Is there a God of atheism?

[gmbteach]

Personally, I believe there are only two things worshiping….. cats and bacon. When they create a bacon cat god, (cat bacon just sounds WRONG), then I will convert!

Clearly You People Thought I Was Kidding

Ok.. I guess so. Bacon on Cat! I worship thee!

I was thinking more along the lines of bacon made out of cat…. Aren’t we supposed to partake of the lord’s flesh in order to be forgiven our sins?

 

[southernhybrid]

Now, you got me. I worship dogs. After all, dog spelled backwards is god, so why wouldn't I worship the most loving, loyal little creatures on the planet? I have two little gods sitting near me right now. Unlike the Christian god, they never judge me. They are very forgiving if their meal time is delayed or I'm out of their favorite treats. Of course, since I worship dogs, I'm a polytheist, and I've had many little gods over the course of my lifetime, because just like humans, my gods aren't immortal.

You see, you just said why cats are gods! They DO sit in judgment of you if their meal is late. And while I am forgiven, I am not sure it has been forgotten! And it is a shame they don’t live as long as us.

Well, if you like that kind of god, that's fine. I prefer a nicer, more loving god who always forgives me without any punishment. Of course, we humans have been inventing gods, probably since the beginning of civilization, so cats and dogs can both be gods, just different kinds of gods. I did say that I was a polytheist.

 

[gmbteach]

I think I know what Unknown Soldier is looking for.

”We atheists worship Stalin.”

There, you can take that to CARM, post it out of context, and pretend it was a serious response. Your fellow Christians will love you for it.

Just don’t post it on Facebook, you’ll get banned!

 

[gmbteach]

Now, you got me. I worship dogs. After all, dog spelled backwards is god, so why wouldn't I worship the most loving, loyal little creatures on the planet? I have two little gods sitting near me right now. Unlike the Christian god, they never judge me. They are very forgiving if their meal time is delayed or I'm out of their favorite treats. Of course, since I worship dogs, I'm a polytheist, and I've had many little gods over the course of my lifetime, because just like humans, my gods aren't immortal.

You see, you just said why cats are gods! They DO sit in judgment of you if their meal is late. And while I am forgiven, I am not sure it has been forgotten! And it is a shame they don’t live as long as us.

Well, if you like that kind of god, that's fine. I prefer a nicer, more loving god who always forgives me without any punishment. Of course, we humans have been inventing gods, probably since the beginning of civilization, so cats and dogs can both be gods, just different kinds of gods. I did say that I was a polytheist.

I can live with that. Didn’t the Romans have different gods for everything?

 

[DBT]

I've often heard the religious, Christians in particular, refer to a "God of atheism." Depending on where you get your definitions, "God of atheism" appears to be an oxymoron. Many atheists define themselves as people without belief in God(s). Other atheists might see themselves as those who deny and argue against the objective existence of God(s). For them, God is just a figment of the imagination. They can't have a God if God is merely what other people cook up.

So although a God of atheism appears to be a very implausible idea, I don't see it as completely wrong-headed. Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence. That kind of behavior appears indicative of theistic belief--you must help God if he is to help you. Now, I'm not saying that atheists actually worship an all-mighty, anthropomorphic God sitting on a throne in the sky. But there does seem to be a counterpart there. Some central figure of existence who is truth itself who is to be served and pleased.

A lack of faith isn't faith. To not be convinced in the existence of a God or gods isn't a belief, but a lack of it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I've often heard the religious, Christians in particular, refer to a "God of atheism." Depending on where you get your definitions, "God of atheism" appears to be an oxymoron. Many atheists define themselves as people without belief in God(s). Other atheists might see themselves as those who deny and argue against the objective existence of God(s). For them, God is just a figment of the imagination. They can't have a God if God is merely what other people cook up.

So although a God of atheism appears to be a very implausible idea, I don't see it as completely wrong-headed. Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence. That kind of behavior appears indicative of theistic belief--you must help God if he is to help you. Now, I'm not saying that atheists actually worship an all-mighty, anthropomorphic God sitting on a throne in the sky. But there does seem to be a counterpart there. Some central figure of existence who is truth itself who is to be served and pleased.

A lack of faith isn't faith.

Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true. If no, then you have faith!

To not be convinced in the existence of a God or gods isn't a belief, but a lack of it.

Same thing this time: Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true. If no, then you have faith!

 

[TomC]

Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true.

Perhaps you don't understand what Faith means?

You might need to do some more truth seeking.
Tom

 

[pood]

I've often heard the religious, Christians in particular, refer to a "God of atheism." Depending on where you get your definitions, "God of atheism" appears to be an oxymoron. Many atheists define themselves as people without belief in God(s). Other atheists might see themselves as those who deny and argue against the objective existence of God(s). For them, God is just a figment of the imagination. They can't have a God if God is merely what other people cook up.

So although a God of atheism appears to be a very implausible idea, I don't see it as completely wrong-headed. Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence. That kind of behavior appears indicative of theistic belief--you must help God if he is to help you. Now, I'm not saying that atheists actually worship an all-mighty, anthropomorphic God sitting on a throne in the sky. But there does seem to be a counterpart there. Some central figure of existence who is truth itself who is to be served and pleased.

A lack of faith isn't faith.

Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true. If no, then you have faith!

To not be convinced in the existence of a God or gods isn't a belief, but a lack of it.

Same thing this time: Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true. If no, then you have faith!

lol, no. This is your same BS error you made in the thread where you tried, so badly. to argue that scientists and atheists have “faith” the same way religious people do. Having ”confidence” in a belief is not having faith in it, except in a loose colloquial sense, like we can talk about the “soul” of a person in a loose sense without meaning a literal soul. However, I expect you already know all this.

 

[DBT]

I've often heard the religious, Christians in particular, refer to a "God of atheism." Depending on where you get your definitions, "God of atheism" appears to be an oxymoron. Many atheists define themselves as people without belief in God(s). Other atheists might see themselves as those who deny and argue against the objective existence of God(s). For them, God is just a figment of the imagination. They can't have a God if God is merely what other people cook up.

So although a God of atheism appears to be a very implausible idea, I don't see it as completely wrong-headed. Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence. That kind of behavior appears indicative of theistic belief--you must help God if he is to help you. Now, I'm not saying that atheists actually worship an all-mighty, anthropomorphic God sitting on a throne in the sky. But there does seem to be a counterpart there. Some central figure of existence who is truth itself who is to be served and pleased.

A lack of faith isn't faith.

Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true. If no, then you have faith!

To not be convinced in the existence of a God or gods isn't a belief, but a lack of it.

Same thing this time: Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true. If no, then you have faith!

You are playing a dishonest game of equivocation. Why do you ignore justification?

You know that it is evidence that justifies a belief or conviction, not faith?

You should, it's been explained enough times.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I've often heard the religious, Christians in particular, refer to a "God of atheism." Depending on where you get your definitions, "God of atheism" appears to be an oxymoron. Many atheists define themselves as people without belief in God(s). Other atheists might see themselves as those who deny and argue against the objective existence of God(s). For them, God is just a figment of the imagination. They can't have a God if God is merely what other people cook up.

So although a God of atheism appears to be a very implausible idea, I don't see it as completely wrong-headed. Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence. That kind of behavior appears indicative of theistic belief--you must help God if he is to help you. Now, I'm not saying that atheists actually worship an all-mighty, anthropomorphic God sitting on a throne in the sky. But there does seem to be a counterpart there. Some central figure of existence who is truth itself who is to be served and pleased.

OK, it's close, a "Goddess" of Atheism:

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Yes. It's Clark Kent.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[pood]

I've often heard the religious, Christians in particular, refer to a "God of atheism." Depending on where you get your definitions, "God of atheism" appears to be an oxymoron. Many atheists define themselves as people without belief in God(s). Other atheists might see themselves as those who deny and argue against the objective existence of God(s). For them, God is just a figment of the imagination. They can't have a God if God is merely what other people cook up.

So although a God of atheism appears to be a very implausible idea, I don't see it as completely wrong-headed. Atheists can defend their faith with tenacity at least as fierce as theists defend their beliefs. Atheists have some unproved ideas that are upheld not with valid reason or strong evidence but with anger, abuse, and if possible, forced silence. That kind of behavior appears indicative of theistic belief--you must help God if he is to help you. Now, I'm not saying that atheists actually worship an all-mighty, anthropomorphic God sitting on a throne in the sky. But there does seem to be a counterpart there. Some central figure of existence who is truth itself who is to be served and pleased.

OK, it's close, a "Goddess" of Atheism:

Oh, look, argumentum ad imaginem! Madalyn Murray O’Hair (long dead) scowls; therefore, atheists worship her, and Christianity is true. Nice argument, bro! As you say, your logic is unassailable, and we bow before you!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true.

Perhaps you don't understand what Faith means?

You might need to do some more truth seeking.
Tom

I agree with you. Faith in one sense is more like confidence and in another has a specific religious meaning to even go against critical thinking and evidence. One can have very reasonable confidence in something based on evidence and logic and it can be called "faith" only in the former sense. In the latter sense, that isn't faith at all. It is a false equivalence to pretend they are the same and anyone doing so is clearly not trying to seek truth but instead to promote an agenda.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true.

Perhaps you don't understand what Faith means?

You might need to do some more truth seeking.
Tom

I agree with you. Faith in one sense is more like confidence and in another has a specific religious meaning to even go against critical thinking and evidence. One can have very reasonable confidence in something based on evidence and logic and it can be called "faith" only in the former sense. In the latter sense, that isn't faith at all. It is a false equivalence to pretend they are the same and anyone doing so is clearly not trying to seek truth but instead to promote an agenda.

Do you have faith in what you believe? Yes or no? Personally, I have faith in my own conclusions, and I'm not afraid to say so. I won't try to slip out of it by arguing semantics or expressing paranoia about hidden agendas or conspiracy theories.

But getting back to the topic, here's your Goddess of Atheism. Can't you just hear her sitting at her computer cursing at me, calling me names, or alleging that I'm a Christian just because I criticize atheists? She would fit right in here at IIDB.

 

[TomC]

But getting back to the topic, here's your Goddess of Atheism.

You're better at bullshitting yourself than anyone else.

Most nontheists don't even know who she is. Personally, I never liked her because I thought her bitchiness lowered the tone of the entire conversation. And she gave people like you someone to hate on. I will give her props for tenacity, that's about it.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is it correct to say you lack faith in what you're saying here? If yes, then you are not confident that it is true.

Perhaps you don't understand what Faith means?

You might need to do some more truth seeking.
Tom

I agree with you. Faith in one sense is more like confidence and in another has a specific religious meaning to even go against critical thinking and evidence. One can have very reasonable confidence in something based on evidence and logic and it can be called "faith" only in the former sense. In the latter sense, that isn't faith at all. It is a false equivalence to pretend they are the same and anyone doing so is clearly not trying to seek truth but instead to promote an agenda.

Do you have faith in what you believe?

Which sense of the word faith? 1. Confidence or 2. Religious faith that goes beyond mere confidence to include teachings to ignore critical thinking and contrary evidence?

1 or 2?

 

[laughing dog]

If one thinks “ god” refers to a supernatural being, then one concludes the OP is abysmally ignorant. If one thinks “god” refers to something else , one concludes the OP is an example of mental masturbation.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Madalyn Murray (or Madalyn Murray O'Hair) was very much a 60's phenom. She deserves props for instigating the lawsuits that killed off forced prayer in public schools. Life Magazine, around '62, featured her in a long piece called The Most Hated Woman in America. So she clearly endured the calumny of The Beloved Community (although she seemed to thrive on it.) She is hardly the "goddess of atheism" or anything else. Her persona was suited for appearances on Phil Donahue or Mike Douglas, where she reveled in bawdy, sacrilegious speech. As a prose stylist, she doesn't cut it, and her criticisms of the Bible are blunt and obvious. She claimed to have read the entire Bible over a weekend at age 12, and to have formed her response to scripture from that mind-altering event. If she is remembered by atheists today, it's for the '62 court decision and her gruesome murder in, I think, the 80's. (Her older son -- the younger one was murdered with her -- became a born again and assigned her to an unmarked grave.) I'd be surprised if her books were still in print. I doubt if anyone who, say, attends the FFRF conventions, carries around her works. And yes, if she were alive and posting on this website, she'd be very cutting and personal in her attacks on believers. So what?

 

[TomC]

I can't help but notice something. A general difference between theists and nontheists. It's the tendency of theists to adhere to human authorities, while nontheists tend not to do so.

From religious folks who think that Darwinism is a thing, to Freud, to Stalin, to Murray, religious folks tend to assume that famous people who identify with something speak for everyone who identifies that way. Nontheists tend not to, accepting or criticising the claims or assertions on their own merits.

I don't care how well known someone is. Either I find what they say reasonable and evidence-based or I don't. If I do, I don't care what they personally believe. If I don't, I don't care why they said it or how famous and celebrated they are I just don't.

I find that theists tend to base their opinions on whatever human authority figures, that tell them what they want to hear, say.

It's quite a different view of human authority.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

On that I have to disagree.

There have been atheists on the forum who quote Dawkins like theists quote Jesus. Organized theism is on a par with organized Christianity, albeit on a smaller scale.

Conservative Evangelicals can be strongly anti government. The RCC has long belved they alience is to a higher power than civil law.

As I see it all human social groups exhibit the same tendemcy to hierarchical structures.