Atheism & Theism

[Demon]

I was skimming through the thread and find myself thinking what is the debate all about. Is it about defining Atheism or trying to find a reason that Atheism is illogical or just trying to redefine words in the thinnest way possible? I am just lost to see a debate here.

Here is my argument:

1.) If to be an atheist involves being godless or not pairing yourself with a god, then 2.
2.) "god" is a general term in which many things have the possibility of being a "god". For example if you like an inanimate object too much, you may have a "god".
3.) Therefore, if 1 and 2 are both consistent, there is a circular logic in which atheism goes back to theism. Which means that without further description... atheism might not really exist.

Should I add it to the OP?

An Atheist is all about exploring scientific findings and understanding the universe. We are not even over the tip of the ice berg yet in explaining life.

Yet nobody has explained to me yet why a theist can't do the same. Sure some theists dislike science, but many don't.

 

[SangueLuna]

Being an Atheist just means you don't believe in a creator or an idea of a God. We are not essentially godless because we don't believe in a god to begin with. We can't be something we are generally not.

I don't worship an inanimate object because I like it. If I lose it, I lose it. It is just a material thing, it does not make it a "god". You are confusing love and liking an object and actual worship. People may jokingly act like they are worshiping their favorite possession but they don't see it as a god. I think you are over analyzing the idea of god, rather then just seeing god for what it is. God, gods and goddesses are generally powerful beings that created or controlled the ancient world. That is what an Atheist does not believe in. We don't believe that we were created by such entities.

Theist can follow science. I don't see why not. Science does not prove or disprove God... It merely is a collection of facts and theories that explain certain things. Religion and science may be debated together, but that does not mean they are the same.

 

[Demon]

We are not essentially godless because we don't believe in a god to begin with. We can't be something we are generally not.

However if a God or gods exists, it means you are.

Your statements are sensical but you're also relying on chance in your absolutes - for example, there are many philosophical arguments for the existence of God. So I'd say it can go either way. Wouldn't you think so?

 

[Jquestionmark]

1.) If to be an atheist involves being godless or not pairing yourself with a god, then 2.
2.) "god" is a general term in which many things have the possibility of being a "god". For example if you like an inanimate object too much, you may have a "god".

If 1., then 2. can only occur if you define the term god so loosely that we're well within the realm of the natural. If a "god" is something you like/worship then I'm going to have to declare myself a god on account of at least a couple girls I've dated that have taken their interest in me to the borderline between obsession and worship.

You're still not defining "god" very clearly. It's too broad a term based on what you've given us so far.

 

[Demon]

If a "god" is something you like/worship then I'm going to have to declare myself a god on account of at least a couple girls I've dated that have taken their interest in me to the borderline between obsession and worship.

I don't know about the "declare" part. Somebody can consider you a god but it doesn't make you an actual deity - just perhaps a god to them. Likewise you could like yourself to the extent that you become a god to yourself.

 

[CassinoChips]

I don't know about the "declare" part. Somebody can consider you a god but it doesn't make you an actual deity - just perhaps a god to them. Likewise you could like yourself to the extent that you become a god to yourself.

Somebody can consider an inanimate object a god, but that doesn't make it a deity. Which makes whether they worship it or not irrelevant to their religious beliefs. Which renders your original argument/question/philosophical conundrum moot.

 

[Demon]

Somebody can consider an inanimate object a god, but that doesn't make it a deity. Which makes whether they worship it or not irrelevant to their religious beliefs. Which renders your original argument/question/philosophical conundrum moot.

You've lost me on your conclusion "Which makes whether they worship it or not irrelevant". How exactly? Idolism in the Christian religion is not encouraged.

 

[SangueLuna]

Well, if there is a "god" or creator, then I am wrong but we are only human. We don't know everything but it is how one feels. You cannot argue a subject that is based on opinion verses fact. It is not like a debate about scientific theory... This is a debate on a subject based on opinion. In the end, everyone is correct. They believe in what they believe in. An Atheist does not believe theist ideology. They don't believe in a creator or magical beings that created the universe. It is all based on religion and mythology. However, you are trying to argue that if someone worships an object, it makes it a god. No, it does not make it a "god". A god is that of high power and intelligence. An inanimate object is nothing more then a materialistic object created by man. An Atheist would not worship such nonsense to begin with and if they do, then they do but I doubt they consider it a god.

All this debate is going to do is run in circles. It seems like it has already run in circles. You have your opinion, we have ours. In the end of all this, no one comes out a winner.

 

[Demon]

However, you are trying to argue that if someone worships an object, it makes it a god. No, it does not make it a "god". A god is that of high power and intelligence. An inanimate object is nothing more then a materialistic object created by man. An Atheist would not worship such nonsense to begin with and if they do, then they do but I doubt they consider it a god.

That's the problem though...

Should a deity exist, a deity is still a deity whether or not you consider it a god.

To me there is a definition of "god" which comes with your understanding. If you can make a deity your god, why can't you make an inanimate object your god? It just doesn't make sense.

However atheists will probably try to argue that since they don't believe in deities anyway, that the problem doesn't exist. However then I can argue that a deity and an inanimate object are practically the same thing.

 

[CassinoChips]

You've lost me on your conclusion "Which makes whether they worship it or not irrelevant". How exactly? Idolism in the Christian religion is not encouraged.

If it's not a deity, then whether they worship it or not doesn't make a difference, because you can't be a theist unless you're worshipping a deity. Therefore, since an inanimate object cannot be a deity, worshipping said object does not make one theist. Thus, if an atheist begins to worship an inanimate object, they are still atheist.

Idolatry and/or iconoclasm is vastly different than worshipping an inanimate object. The statue/idol/whatever is a representation of a spiritual being. It's not the idol you're worshipping. You're worshipping what the idol represents.

 

[SangueLuna]

Your argument is still odd at best. Deity and inanimate object are not the same. One who worships an inanimate object does not make it a deity or god. A deity by nature is of high power and a creator (of some sort). An inanimate object was created by mankind and in fact is just an inanimate object. However, if one believes that inanimate object as a spirit of a deity within it, then they believe it to be a god... Does not mean it is an actual god but a representation of such. Almost as if it possessed super natural powers. Does not mean it is true. Atheist don't believe in such things, that is why we are Atheist. We don't believe that anything can be consider a "God". It is just a term. If an Atheist worships an inanimate object as a God, it defeats the purpose of being an Atheist. No true Atheist to my knowledge worship an inanimate object as a God of great power.

Yes, there is a "God" in a sense of stories but to Atheist they do not exist. They are merely characters in stories or figments of people's beliefs and imagination.

 

[Jquestionmark]

Alright, before this continues, I've got to make a request: Czen, please give us your definitions for the terms god and deity. I'm cool with arguing semantics, and I'm good for arguing philosophical ideas, but we have to establish which one we are actually doing.

 

[Demon]

Alright, before this continues, I've got to make a request: Czen, please give us your definitions for the terms god and deity. I'm cool with arguing semantics, and I'm good for arguing philosophical ideas, but we have to establish which one we are actually doing.

To me, a god is something that you give extreme attention or importance to. For example, money can be a god to an individual but it can't be a deity.

Deities, if they exist, to me still remain deities whether or not anyone considers them a god to them. Deities are supernatural beings... as to what's considered a deity and what's not, it's kind of debatable where the line gets drawn.

 

[SangueLuna]

Well, the definition does state an image but it is lower cased and has a different meaning then the original concept. Regardless, an atheist does not view material items as gods or God or any of that. You are taking a small part of the definition and not exactly the entire definition. What you are referring to is something that is not part of religion, but part of general society. It is not theism but how we treat objects as being precious verses being just an object. It is not a creator or a higher power or anything of relation... It is just an object someone idolizes and holds dear to them. In the end, it is still an object. Even the person claiming to worship that object knows full well it is an object and not some high power or creator.

Even so, it still a mute point. An Atheist does not worship material things and if they do, then they surely have personal issues that they need to handle.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

To me, a god is something that you give extreme attention or importance to. For example, money can be a god to an individual but it can't be a deity.

Deities, if they exist, to me still remain deities whether or not anyone considers them a god to them. Deities are supernatural beings... as to what's considered a deity and what's not, it's kind of debatable where the line gets drawn.

That's a bit of a broken definition of god though, under it almost everyone has gods, some people innumerate ones. I give extreme importance to the lives of other humans, so are all other humans gods? It needs to have a more concrete meaning than that, the ones given by dictionaries normally suffices:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God

To deify an object is to give it power, that's entirely different, just placing immense importance into something doesn't make it a god.



If we DO take your definition of god then it still doesn't mean atheists become theists, after all theism requires belief. I don't believe people exist, I know they do (if we're being picky, I know it to the fullest extent of which I can know anything, thus I know it, otherwise the distinction of knowing and believing become meaningless). It's not a matter of faith or belief, the thing is there, people are there, I can poke them and they give me accusatory looks, I can lick them and they run away calling for help and so on. Unless you class recognition of something's existence as belief in it it's still not a matter of theism.





Also, aside:
It's atheism, not Atheism, tis not a title.