking vampire spirit that formed from human fear- he believes that this is the Christian god, and that Christians are misled and lied to about the qualities of their god to make them worship it- that when the Christians pray and feel the holy spirit, this is in fact YHWH leeching out their life energy and free will to sustain itself."
Where does your atheist Z not respect this threat? Where does he not fear it? where in this contempt does he not acknowledge YHWH to be a greater than himself?
If your atheist Z believes that this YHWH is a "a kind of life sucking vampire spirit that formed from human fear" and that "Christians are misled and lied to about the qualities of their god to make them worship it- that when the Christians pray and feel the holy spirit, this is in fact YHWH leeching out their life energy and free will to sustain itself" and chooses to do nothing about it (by either informing, educating or physical means if he deems them necessary), Atheist Z is a dick.
If you are portraying yourself as Atheist Z, that's your damn problem.
Oh, and if your are going to accuse me of lying about stuff I got from you - don't make your quotes so easy to find.
I'd insult you but you're probably too damned ignorant to catch it.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Where I gave no indication that he did. A modicum of fear does not veneration yield- most people feel similarly about mosquitoes and the flu.
Again, where I never said he did. He considers this being a non-living parasite, and so fundamentally less worthy of existence than an autonomous living thing.
Do you consider the flu virus to be greater than you? Do you venerate and worship the flu?
If you really read what I wrote and think I said all of that, then either we have serious language barrier issues, or you're a complete moron. English seems to be your first language; I lean towards the latter.
Physical means? So you're saying that if he doesn't wage a holy war and hurt or kill people, then he's a dick? You're the dick. I'm genuinely surprised that you encourage physical violence- I thought you were an ass-hat, but I didn't realize you were that bad.
Just because I didn't explain everything he does, doesn't mean he doesn't do it. I didn't day he brushes his teeth either- does that mean he doesn't brush his teeth? WTF, I didn't say he breathes air- OH NO HE'S SUFFOCATING RIGHT NOW!!!
These fact are trivial and not at all to the point of the conversation. Whether he wants to help people or not has no bearing at all on the conversation.
However, to underscore just how much of a moron you are, I will point out that even did make it VERY clear in my posts that he would LIKE to fix it (despite being unnecessary to say).
I never said that he doesn't want to fix the problem, but quite the opposite. Because he believes that YHWH takes their free wills, he believes that argument with them is pretty much impossible (though he has tried). How can somebody chose to leave this spirit if they have no remaining free will? He believes this is why they are more or less impossible to reason with.
If you must know:
He believes he can pretty much only focus on educating people who are not already Christian, to prevent them from becoming.
He has studied certain kinds of pagan exorcisms, and is on the look out for a way to expel YHWH from a host- he's hopeful that advances in quantum field theory will be able to detect this being and destroy its presence in a host.
If you're going to lie about what I said, don't quote me to prove that you lied in your own posts? You have failed to demonstrate where I indicated any of that- and that's because I didn't, and indicated the opposite several times. All you did was needlessly repeat my post.
1. What you described was not a modicum of fear. "Horsefly that can cause me pain" - modicum of fear. "Mosquito that will take some of my blood and has a small possibility of giving me a disease" - modicum of fear.
"Life sucking, vampire spirit" - quite a lot of fear.
2. Again, you don't describe a virus. Were you deliberately using hyperbole to NOT make a point?
3. Where did I say holy war? "Physical means" doesn't necessarily include killing people. If I stop you from walking into the path of the car you didn't see by putting my hand in front of you, I used a physical means.
4. Now you're playing the evangelical Christian card - "Just because the Bible doesn't mention the Rapture, doesn't mean it isn't gonna happen". What's next - Pascal's Wager?
5. So now your "athiest Z" is going into pagan woo-woo because he believes this supernatural entity exists? Using one set of gods to remove another? Yep, we can drop the "atheist" label now.
6. I quoted you because you didn't remember what you wrote. Now it seems you didn't even read it the first time you typed it.
Don't make this so damned easy.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin