Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Sheldon
So, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism are not religions?
Straw man fallacy. Do please desist from this use of dishonest semantics.
An atheist by definition does not believe in a deity of any kind. Religion is defined as belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. So to claim that in your opinion "most atheists are more religious than theists is asinine nonsense, since 100% of theists fit the definition of religious, a definition that is broadly the antithesis of atheism. The fact there are religions that don't require a deity be worshipped doesn't change this. Unless you think there is a percentage greater than 100% of course. is that what you're claiming?
Just as much as a Spider Man comic book. The paper and ink exists. And even some landmark structures mentioned in those books do exist. But I do not believe Spider Man can climb up sheer walls unaided, or swing from rooftop to rooftop. It would take a very gullible person to believe that.
Empedocles: Dictionary Definition Of Gods
Oh dear. Another dictionary worshipper. I have my own definition of god:
An imaginary supernatural being created by men as a tool for controlling the masses and gaining access to wealth, power, and opportunities for sexual and sadistic self-gratification
I don't accept the existence of any supernatural being. Atheism is a convenient label for that position. Your description of the word as "nonsensical" and a "misnomer" gives it additional credibility in my eyes.
BTW, did you know the early Christians were despised as atheists for refusing to worship the Caesars as gods? They were monotheists, which is just one short step from reality.
@Algebe
The term pagan means outsider. Outside of something. First used by the Roman soldiers who found the country folk, those outside the city, to be difficult to recruit. The term was later used by Christians for the same reason. Often they had strange religions, as in superstitions. The term heathen, from the word hearth, had a similar meaning. Country folk. Land owners. It was at first a positive term, but the priests began using it in a pejorative sense.
The word barbarian comes from the repetition of "bar bar" or Greek barbaros, which wasn't entirely used by the Greeks in a negative way, it simply meant speaking in a different tongue. Stammering, babel. Like @Sheldon. So to the Greek speaking Romans the pagans were the Christians and to the Christians the pagans were the Romans, to the Jews, Christians and Romans the heathens were the country people, in a similar sense outsiders, and to the Greeks the barbarians were foreigners.
i think I got some of that right.
Since the term atheist comes from the Greek it is possible that they, with their religions, thought of the Jews and Christians as atheists, but that doesn't lend any creed to the term, especially since the Romans had numerous gods. Atheist means literally, no gods. They all had gods.
Empedocles,
"Atheist means literally, no gods. They all had gods."
The French Catholics came up with the term "atheiste" around the 1570s as a curse word to describe the French Protestants who were fighting, killing, and dying for freedom of religion. The Protestants wanted to start their own franchise instead of continuing to pay dues to the Catholic mob. That pissed the Catholics off so they came up with a propaganda word = atheist = which made it easier to kill kill them because the word said that the Protestants didn't believe in God. Of course they both had the same holy book and about the same religious beliefs but in war it is necessary to demonize the enemy so that the troops won't feel bad about killing them.
@Empedocles: The term pagan means outsider.
So what? Who mentioned pagans or barbarians?
So to the Greek speaking Romans the pagans were the Christians
The Romans primarily spoke Latin. Stultus est sicut stultus facit.
I'm still trying to fathom the purpose of this thread, if any. In 2019, atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods. What point are you trying to make?
@Algebe
We're having a discussion. I introduced various terms into that discussion on the term atheist. Don't worry about it. I don't want anything from you, but I do appreciate your input in the discussion.
Empedocles: We're having a discussion.
For that to happen, one participant needs to put forward an argument that others can analyze, reject, or accept. You've made a few comments about the supposed etymology of "atheism", but what is your argument? Are you arguing from etymology that atheists don't exist, or perhaps that gods do exist?
Thank you for your concern, but I'm not worried.
I don't want anything from you
But if you post comments here, you may get something from me that you may or may not appreciate.
@Algebe
That gods do exist, even if they don't. A god is anything or anyone that is considered mighty, in as much as the might is greater than that of the one attributing it. Or anyone or anything that is venerated. A turd can be a god. A stick, money, a person supernatural or not, anyone and anything. A god doesn't have to literally exist to exist as a god. Zeus didn't exist. Zeus is a god.
Empedocles: "That gods do exist, even if they don't."
Example of why it is your responsibility. You claim gods exist. Now provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
rmfr
Empedocles: That gods do exist, even if they don't
Somebody seems to have followed the rabbit down the hole.
And the point is?
@David Killens
Oh! Oh! Oh! I know, I know! Uh . . . the point is sharp?
@ Empedocles
Welcome Empedocles. There have been several theists on here in recent times trying to redefine words to suit their faith/philosophy and in one spectacular case sheer ignorance.
I have read your replies here and on other threads...I have to ask what is the point of trying to redefine a word that has a perfectly good definition in all the editions of modern dictionaries I can find? The modern usage of "atheist" is "one who lacks a belief in a god or gods".
A nice, simple definition that is used in that sense by most educated people. The only people who try to redefine it seem to be theists who want to make outre statements like "the religion of atheism" or to try to reverse the burden of proof somehow...Having established you are a theist, a"christian" (tho' not orthodox) ...what is your agenda on this?
@Old man shouts ...
Thanks for the welcome.
I'm not trying to redefine words. Several times I have given the definition of atheist as simply lack in belief in god(s). Perhaps you think I'm trying to redefine the word God? I gave several examples of variations of the English word god and pointed out that the meaning was the same in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Common, or Koine Greek, and Latin. So I'm not trying to redefine that word either.
The Massorites, or the Scribes, began to remove the name of God, Jehovah, from the Hebrew scriptures due to a superstitious fear of the common people using the name in vain. So they started putting the Generic terms "God" and "Lord" in the place where the name of God occurred. God means mighty / venerated. Anyone or anything can be a god. Just as the dictionary definitions I gave. A Lord is someone having authority, usually, but not necessarily granted by someone else. Like landlord. Jesus was a god and a lord, as was Jehovah, but since Jehovah was above all other gods, true or false, so to speak, he is often called God or Lord as well.
So to say there are no gods is nonsensical, even if those gods don't literally exist. For example, I don't believe in Zeus, I don't worship Zeus, I don't think Zeus ever literally existed. But Zeus is a god nevertheless. It's a mistake to think that Jehovah's name is God. God isn't a name, it's a title. And a god doesn't have to be supernatural. Tammuz, the Sumerian king, for example. A mortal man. A god.
My agenda? Jehovah offers two possibilities. Both are acceptable to him. They are accept him or reject him. It is my obligation to give you an informed choice, so that when you choose, either to reject or accept Jehovah God, you do so from an informed perspective. If you reject the info, that's completely fine. You've already made up your mind and other than possible interest or curiosity there's no need for you to pay any attention to me whatsoever.
@Empedocles
"My agenda? Jehovah offers two possibilities. Both are acceptable to him. They are accept him or reject him. It is my obligation to give you an informed choice, so that when you choose, either to reject or accept Jehovah God, you do so from an informed perspective. If you reject the info, that's completely fine. You've already made up your mind and other than possible interest or curiosity there's no need for you to pay any attention to me whatsoever."
Then convert me, my mind is not closed. But you must understand that first you must prove this "god" exists, and with verifiable empirical evidence. Word salad doesn't pass the muster.
@David Killens
You misunderstand, it isn't my obligation to convert you. That is up to you. I don't have to convert you or prove anything to you. I just introduce the accurate information so that you can decide, either way, for yourself.
You are stalling. Feed me this information.
@David Killens
I'm not stalling. It seems to me that you want me to say something so you can reject it. That's fine, but patience, and you don't need to hear the information if you are not interested in it. If you have already made up your mind you would only be wasting your time.
Is there anything specific you would like to know?
I will reject anything that does not make sense. An intelligent and critical mind will do that, no matter the belief system or culture.
I have not made up my mind, do not assume you know what I am thinking.
So stop stalling and evading, inform me of what you desire to impart.
@David Killens
I don't have to assume that you've already made up your mind, I know for a fact you have. You will, as you've said, reject anything that does not make sense. To you, who proclaims to be an intelligent and critical thinker, have already made up your mind that whatever information I impart doesn't make any sense. You only want me to attempt to impart it so you can justify your position.
No, we have reached an impasse. I am testing your ability to provide sufficient proof, and you either do not want to, or know you can not.
I must assume that you can not provide a rational argument and proof.
For any observers, this is typical theist crap. When you put their feet to the fire, they use every excuse available.
@David Killens
It's both. I don't want to because I know I can't. In order to do what you say you want me to do I would have to do like Paul and transfer memory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7WvpuLh99U
Man, that's funny!
Let me give you an example. Participate in the following exchange as if you were a student of the Bible and I was your instructor.
How many days was the earth created in?
Empedocles,
"How many days was the earth created in?"
According to the biblical fairy tale the Earth was created in ONE (1) day, on the third day, after Jealous decided to do stuff beside float in the dark.
@ Empedocles
From your OP
Then you make an attempt to redefine the term "god" . For reference
GOD: noun
1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
So you have indeed attempted to redefine the words even though you have given explanations for your rationale...yet you say and I quote again:
You then make several assertions (which may well be accurate as I am no student of early Torah edits) nor of Hebrew...but they are assertions without citations. And, bear in mind an attempt to redefine words...How am I now to believe you at face value?
And your penultimate paragraph about gods is quite correct, you may not believe in all the gods....but you unaccountably believe in one, arbitrarily....
And finally
How do you know what is acceptable to your choice of god? Do you chat? Does he drop in for a beer and to give you some instructions? Does he write anything down?
When did this arbitrarily selected Jehovah God of yours charge you with spreading this info? Was it by text? Snapchat? A voice in your head?
You see the problems I have with your credibility? All you have given me is a list of assertions and some more assertions about why I should not be called an atheist....then denied it...
(edits for 1st sentence, spelling and html)
@Old man shouts ...
Like I said, I gave the same definition as you on the word atheist. I gave the dictionary definitions on God that you give above, only you omitted half of them. You kept the supernatural ones and omitted the natural ones. I redefined nothing.
The word atheist simply means the antithesis of theism. I have no problem with that. It makes perfect sense.
The definition of atheism is the lack in belief in god(s). So what is belief? The term god(s) is undefined. However, that's a weak argument because the word itself indicates clearly which gods there is disbelief in. Supernatural. But, a god doesn't have to be supernatural because a god can be anything or anyone. And, since science can't test the supernatural you can't say one way or the other whether a supernatural god exists. And, even if a supernatural god didn't exist in a literal sense, it is still a supernatural god. But, by definition all of this hangs upon the definition of belief more than anything. What does it mean to believe or disbelieve?
Believe
1. accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
Do you accept god(s) as true; feel sure of the truth of god(s)? Well, what does that mean, you don't accept or feel sure of the truth of their existence. You can't base that upon your beloved science and you can't prove a negative. Do you hold god(s) as an opinion; think or suppose they don't exist? That's more applicable, but by definition there is no specification of which god(s) you suppose don't exist. You can say supernatural but that only demonstrates ignorance of the meaning of the word god(s) because a god doesn't have to be supernatural. That fact, and it is a fact, the atheist, must reject.
All you have to do is take into consideration my definition of the word god as meaning anything or anyone that is considered mightier than the person to whom the god belongs. That isn't your call. I use the example of Zeus. I don't accept Zeus. I don't believe in Zeus. I don't worship Zeus. I don't think that Zeus ever existed. Zeus is a god.
The Sumerian King Tammuz (Ezekiel 18) was an historical person. He was, in the tradition of the Sumerians, deified upon his death. Tammuz was a god. He wasn't supernatural and he existed. Eric Clapton is considered as a god. He rejects this, but it isn't his call. If someone says he is their god then he is a god. He exists and isn't supernatural.
A man stumbles over the cold, wet prairie. It's getting dark. He's hungry and he's cold and he's worried about the wolves watching him in the distance. He needs something to eat and he needs a fire for warmth and protection. He stumbles upon something in the tall grass. A dried pile of bovine excrement. He lifts it up and eats the creeping things beneath it. Looking around he finds more and builds a fire with it and he makes it his god. The shit is now a god. You can't deny that, you can't reject it, no more than you can reject Donald Trump as U.S. President.
Before Jehovah created anything was he a god? No. Because in order for there to be a god all you need is someone to appoint you as a god. Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear . . . even if the god doesn't exist. Like Frodo or Zeus.
You don't have to be a student of Hebrew or the Torah, all you have to do is compare my definition of a god to the four examples from the dictionary I gave. Each one of them is in line with being mighty or venerated.
What does any of that have to do with the term atheist or god?
No, I simply disagree with the atheistic simplifying of and limited application of what a god, any god, is.
@ Empedocles
Regardless of your attempt at redefinitions to suit your argument, you haven't answered my question viz:
How does this Jehovah god of yours communicate its desires to you...and why (it seems) only you?
An adroit avoidance in your reply but, avoidance nevertheless.
Empedocles: "The definition, however, in it's modern use, is often given as simply 'disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of gods,' a nonsensical application since the word god..."
Do you honestly think it matters to me what word is used to label my stance on god/gods? I couldn't care less what the word is, the label is only used for convenience sake.
In the end, I'm waiting for a sufficient demonstration of any god claimed to exist by any religion. And yes, I wholeheartedly withhold belief until that demonstration is made. Given my disposition, I simply have no choice but to do so. And given the utterly pathetic and repetitive attempts I have seen from theists hundreds upon hundreds of times, you'll understand if say I grow more weary of their crap as time goes on. So yeah - you'll get an open, forthright challenge from me and many others to prove your ridiculous claims. Whatever word you want to call all that, fine. You honestly think it matters if you don't want to call me "atheist?"
@AccretedMinutiae
Obviously not.
A questionable convenience.
Well, this begs the obvious question, why are you waiting for a sufficient demonstration of crap? The obvious answer is that is what you wish for them to do. No matter what they present you will reject it as crap to justify your position. If you actually gave a crap you would go out there and find the answers yourself.
Pages