Is there a God of atheism?

[DrZoidberg]

When Dawkins style New Atheists attack the God concept they invariably argue against the dumbest definition of God.

That's saying a lot because there are some really dumb definitions of God. I like Dawkins' The God Delusion. Some people criticize it for not being sophisticated, but that's the fault of theology. They created a goofy God.

No, they didn't. We created the gods. Theologians then have tried to interpret what these gods are. Scientists don't invent the laws of nature. They just describe what's out there, and do their best to make sense of it.

What the Dawkins crowd are doing is having a go at the dumbest religious people and letting them represent all religion. That's a straw man or reductio ad absurdum.

Lacan has another definition which I like. "God is an empty projection space upon which we project ourselves onto". So it's a way to honestly talk about ourselves in a roundabout way without making ourselves feel vulnerable. And this acts as a totem that holds our communities together. A bit like how us talking about gods and atheism brings this online community together. For various reasons religions in various ways trigger insecurities in us. Real or imagined. And that brings us together here.

I've noticed that people's Gods tend to share the opinions of the people who believe in them. For example, I used to know a Christian woman who was racist and objected to racially mixed couples. She said that God objected too.

Yes. This would logically follow if we created God in our own image. Good example.

I personally think that we need to get away from God ONLY being a supernatural being. It's certainly a definition. But it's such a rediculous definition that I don't think religions would have survived, if that's the only definition. Or as I have said many times, "It's gods is the least interesting part of any religion".

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

"Higher power" is a cop out. I also think it's wrong. Metaphors don't have any power that we don't give them. And wtf is "higher". It presupposes a hierarchy. I think "higher power" is just a sneaky way to insert the Abrahamic God without saying it.

I prefer just saying "god" or "the gods". Then we haven't painted ourselves into any theological corner. One thing I like about paganism is that they acknowledge both the metaphor and the real. A pagan can be an atheist, and the religion functions just the same. It's a form of religion that is open to everyone, no matter their theological education and beliefs. I think religion, at it's core, is about holding communities together. So we need something open to all. A form of religion open to both atheistic interpretations of God, as well as theistic ones. Ironically, this is how Judaism works. You can be an atheistic Jew, and the religion works just fine. So it's weird that two religions that grew out of it (Islam and Christianity) puts such extreme emphasis on belief in the supernatural.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

Your beliefs about my beliefs don't become magically true just because you really like to believe them.

I have no gods; I want no gods; I understand that there's not even anything coherent (much less real) about a "higher power"; And I have never needed a god in fifty three years of ups and downs in life.

The entire idea is absurd to me. The beliefs of believers changes that fact not one iota.

But you don't get to decide how other people formulate God. If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them. Tough luck.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

Your beliefs about my beliefs don't become magically true just because you really like to believe them.

I have no gods; I want no gods; I understand that there's not even anything coherent (much less real) about a "higher power"; And I have never needed a god in fifty three years of ups and downs in life.

The entire idea is absurd to me. The beliefs of believers changes that fact not one iota.

But you don't get to decide how other people formulate God. If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them. Tough luck.

So the flip side of that is if someone else believes in something I have decided isn’t real then that means they are atheists according to me, right? Tough luck for them.

 

[Rhea]

But you don't get to decide how other people formulate God. If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them. Tough luck.

I think there’s a line where the Vast Majority of people understand a word to be defined as encompassing certain meaning, and if you are the only one who defines it differently, then, yeah, the public conversation DOES get to decide how “god” is formulated, and the tough luck is on you for trying to engage in conversation and debate about it.

 

[steve_bank]

'God only knows' what this debate is really about.

Metaphor for emphasis or literal? God only knows.

What is driving Soldier? Hell if I know.

Why did I write this post? The Devil made me do it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Suppose I believe that people who believe "if someone believes X-People ought to be defined as whatever, tough luck for them" are Dingleberries. Tough luck for them.

How does that enable rational discussion?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When Dawkins style New Atheists attack the God concept they invariably argue against the dumbest definition of God.

That's saying a lot because there are some really dumb definitions of God.

I personally think that we need to get away from God ONLY being a supernatural being. It's certainly a definition. But it's such a rediculous definition that I don't think religions would have survived, if that's the only definition. Or as I have said many times, "It's gods is the least interesting part of any religion".

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

Good night everybody!

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Suppose I believe that people who believe "if someone believes X-People ought to be defined as whatever, tough luck for them" are Dingleberries. Tough luck for them.

How does that enable rational discussion?

Well, I suppose it doesn't enable rational discussion since it doesn't make sense, but who besides myself in this forum ever even tried to discuss the issues rationally? So please post something that makes sense, and I'll see if I can argue for it or against it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But you don't get to decide how other people formulate God. If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them. Tough luck.

I think there’s a line where the Vast Majority of people understand a word to be defined as encompassing certain meaning, and if you are the only one who defines it differently, then, yeah, the public conversation DOES get to decide how “god” is formulated, and the tough luck is on you for trying to engage in conversation and debate about it.

I disagree that "the mob rules" over what everybody is supposed to mean by "God." It's a fact that people mean a lot of different things when they refer to God. So all that's necessary to discuss the issue raised in the OP is to explain what one means by "God." That's what I was expecting, after all.

See how easy that is? This discussion is only hard if you make it hard.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

Your beliefs about my beliefs don't become magically true just because you really like to believe them.

I have no gods; I want no gods; I understand that there's not even anything coherent (much less real) about a "higher power"; And I have never needed a god in fifty three years of ups and downs in life.

The entire idea is absurd to me. The beliefs of believers changes that fact not one iota.

But you don't get to decide how other people formulate God. If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them. Tough luck.

Well said. I'm seeing a lot of "definition fundamentalism" in this forum where terms like "God" can only mean something that a member says it can mean. Any sensible person knows that words can take on any meaning, and that includes the word "God."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Suppose I believe that people who believe "if someone believes X-People ought to be defined as whatever, tough luck for them" are Dingleberries. Tough luck for them.

How does that enable rational discussion?

Well, I suppose it doesn't enable rational discussion since it doesn't make sense, but who besides myself in this forum ever even tried to discuss the issues rationally? So please post something that makes sense, and I'll see if I can argue for it or against it.

Rational discussion requires that person A tries to reproduce the reasoned steps of person B. So there has to be agreed upon definitions and logic, rather than fallacies and absurd definitions or propositions.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When Dawkins style New Atheists attack the God concept they invariably argue against the dumbest definition of God.

That's saying a lot because there are some really dumb definitions of God. I like Dawkins' The God Delusion. Some people criticize it for not being sophisticated, but that's the fault of theology. They created a goofy God.

No, they didn't. We created the gods.

Of course we create Gods.

Theologians then have tried to interpret what these gods are. Scientists don't invent the laws of nature. They just describe what's out there, and do their best to make sense of it.

But theologians aren't scientists, of course. They're like anybody else being able to create God(s).

What the Dawkins crowd are doing is having a go at the dumbest religious people and letting them represent all religion. That's a straw man or reductio ad absurdum.

Dawkins responds to that criticism by pointing out that we can come up with "sophisticated" arguments for anything including Gods like Thor. Would anybody berate Dawkins for doubting that Thor exists because only "dumb" people believe in Thor? Must we all grapple with philosophical arguments for the existence of Thor rather than just recognize the obvious: Thor doesn't exist?

Lacan has another definition which I like. "God is an empty projection space upon which we project ourselves onto". So it's a way to honestly talk about ourselves in a roundabout way without making ourselves feel vulnerable. And this acts as a totem that holds our communities together. A bit like how us talking about gods and atheism brings this online community together. For various reasons religions in various ways trigger insecurities in us. Real or imagined. And that brings us together here.

I've noticed that people's Gods tend to share the opinions of the people who believe in them. For example, I used to know a Christian woman who was racist and objected to racially mixed couples. She said that God objected too.

Yes. This would logically follow if we created God in our own image. Good example.

I found her racism especially disturbing when she justified it with her religion.

I personally think that we need to get away from God ONLY being a supernatural being. It's certainly a definition. But it's such a rediculous definition that I don't think religions would have survived, if that's the only definition. Or as I have said many times, "It's gods is the least interesting part of any religion".

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

"Higher power" is a cop out. I also think it's wrong. Metaphors don't have any power that we don't give them. And wtf is "higher". It presupposes a hierarchy. I think "higher power" is just a sneaky way to insert the Abrahamic God without saying it.

Actually, a "higher power" can be a reference to a God that is preferable to the God of Christianity. Some people want a kinder, gentler, more believable God than the traditional offering.

You can be an atheistic Jew, and the religion works just fine. So it's weird that two religions that grew out of it (Islam and Christianity) puts such extreme emphasis on belief in the supernatural.

As religion declines and gets more desperate for members, I think that atheists will be accepted into the churches. After all, many atheists are there already!

 

[TomC]

Of course we create Gods.

If you ever get around to posting that truth on CARM please leave a link on IIDB.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Of course we create Gods.

If you ever get around to posting that truth on CARM please leave a link on IIDB.
Tom

Here are some comments I've made at IIDB:

Unknown Soldier:

If you seek truth like I have done, then you will find the truth that most people are good most of the time. Gods really have nothing to do with valuing people. Valuing people springs from the goodness that is in you if there is any goodness in you.

A real God wouldn't kill anybody. Only killer men who create Gods put words demanding death into the Gods they created.

Why can't you make up a God who doesn't kill people?

No. I'm just sensible enough to see the indelible stamp of violent, evil men on the Gods they've created. If God is good, then it's just plain crazy to make a killer out of him.

...what scares me is the possibility that once again those crafty God-creators will stuff words of hatred and violence into the Gods they've made.

And you were hoping I couldn't do it. What truth I tell here, I tell everywhere.

 

[bilby]

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

Your beliefs about my beliefs don't become magically true just because you really like to believe them.

I have no gods; I want no gods; I understand that there's not even anything coherent (much less real) about a "higher power"; And I have never needed a god in fifty three years of ups and downs in life.

The entire idea is absurd to me. The beliefs of believers changes that fact not one iota.

But you don't get to decide how other people formulate God. If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them. Tough luck.

Sure. But any such definition would require them to render language completely meaningless.

You can call a hammer a screwdriver as much as you like; It still won't be a screwdriver.

Nothing that I believe is anywhere close to anything anyone here (or indeed anywhere) has described to me as a "god" anyway.

If you want to call (for example) my left boot a god, and then tell me that as I accept its existence, I therefore believe in a god, then I say good luck to you. While quietly phoning the mental hospital to enquire about getting you sectioned, as you have clearly lost all touch with reality.

Burying your evidence that I believe in a god or gods behind several layers of hypotheticals isn't particularly compelling.

If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them.

OK. So do I, and would they? You cannot possibly know, and I have no compelling reason to accept that I do, or that they (who?) would.

If my aunt had a willy, she'd be my uncle.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Even people who can't buy an anthropomorphic God still want a God. I suppose for them a "higher power" is better than no God at all, and even atheists need a God from time to time as long as that God isn't too obviously a God.

Your beliefs about my beliefs don't become magically true just because you really like to believe them.

I have no gods; I want no gods; I understand that there's not even anything coherent (much less real) about a "higher power"; And I have never needed a god in fifty three years of ups and downs in life.

The entire idea is absurd to me. The beliefs of believers changes that fact not one iota.

But you don't get to decide how other people formulate God. If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them. Tough luck.

Sure. But any such definition would require them to render language completely meaningless.

You can call a hammer a screwdriver as much as you like; It still won't be a screwdriver.

Nothing that I believe is anywhere close to anything anyone here (or indeed anywhere) has described to me as a "god" anyway.

If you want to call (for example) my left boot a god, and then tell me that as I accept its existence, I therefore believe in a god, then I say good luck to you. While quietly phoning the mental hospital to enquire about getting you sectioned, as you have clearly lost all touch with reality.

Burying your evidence that I believe in a god or gods behind several layers of hypotheticals isn't particularly compelling.

Our language is full of emotionally loaded words mostly useful to poets. Humans aren't robots. We're primarily emotionally driven creatures. Just because we're capable of rational thought, doesn't mean poetic metaphor can't have powerful sway over us. "God/gods" have been meaningful (and therefore useful) terms for humans since forever.

The problem here, as I see it, is that when we became Christian theology became simplistic and dumb. Now we think that Thomas Aquinas gets to define the terminology for all religion. You don't need to study much Greek philosophy to realise that theologians were smarter before Jesus came along. While Christianity is still dominant in the West, the Enlightenment took away most of their toys, and now they need to share them with the other religions and philosophers. You can keep having deep revernce for the authority of Christianity, or you can chose to see them as just another religion. Which is what I do.

If you believe something that someone else would define as God, then that means that you do... according to them.

OK. So do I, and would they? You cannot possibly know, and I have no compelling reason to accept that I do, or that they (who?) would.

If my aunt had a willy, she'd be my uncle.

Did you just assume he/she/its gender!?!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To be clear, the OP title says "God". Capitalized. That makes it a proper noun, something that is distinguished. The OP'er then wanders back and forth about how they have issues with resolving there being no physical God. The OP didn't ask whether there was something Atheists could consider important or hold tenants.

If they want to discuss different aspects of spiritualism, they are free to do so, but otherwise, this is bait and switch.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To be clear, the OP title says "God". Capitalized. That makes it a proper noun, something that is distinguished. The OP'er then wanders back and forth about how they have issues with resolving there being no physical God. The OP didn't ask whether there was something Atheists could consider important or hold tenants.

If they want to discuss different aspects of spiritualism, they are free to do so, but otherwise, this is bait and switch.

You are making distinctions without meaning. Its just word salad

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To be clear, the OP title says "God". Capitalized. That makes it a proper noun, something that is distinguished. The OP'er then wanders back and forth about how they have issues with resolving there being no physical God. The OP didn't ask whether there was something Atheists could consider important or hold tenants.

If they want to discuss different aspects of spiritualism, they are free to do so, but otherwise, this is bait and switch.

You are making distinctions without meaning. Its just word salad

No, grammar is an actual thing. To suggest implied contexts don't exist or matter is outright foolishness.

The terms God and god are not equivalent. A god is a vague reference to a deity. God is a specific reference to a specific deity. One does not fear god, but one fears God or a God.

 

[TomC]

The terms God and god are not equivalent. A god is a vague reference to a deity. God is a specific reference to a specific deity. One does not fear god, but one fears God or a God.

This gets especially messy amongst English speaking Christians. There are so many different god images in the Bible.
There's the god who couldn't be sure of what was going on in Sodom without sending spys. There's the god who killed a bunch of Egyptian babies to prove how tough he is.
All the way to the god now sharing a Trinitarian pantheon.

It gets confusing.
Tom