Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Status
Not open for further replies.
But all supernatural entities have the potential to be gods in a given context.
If a supernatural sock qualifies as a god of socks, then shouldn’t another supernatural sock of equal capacity also be worthy of that same title? Or any other supernatural entity of like capacity? The common thread when it comes to these deities is that they are expected to supernaturally facilitate various functions and be revered for their perceived actions. So in essence theism is a reverence for the perceived actions of supernatural facilitators, regardless of their form or grandeur.
///
Theism by definition involves a god or gods, not lucky socks or rabbit feet or potential gods.

<>
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between hair and without hair.
In modern times, baldness has become fashionable, whereas it wasn't fashionable in the 60's &. 70's.

Jan.
///
Absurd. There is no modern baldness.
There is no modern atheism. Atheism is atheism.
What is different about modern times concerning atheism is we now have freedom to speak out & stand up for ourselves against theist bullies. Something I am confident most atheists always wanted. Tho that freedom is by far not yet what it should be.

<>
 
Last edited:
Therefore theism can be defined as a reverence for the perceived supernatural aspects and behavior of anything.
So you can have theism without a deity? Ok.

Now all you have to do is define "reverence" and "supernatural aspects" , in particular specifying the viewpoint required by the definitions.
Somewhere along the line you'll need to pay some attention to what you mean by a "thing", as well - in the word "anything". The Dao?
 
No. It is not.
Sorry, but you’re not the arbiter that decides what can be imagined to be divine, sacred and revered. If someone proposes that every element of the universe is one god among many in that universe, then by virtue of the subjectivity inherent in the definition of the term god, everything has the potential to be a god.
 
Sorry, but you’re not the arbiter that decides what can be imagined to be divine, sacred and revered. If someone proposes that every element of the universe is one god among many in that universe, then by virtue of the subjectivity inherent in the definition of the term god, everything has the potential to be a god.
///
Neither are you. Your supposed definitions are much too vague & broad.
1 problem we have in discussions with theists is some want to call anything or everything a god which is just silly. The universe is not a god & neither is your big toe.

A god is a living conscious entity with superhuman power who has some effect on humans.

<>
 
Neither are you. Your supposed definitions are much too vague & broad.
1 problem we have in discussions with theists is some want to call anything or everything a god which is just silly. The universe is not a god & neither is your big toe.
I didn't make up the rules as to what the products of imagination are allowed to devise in terms of constructing gods. As to the silliness quotient regarding one god or the next, a proclaimed miracle performed by my big toe is as valid as one performed by Jesus or any other imagined deity.

A god is a living conscious entity with superhuman power who has some effect on humans.
That is one of enumerable definitions of a god, but no more valid than my supernatural big toe.
 
I didn't make up the rules as to what the products of imagination are allowed to devise in terms of constructing gods. As to the silliness quotient regarding one god or the next, a proclaimed miracle performed by my big toe is as valid as one performed by Jesus or any other imagined deity.
///
You are making things up.
<>
 
Which is the whole basis of defining a god, it's all about make believe.
///
I do not know of any make believe which does not involve words with definite definitions. There is a definition for unicorn & it is not the universe & it is not a rock or a cat. Calling a cat a unicorn does not make it a unicorn & some idiot referring to the universe as god does not make the universe a god.
I am reminded of another theist idiocy : Your god is money & your god is sex & you are your god which is utterly frigging stupid.
I have studied religion for over 50 years & until now I have heard this nonsense only from stupid theists who want to make words mean whatever suits them.

<>
 
There is a definition for unicorn & it is not the universe & it is not a rock or a cat. Calling a cat a unicorn does not make it a unicorn & some idiot referring to the universe as god does not make the universe a god.
There is a definition of a man, but that didn't stop Christians from making one into a god. On the scale of potential gods, calling a man a god would be akin to calling a virus a man.
I am reminded of another theist idiocy : Your god is money & your god is sex & you are your god which is utterly frigging stupid.
Give those entities a perceived supernatural persona and they acquire the potential for god status.
 
There is a definition of a man, but that didn't stop Christians from making one into a god. On the scale of potential gods, calling a man a god would be akin to calling a virus a man.
///
The "man" was a living conscious being who they claimed had superhuman power. He was referred to as a man because he was in a human form. He was a god who took human form.

Citing an example of people misusing words would not support misuse of words, anyway.

Give those entities a perceived supernatural persona and they acquire the potential for god status.
///
Absurd.

<>
 
Last edited:
The "man" was a living conscious being who they claimed had superhuman power. He was referred to as a man because he was in a human form. He was a god who took human form.
So the story goes. Substitute "man" with virus and you now have a god in the form of a virus. Substitute virus with neutrino and you now have god taking the form of subatomic particle. Will you now assert that a god cannot assume any form it wishes?
 
Will you now assert that a god cannot assume any form it wishes?
Lets first establish this God exists before you give it power to do this or that... so square one ...show there is anything more than delussion supporting any God story.
Please a basis od reality before you go to the fine detail otherwise a fantasy runs wild ... confine yourself to establishing a God before the fantasy gets any thing more than fantasy.
All x
 
That's not how religions materialize. The fantasy evolves regardless of any kind of rational substantiation. When established religious beliefs already propose that everything is god, I don’t get to take credit for conjuring up these examples of gods.
 
That's not how religions materialize. The fantasy evolves regardless of any kind of rational substantiation. When established religious beliefs already propose that everything is god, I don’t get to take credit for conjuring up these examples of gods.
///
What established religious beliefs propose that everything is god?

<>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top