I think that tempter asserted something different. He asserted that they don't exist outside the mind, not your mind. (But he can correct me, if I'm wrong on that.) So they "don't exist" in the same sense that elves or werewolves "don't exist". Fictional beings are purely imaginary entities, whereas real beings are those that involve a mental construct that corresponds to an entity whose existence does not depend on anyone's imagination.
Well, I can't speak for the contents of other people's minds without their revelation of it. I used my mind as an example for this argument because I know what is in it. I understand it isn't about my specific idea of god but about any idea of god. My point is that despite your assertion that these fictional beings are purely imaginary, they do in fact have a lasting effect on reality through the actions of human beings. Thus, they are not purely imaginary or reality would not be affected at all.
In my view, all concepts exist solely in minds. And none of the things that are real are ever exactly as we imagine them. That is, concepts that correspond to real entities in external reality are always impoverished by the mental models we build up of reality. That doesn't mean that everything we imagine corresponds to an externally real entity.
But it does mean that they potentially could correspond to an externally real entity. The lack of accuracy leaves the door wide open for werewolves and elves and gods. We may potentially be imagining something real. Further, considering the mental models of reality that you mention, which do we think and act upon? 'Real' reality or 'conceptual' reality? I assure you it is the second. Thus, imagination trumps reality. There is no better example of this than the religious people in this world. Because they think and act upon their belief it profoundly changes the entire course of the world. Reality is created because of this belief. Imagination becomes reality. Trumps it again and again.
Yes. That is because language is not just a private thing. Word meanings are determined by usage, not by any particular individual. That said, we all stretch or change word meanings all the time in ordinary conversation. It's just that you need to get others to buy off on the stretches and changes. I think that the concept of gods as supernatural beings is firmly rooted in customary usage. What makes a being a god is the ability to contravene or reconstruct the laws of nature--full power over natural physical reality.
I don't know where you live, but here in the USA we are allowed to believe whatever we like about god. This means that regardless of how 'unconventional' your idea of god is it is still correct. That includes defining it as supernatural and not supernatural. Existent or non-existent. Imaginary or non-imaginary. You are correct that most of the time word usage needs to be static in order to effectively communicate with our fellow humans. However, the concept of gods must necessarily be a highly personalized definition.
Again, I side with tempter on this point. The word "god" means something in the English language. If you want to use "god" to refer to beings without supernatural powers, then you are the one out of line with conventional usage. Society does have a right to pull you back on that one.
No they don't have the right to pull me back on that one. I am allowed to believe what I like about gods. WHATEVER I like. I don't care what society says about it. If society had their way we'd all love Jesus and we wouldn't have any other gods to argue about. I don't think you are really advocating that, are you? So why do they get their way on this one attribute? They don't. I get my way. So do you. So does Tempter. Whatever way you want it. That's the right way. Freedom of religion, folks. That's how it works.
Saying that gods are supernatural beings does not "pigeonhole them into "nonexistence". Most people seem to believe in their probable existence. The existence of deities is a matter of controversy. Us atheists reject belief in them, but we only represent a large minority in the population at large.
Remember the personal nature of the god concept. It doesn't pigeonhole them into nonexistence for me. Obviously. It only does it for Tempter. Consider that he believes in ancient gods but just doesn't call them gods because they aren't supernatural. That is the only reason he doesn't call them gods. They could have limitless technological advances that make them 'godlike' in every conceivable way, but since they didn't do it with magic... they aren't gods?
This is akin to the argument I spoke about earlier in the thread. The atheist firmly believed that god must have created the universe or it isn't god. It's just a ridiculous assertion especially from someone who doesn't believe in gods at all.
Finally, I'd like to point out that there is no more evidence for Tempter's ancient alien visitors than there is for any gods. Thus, there is no evidence that they were not supernatural either. They very well could have been. How can we assume anything about them? We can't even assume they are real! This is EXACTLY like every religion on this planet. I don't see how he gets a pass on this one simply because its aliens and not gods. It's the same magical story no matter how you cut it. It is equally conceptual and imaginary as every other story. I don't see any difference.