Atheism: A bastardized word

[PureX]

It's foreign to atheist who don't believe in the supernatural. God, by definition, is a deity not an abstract mystical concept.

Well, sure, that's the straw-man definition of "God" that you can easily beat up. But unfortunately it's not really a universal theistic conception of God. Not even close. As most theists do understand that those anthropomorphic images of God are just that. Images: that we use to try and hold onto and relate to a "God"-mystery that is far beyond our understanding, but that we feel is fundamentally important to our own well-being.

Unfortunately you're not taking into account religions like Hinduism have totally different God. So far I know they wouldn't believe there is a "source" as described by abrahamic theist so the particulars are irrelevant.

Similarities and difference are all a matter of perspective. Like we humans, religions are both very different, AND very similar at te same time. Which, and when, just depends on from what point of view you're looking at them. Right now you need to imagine that they are all different, except that they are also all anthropomorphic and deistic. So that's what you're seeing. You don't want there to be any fundamental similarities that might lend my observations credence. So you're not seeing them.

 

[PureX]

This kind of confuses theists (those who care) that atheism is materalistic before some atheists opinions relate it to that and science. I wonder if both parties can step away from that attribution (and assuming opinions define the word) and just go by what the word actually means as a foundation for anything else said.

No days atheism and materialism are part-in-parcel. I almost never encounter an atheist that is not also a materialist, and is not using materialism to rationalize their atheism. AND to dismiss and discount any perspective that might lend credence to metaphysicality, and thereby to "God".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not presenting my "beliefs", here.

Of course you are.

I am simply presenting a universally acceptable definition of "God". One that the atheists here seem to have to somehow discredit by whatever argument they can muster. As you are trying to do.

Your grasp of terms like "universally acceptable" seems to be as poor as your grasp of the term "God."

You do realize that in the same breath that you said that the definition you came up with is "universally acceptable," you also acknowledged how it's unacceptable to many? Maybe reflect on that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, sure, that's the straw-man definition of "God" that you can easily beat up. But unfortunately it's not really a universal theistic conception of God. Not even close. As most theists do understand that those anthropomorphic images of God are just that. Images: that we use to try and hold onto and relate to a "God"-mystery that is far beyond our understanding, but that we feel is fundamentally important to our own well-being.

Similarities and difference are all a matter of perspective. Like we humans, religions are both very different, AND very similar at te same time. Which, and when, just depends on from what point of view you're looking at them. Right now you need to imagine that they are all different, except that they are also all anthropomorphic and deistic. So that's what you're seeing. You don't want there to be any fundamental similarities that might lend my observations credence. So you're not seeing them.

The word god isn't even English. It's appointed to mythological gods like zues and such. Each religion tends to have their "god" but name(s). It has became an arbitrary word that can describe just about anything.

There aren't. It's a huge insult to really think there are. Why not everyone be unique in their own definition(s) of god?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nevertheless, the Hindus have the concept of 'Atman'. A kind of universal godhead from which all the other 'god natures' spring.

I was pointing out Hinduism concept of god and abrahamic (and similar concepts) a 100% opposite. I got that as a pattern from other Hindus who defend their beliefs and the misinterpretation of it.

No, it's A definition of it. One that most theists can and would accept.

No one will accept one definition and I don't believe it's necessary for anyone to. Try not to find a common thread-it doesn't exist.

They recognize that the vast majority of human beings hold a similar essential concept of God as being the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. It's YOU who is the anomaly that cannot accept this as a fact of human nature.

We don't know that. I think that's just attempting to make everyone's god one god. I find it inappropriate.

They do. It's you who isn't "getting it".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No days atheism and materialism are part-in-parcel. I almost never encounter an atheist that is not also a materialist, and is not using materialism to rationalize their atheism. AND to dismiss and discount any perspective that might lend credence to metaphysicality, and thereby to "God".

Atheism has nothing to do with materialism. Individual people who don't believe deities exist have their own views from the supernatural to the natural. From spiritual to it being irrelevant to one's personal life. Just no deities.

That's your view of god. Everyone is literally different with no common thread.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am not presenting my "beliefs", here. I am simply presenting a universally acceptable definition of "God". One that the atheists here seem to have to somehow discredit by whatever argument they can muster. As you are trying to do.

How do you know, though? If your beliefs are universal like everyone else then it wouldn't be a problem since every one has the same foundation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why people align atheism with science I have no idea? Atheism and theism are philosophical points of view, are they not?

I don't think atheists can be uniformly generalized. Same thing with theists.

An atheist simply asserts that there is no God(s), or that it is very unlikely.

I have no problem with atheists or theists using science to justify their claims, but that isn't science.

Someone who does not know if God exists and sees no evidence for one is an agnostic.

I do see a movement where some people align atheism with science. I don't think scientists, believers and non believers, have any desire to conflate atheism, or theism with science.

Some popularizers of science want to do science the disservice of getting involved with atheist debates against theism. That has to be a big waste of time.

Science can only refute literal interpretations of nature that are told of in scriptures.

If there is nothing. Then science easily wins by default. It's easy to prove there is nothing, and it's very repeatable and verifiable.

Try it someday.

 

[lukethethird]

Of course it's not "child's play". What you meant was that it's "make-believe". And yet "make-believe" among adults is called 'artifice'; an elaborate form of conceptualization and communication used to better understand and share experience of being human.

It's child's play, and adults should know better.

 

[PureX]

It's child's play, and adults should know better.

Adults do know better. You just haven't got there, yet.

 

[lukethethird]

Adults do know better. You just haven't got there, yet.

Make it personal, suit yourself.