Atheists, or “persons who do not believe in God or gods”, simply do not exist. This might seem a harsh statement if you currently are convinced that you are one, but I assure you it’s not. Actually, if you consider the following you will realize that rational people who “don’t believe in God” are actually simply agnostics.
You see, everyone has a God/god(s). For some like, Richard Dawkins, it may be science that they worship. Others may worship sports or work or money. After showing the below proof to one student who claimed to be a self-professed atheist, he quickly declared that indeed his god was his PS3.
Now if by “Atheist’ you simply mean you don’t believe in the Christian God, well I can understand that. Until my junior year in college I was highly skeptical of religion as well, particularly Christianity. This skepticism arose mostly because the hypocritical nature of Christ’s self-proclaimed followers really confused me and turned me off.
My experience though, is that most people don’t have a problem with the concept of a big “G” God per say, they just don’t care for the people/institutions who claim to represent God.
But even if you don’t believe in a big “G” God – you still worship a little “g” one. By definition then you aren’t an atheist. And, if you are at all, at least open to the possibility that a big “G” God could exist – because you undertake the possibility that you don’t know everything that there is to know- then you are an agnostic.
The question that I’d ask you to consider, logically then is: If you acknowledge that indeed you do have a God/god(s) then which God/god(s) will you choose to worship?
Check out the proof below. Hopefully this will help some folks to further positive conversations about our inherent need to worship as human beings.
Everyone has a God/god(s) – by Rev. Christopher Benek
Everyone has a god. The definition of a god simply put is: a person or thing that is excessively worshiped and admired; an all absorbing passion, pursuit, or hobby; something idolized. [i] By definition excess is simply an amount or quality greater than is necessary [ii] and worship in its most basic form means to have an ardent devotion, or adoration for. [iii] This means that one must simply have actual or substantial concern [iv ] for a passion, pursuit, or hobby that is slightly more that needed for it to be considered a god. Thus it becomes apparent that, although it may not be personified, everyone has a god/God.
One cannot “believe in nothing” because even the idea of “nothing” is still something… therefore, after considering the aforementioned proposition, by definition the concept of an “atheist”; One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods [v], is a fallacy.
i. McKechnie, Jean L. Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary: Second Edition Dorset & Baber, New York, NY 1983. p. 782
ii. Ibid 636
iii. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
iv. Ibid. The definition of “adoration” is profound love or regard. And to “regard” is simply to have concern for.
v. “atheist.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 26 Sept. 2006
15 thoughts on “Everyone Has a God/god(s)”
I just don’t think enough people have put the thought necessary into the word, eternity. If people would think more about this word and its meaning there wouldn’t be so many silly questions about why some Christians are so willing to celebrate and share their faith.
If I have to hear one more time, from an Atheist, that God, Jesus, Allah, etc… Doesn’t care about who wins a football game I will puke. You don’t even have enough ability to expand your mind past your own reality and yet you want to tell believers what their God DOESN’T, WON’T, OR CAN’T do something.
We Christians believe in the promise of eternity and if you are going to argue or take a stance against us we would appreciate a bit of education on your part.
Do you really think that anyone who truly believes in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior (the same Jesus Christ that promises life everlasting) doesn’t believe he could be in every single facet of every single living being?
You would either have to be ignorant or just plain dumb to make that argument to a true believer.
What do you think Christians believe will happen for eternity? Do you think they think they will just be watching football games and playing checkers and pretty much doing what they have been on Earth?
So in a million years, you think someone who believes in God, thinks it’s going to be the same ole, same ole for eternity. Please, just let me die and the worms have at me, if that’s the case.
God has a plan and you don’t go about giving life everlasting so that people can be bored in a few thousand years.
Think about eternity? In a million years you will have a billion, then a trillion more years. When that is done, that entire time will be like a blink of an eye, compared to how much longer eternity lasts. When you finally wrap your mind around all that, you still aren’t even one trillionth of the way through. That’s eternity.
So you think people who believe in that don’t think God can be involved in a football game? I think he’ll manage o.k.
Also, try not to hate God because there are kids starving in India and there are crippled and helpless all over Earth. He knows what is happening you don’t.
For people to be so arrogant as to think they should be able to think on God’s level is deplorable.
Maybe those starving kids in India, in about 4 billion years, won’t be worrying about what happened to them back then. Maybe they will have been rewarded so much that it doesn’t matter to them. Maybe on their 500 trillionth birthdays they will be able to put it behind them.
People who don’t have faith are typically close minded.
Science says humans use less than 10 or 12 percent of their brains capacity. Yet, some that are not even the smartest of humans (at less than 12% capacity of their own brains), want to believe they can out think a God that offers eternity.
No wonder you are Atheists.
Thanks for your comments. I can’t begin to wrap my mind around eternity.
Three comments that I think are helpful:
1.) I think we need to refrain from calling people Atheists because there is no such thing – everyone has a God/god(s). I know it’s a hard habit to break but as Christians we should work on it if we want people to consider what God/god(s) they worship.
2.) Neuroscience actually suggests that we use 100% of our brain. The 10-12% factoid is a myth (a VERY popular one). See here http://tinyurl.com/o97erv
3.) If Christians would feed those starving kids (throughout the world), we would witness to the Love of God being present in the world right now. When we fail to do this, we fail to show the Love that Christ commands of us.
Of course, none of these points (I think) change the intent behind what you wrote.
Hahaha! So “rational people” believe in worshipping inanimate objects and “agnostics” (perhaps you should open that dictionary back up), who do not believe in anything but possibility (and are seeking to prove a negative, in flawed premise) actually believe in those inanimate objects as well??? You are off your rocker buddy… you must be a “believer”.
Historically and sociologically it has been demonstrated time and time again that people in fact do have idols (i.e. god(s)). That isn’t a contested fact academically. Agnostics simply limit belief to their personal experience, which is subjective. As a matter of fact, for you to claim that they “don’t believe in anything” but possibility is absurd. It is impossible for them to believe in nothing, because by definition, there is no such thing. What they believe in is what they can experience which is tangibly something. Whether or not I am seeking to prove a negative is only your imposed opinion. When you come up with an actual academic objection to my argument please come back and make your case and I will gladly engage in a discussion.
No sir, it is not opinion that an agnostic is seeking to prove a negative, at all… that is an absurd claim. How can I prove to an agnostic (or anyone, for that matter) that something DOES NOT exist when there is no tangible evidence to rely on? If it is not there, what would you propose I utilize in backing up my statement?
If I said that there was a fungalaboo in my lap right now, and you say “there is no such thing as a fungalaboo”, then what, pray tell, would you use to prove such a claim?
That is called “proving a negative”, and it is impossible, by definition.
Used broadly (and according to Merriam Webster) the term agnostic means: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god . Therefore, they believe IN THE POSSIBILITY that there may or may not be such a God. That would mean they believe in possibility, academically or otherwise.
Now, to your “idol” comment, I do have an Idol as an Atheist, and a rational (long-term, life promoting) one at that. I idolize my own mind for its ability to utilize facts and universals to form concepts, which are sound. That process is called “logic” and it is in contradiction to “faith” by definition. Does this mean that I believe in a “higher power”? NO, because there is no higher power than the individual. I am my own highest power, which means I am accountable for my own actions and decisions. You give your “God” the credit for your good and the blame for your bad. Or, eveen worse, many give only one of the two, and keep whichever makes them feel warmest inside as their own doing. I have such integrity and I am proud of it. The notion that “rational” individuals could see an object, without consciousness, as a higher power is totally ridiculous and you know it. Just as ridiculous is the notion that ethics are subjective and can only be gleaned by a “God” or a man writing on a “God”‘s behalf. All religions subscribe to different ethics and values, in some form or another. All because some prophet or institution preaches those “ethics”. In reality, to live as a free and rational being one must have an ethical code because, otherwise, one would be causing one’s self harm in the long term by doing otherwise–but that is another and lengthy discussion.
I have yet to meet anyone that believes that their PS3 is almighty, even if they do place an incredibly high value on it. Your premise is flawed. Seeing something as most valuable DOES NOT mean that one places faith in such an item or person, or spirit. It means you value it, simply. To have a “God” means to hold an entity as all-knowing and all-powerful, or, at least, the creator of all beings. Those are wholly seperate, and you have neglected that fact in your proposition. If you had an agnostic stating that they prayed to their PS3 for change or followed its doctrine in life then, and only then, would this argument be sound. To say that weighted valuation leads to worship is to either be dishonest or ignorant.
If you find it possible to be both rational and idolize inanimate objects then we have found the flaw in your premise. If not, and you simply used poor wording in this discussion, then you can drop the academic prowess you wish to convey and recognize that your “God” is no more rational than their PS3…
Besides, if having an idol is no different than having a god then how is it any less absurd for you to believe in the Christian God as it is for them to believe in an allmighty Playstation 3? What, because some barbarian with the intellect of a modern elementary-school student wrote about yours it makes it more “rational”? At least their god exists….
Jason – You have misread what I wrote. I wrote “Whether or not I am seeking to prove a negative is only your imposed opinion.” In other words – your claim that my God is non-existent is simply your opinion. I wrote that: “Agnostics simply limit belief to their personal experience, which is subjective.” That is a fact. Agnostics acknowledge that fact as well.
You make numerous assumptions about my beliefs regarding God, none of which are substantiated by information in this post. That is you imposing your opinion on my beliefs, not using evidence to challenge what I believe.
If you read the post carefully you will see that I am simply pointing out that everyone has a god(s)/God. I never used words like “almighty” or “higher power” to describe little “g” gods. I don’t suggest that people in the modern era (typically at least) pray to something that doesn’t hear them either like a PS3. That is just crazy. I simply point out that people do in practice, by definition, worship idols/little “g” gods – a fact that you have readily noted in your last post. People in civilizations throughout the centuries have understood what it means to worship people/things. That is clearly noted and also is not a debated sociological fact. Historically we know that the Israelites of the Old Testament actually made a golden calf and worshiped it. A PS3 in my estimation can do far more than a golden statue.
You yourself admit that you are not an atheist because you admit that you have an idol (i.e. a little “g” god) – that being yourself (specifically you say “your mind” – even though you seem to extend your thoughts to your physical actions). This means that you worship yourself – maybe not in the traditional religious sense that you seem to have such strong ties to though your verbiage, but in basic definition surely.
If we follow your own reasoning then, if there are more logical people than you – then they would be more worthy of your admiration and you then would be compelled to – assuming that you are smart enough to actually recognize that they are more logical than you – “trade up” on your idolatry in order to worship them instead of yourself.
Odd how, for not believing in a big “g” God, you sure seem to have a lot of opinions about someone that you don’t believe exists.
Maybe that is because of all of the tangible evidence that you have observed attesting to my God? Thousands of years of developing human culture and the advancement of humanity through the Judeo-Christian tradition speak to the factual authenticity of such a claim. Not to mention the thousands of historical accounts derived from eyewitnesses that directly impacted one of the largest civilizations in human history and effectually transformed the world. That seems to be far more evidence than there is to believe in your (Jason’s) mind. What then should I trust in? Thousands of years of personal experience, life-changing testimonies (by some of the greatest thinkers ever to live), historical data, social advancement, and the tangible fulfillment of human needs or – your (Jason’s) mind? Who is being logical now?
Here is the thing, Reverend, before you assault me on petty items like my misreading you (actually, you misread me — I was simply continuing without addressing it because I saw no requirement to be so petty in debate when a more potent topic is at hand. I originally said that *agnostics are seeking to prove a negative, you turned that into “whether or not [YOU are] seeking to prove a negative…”) and the fact that I put a third “e” in the word “even”…
…let’s discuss the fact that you are creating a false argument by utilizing false, subjective (your own, even) definitions of the hot-topic words in your post here. For that is my entire point in posting a reply.
Atheism (Merriam-Webster): a disbelief in the existence of a deity
Deity (Merriam-Webster): (a) a god or goddess; (b) one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
Agnostic (Merriam-Webster): one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
I mustn’t address your claim that I “make numerous assumptions about [your] beliefs regarding God, for you, yourself, called them Christian, and apparently are a Reverend. They are made clear already to those of us who have done our research. What I must address, however, is my point that you are claiming that there can be no such thing as an “Atheist”, but by definition, you are wrong. I am. I do not believe “in the existence of a deity” of any kind whatsoever. That does not mean I must worship or idolize a smarter man than myself, because contradictory to your point, we do not ALL have “an inherent need to worship”. I have clearly told you that I have no higher power. I am as high a power as there is, not higher than any other or lesser than any other conscious human being. I do not worship, pray to or place faith in a single entity in existence or not in existence (in this case). I, like all human beings, possess the ability to gather facts and base my concepts on them. If one of my conclusions or beliefs is weakened constantly by new findings or based, primarily, on pure hearsay, then I reconsider it and, often, reach a new conclusion or belief. I have “a lot of opinions about someone that [I] don’t believe exists” because I have studied every religion and religious basis I could (and can) find attempting to answer that question for myself. The contradictions and (your words again) “hypocritical nature of Christ’s self-proclaimed followers” made me question the entire system of beliefs. The fact that there is no more proof for the entity I am told to live my entire life by or for than there is for the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy led me to question why, when all blind faith I have given in life has bitten my in the rear, I would be asked to put the same blind faith into the most important question there is.
The flawed time lines, especially when mapped across multiple books of religious literature such as the Old and New Testaments; the impossibilities contained therein, which would have been logical answers to questions unanswered in the time of limited technologies and science; the pure brutality of the men who ruled in the time of all long-existent religions… it all makes for bad math, letting such illogical evidential pillars form the basis for how I live.
Jason, I am not contesting the point to be difficult. Nor am I assaulting you. You started this interaction by claiming that I am “off my rocker”. I am attempting to show you that there is a very systematic and well thought out logic behind what I have written.
We worship as part of who we are as human beings. An idol is a little “g” god. You admit that you have one. I am claiming that this is very normal and in fact a natural condition of being human. This is not a reaching academic point. This has been understood by human beings pretty much as long as we have had a historical record.
None of your definitions contradict what I am saying. As far as belief in the Christian God goes one is either a person who is liberal enough (in the classic sense) to be open to such a possibility of existence via proof or one outright rejects the and refuses the notion altogether even in the face of evidence. Anyone is free to do either but the second option is not a Scientific position and we shouldn’t confuse it as such. The scientist would believe what the evidence suggests regardless of their own preferences.
As for the flaws of people who have acted in the name of Jesus through Christianity as a religion, they are self admitted and have been many. This though is not a flaw in who Jesus is, it is a flaw in the rest of humanity.
My point is that there is an abundance of historical and academic evidence for the existence of God. And the “inaccurate timelines” that you speak of are a particular reading of Scripture – but certainly not the only ones.
The question really is are you genuinely open to possibilities or have you forever “made up you mind”? If the second claim is your position – then no discussion can be had – because all that remains is the insistence that your position is correct. Anyone is certainly free to hold such a position. If that is case then they simply do not hold a scientific position and they openly deny what collectively humans have come to understand that the aforementioned definitions mean. But if one is still open to possibilities then the claim of a big “g” God’s existence must always be on the table for possible consideration and evaluation based on the evidence, and you must be forever be at the very least an agnostic. And, as such, since we all have idols (little “g” gods) by our nature, fundamentally there is no such thing as an atheist. The word atheist thus simply becomes a term that people use to express that they are not willing to have a conversation anymore.
Those who are Opposed to God make themself a god by default 🙂
After reading and responding to your laughable article concerning Stephen Hawking in IP, I just had to come see what kind of mind was behind it. So I came to this blog expecting to find even more laughable nonsense and was not disappointed. I ultimately came to this particular article because you seem to use it as a foundation for so many other silly arguments you make as if you’d achieved some major logical philosophical breakthrough proof, Q.E.D., when what it really is more like B.S.-LOL
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no serious philosopher or even prominent theologian would accept as logical proof, an argument that was completely dependent on semantics and dictionary definitions that were not established as universal (and many if not most respected philosophers and theologians would argue there is no such thing since definitions a subjectively human inventions), much less a very selective choice of same taken without context or recognition of multiple meanings. What you are really doing is confusing simile and metaphor with definition.
First off, you have already disproven your own conclusion in the preface to your argument. In the preface you say, “But even if you don’t believe in a big “G” God – you still worship a little “g” one.” But then later you say, “Thus it becomes apparent that, although it may not be personified, everyone has a god/God.”
No, at this point in your argument, the most you might be entitled to claim is “everyone has a god”, because you’ve already conceded that there are atheists who don’t believe in God. You erroneously try to conclude that such atheists are really agnostics because they don’t “know” there can be no God. But you are confusing belief and knowledge (you might want to study epistemology before you make a fool of yourself again). I would argue you don’t know there is a God/gods any more than an atheist knows there aren’t any. So how could theists exist then? No level of belief or faith, no level of certainty in your mind, can make a belief a true fact. No, a theist believes in God (some definitions of theism extend to “gods” also but we’ll come back to that later), an atheist doesn’t, and an agnostic believes God might exist with some level of skepticism or certainty. As an atheist I never give a thought or worry as to how my actions, like swearing to Zeus, might offend some deity or place in an afterlife. An agnostic might though, and might act accordingly, just to be safe.
But let’s get back to your definitional proof. I don’t happen to have a copy of the 1983 Webster’s dictionary you happened to use for the foundation of your “proof”. I suppose there were other definitions given in there for “god” as well as “God” weren’t there? You just happened to pick the one for lower case “god” you thought would help your argument didn’t you? Maybe some other dictionaries didn’t word things at all to your liking. Here’s ALL the definitions for god/God from the current online Merriam Webster dictionary.
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
I suppose #3 is the closest to the definition you used: “a god simply put is: a person or thing that is excessively worshiped and admired; an all absorbing passion, pursuit, or hobby; something idolized. “
But it is patently intellectually dishonest or just downright stupid to use your definitions or definitions #3 or #4 above to prove that atheists don’t exist when it is clearly the first two that properly contextually apply to the definition of atheism both historically and philosophically.
Otherwise, you could have made your job a lot easier. How do you like my proof below?
1 Atheists say they don’t believe in gods.
2. Gods are powerful rulers.
3. But powerful rulers obviously exist.
4. Atheists can’t be right and/or don’t exist.
If that isn’t bad enough, your argument fails on several other levels of which I’ll attack only a few more.
Let’s get back to your “god” definition selection to see if your argument stands up even if we accept this bias. I might ask what happens to your argument if we set the “thing” to “God”. That means then, by definition, that God is also excessively worshipped if he is a god – which he is – just a very special one. Isn’t that silly?
Now I don’t disagree with you that many people idolize and worship (actually or metaphorically), God, god(s), money, their careers, pop icons, art, etc.. Atheist’s certainly aren’t alone in idolizing stuff other than God as plenty of Christians do too. But let’s be honest, believing in money or science is not the same thing as believing in God. Worshipping or idolizing money and/or/vs. God may have many similarities but I’m not even sure either of us can prove they are qualitatively or quantitatively the same either.
But Chris, the bottom line is you can’t see into my mind or the mind of Carl Sagan (who I knew as one of my professors at Cornell). You claim that he substituted science for God as his idol. That means that he must have “excessively worshipped” science using YOUR foundational definition. You don’t know that and I don’t see how you are entitled to claim that. …Because he doesn’t believe in the existence of God? That would be tautological reasoning. First off, science is not primarily a “thing” beyond the body of information it generates. It is a PROCESS of conjecture and experiment leading to empirical falsification, those concepts that have withstood logical and experimental challenge are accepted as factual aspects of reality until proven otherwise. You have committed what is known as a reification error. Look it up. At least you’re in good company. Many famous philosophers have made the same mistake.
Sagan didn’t worship or idolize science but he deeply respected it as the best objective tool we have to come to understand the truth about reality. Since you can’t prove that he “EXCESSIVELY” worshipped or admired science you are simply wrong. Most atheists, and I dare say most theists who knew him, would say he placed science in the proper regard especially when placed in the context that he didn’t believe in God or gods (of the supernatural kind – if I must make this ridiculous distinction to make you happy).
What would it really mean to say Sagan excessively worshipped or idolized science? Well, like all things done to excess, wouldn’t it mean that it led to harming himself or others. Obviously, Sagan benefited from science in countless ways. It certainly didn’t hurt him. So you must think he hurt others through science. Who was that? Was it those people who were led by his influence and scientific thinking to reject religion and embrace atheism or agnosticism? If so, then you are back to a tautological argument and rather ignorant of the power of ideas in a free pluralistic society. I suppose if a petty God really exists that doles out eternal punishment for not having faith in his existence on bad evidence you might be right. But certainly not if you’re wrong and even then, can you really claim that anything argued in the spirit of free inquiry and in good faith on the existence or absence of evidence can truly be evil? If there is an all-powerful and supremely good deity, I simply can’t believe he put Carl Sagan in Hell. Only some willfully ignorant fundamentalist bible-thumper could.
And while I know many atheists and theists who could arguably be said, actually or metaphorically, to excessively worship or idolize God, money, sex, power, etc. it is also safe to say that I know many decent people who don’t have such idols. I know lots of good people who like money, sex, food, their careers, etc. but don’t idolize or worship anything to excess and if they do so, perhaps temporarily as we are all only human, it is rarely sustained to the point that they deserve to be defined that way. For myself, I am passionate about many things; science, justice, and social progress and perhaps, more than anything, my wife of 34 years. But I’ve never heard anyone say I love, idolize, or worship her to excess. Your argument sir, is just silly.
Thanks for your perusal of my site over the past few days. The time that you have committed to writing responses certainly shows your passion for the respective issues.
There are several points on which we seem to have a disagreement of opinion. One being that I don’t believe that I criticized Carl Sagan anywhere? If anything, I have complimented Sagan’s approach on this site.
Another major one being your (mis)characterization of theology with regard to God/gods. What I wrote in this article is orthodox theology and nothing new. Even ideas can be gods. This is a cornerstone of western theology and is blatantly obvious in the first two commandments.
If by being an “Atheist” you simply mean that you reject organized religion then we can agree on that title. It does not though eliminate the reality that we all have gods by definition.
Finally, invoking that something as a rhetorical argument is often a rhetorical ploy. Nice try.
Again, thanks for your input though – I hope you’ll subscribe via email and keep working to hold me accountable. Like Proverbs 27:17 says…
I think you side-stepped the real issues and the one engaging in slippery rhetorical ploys, if not just basic conflation.
Where did I say you criticized Sagan? However, I have little doubt that Sagan and Dawkins would say they neither worship nor idolize science and would probably take such an assertion very negatively.
I never disagreed with you that ideas can’t be “gods” in a certain semantic and philosophical respect and in fact, I stated agreement. But it simply isn’t the sense that atheists use the term “god” nor is it even the sense to which I’ve ever heard any theist use, other than you and your excessive worshippers. You’ve conflated multiple sense semantics to make a claim that is simply ridiculous and you are certainly outside the mainstream of most theologians in making this absurd claim.
This is so silly. As an atheist I know that I and probably all other people who self-identify as atheists don’t believe in God or gods defined as some sort of being having any supreme creative agency in the universe, supernatural powers, or ability to hear and answer or understand prayers or worship. We all don’t reject all organized religions as some are not theistic (e.g., certain forms of Buddhism) and many of us appreciate the good and enjoy some aspects of the traditions they embody. Probably 99.9% of all theists understand the same meaning. That’s all. If you know a better word to describe such people, please let us know. Certainly, since there’s obviously a need for it, somebody must have invented it by now – please enlighten us!
You know, your confusing meaning and metaphor is bad enough but you don’t even know the difference between belief and knowledge. And what’s even worse is that you use your “proof” as a foundation to force other conclusions that are equally as worthless. Most atheists, who certainly understand the difference between belief and knowledge, would not claim they “know” in the strictest sense of that term, there is no god/God (or the supernatural kind that usually demands it worship). That would be rationally antithetical to all the atheists I know who would think such atheists as foolish as you are. Both Dawkins and Sagan are on record more than once as agreeing with this and willing to reconsider their positions in light of better evidence. Are you? What would it take for you, at a minimum, to conclude that your Christian god probably doesn’t exist and after that, any type of supernatural god of supreme creative agency???
All you’ve proven in your obfuscatory replies to me and others is that you’re a hypocrite with respect to the article you wrote called “Doubting Towards Better Belief”. You should just humbly admit you overreached and got this wrong and move on rather than sweeping it under the rug, as you have done by avoiding the main parts of my argument and those of others.
Certainly there is room for doubt in faith. You simply have not addressed the crux of my initial argument. If your best point is “well, that’s not what atheists mean when they talk about god(s)'” then you seem to still be missing the larger point – as I pointed out earlier with the OT’s introduction of the first and second commandments. No amount of rhetorical wrangling removes that point.
We – in our being – have gods. In that respect, none of us are atheists. If the goal is to simply attack the Gods of organized religion – well then the true hypocrisy has been revealed.
I think I did address it fully and you didn’t bother to directly answer even one of my questions.
You keep bringing up “organized religion” in a manner that is completely irrelevant to my argument. I know plenty of people who believe some form of higher supernatural power must have created the universe and/or cares for mankind but don’t identify that being with any religion at all and/or don’t believe any religion properly conceives of that being. You keep inventing straw men to support your position..
All you are really saying, using your semantically tortured senses of “god”,” worship”, “idolizing” is that all people have something they are extremely/excessively passionate about or interested in be it God or something else which may or may not be supernatural. The only thing “special’ about your semantic jumble of an argument is that you equate all the “something else”‘s to “gods”. And the funny thing is, even that isn’t true as I’ve met too many poor humans, both nominally normal and mentally ill, who have no interest or passion for anything, in some cases, even their own lives. What “gods”, pray tell, do such people have? Depression? LOL..
Nevertheless, it still leaves open the question; what do you call people who don’t believe any type of supernatural being created the universe or in any way cares about humanity and intervenses it it’s affairs? Whether that being is promulgated by some sort of organized religion or not is irrelevant. Do such people exist? Or do you even deny the obvious?
My previous remark answers your question fully. I also never said that there was any thing special about this position. It is one that has been around thousands of years and continues to be ignored by the New Atheists.
Comments are closed.