Dis n Dat

That's applied in a sociological study, not to God but to humans. I don't think you have even understood what you yourself are saying. Imagining an unimaginable God is an objective statement, not a subjective perspective of God. And this comes from natural theology applied through thousands of years. You are just not aware of it. Even if human beings have their subjective interpretations of God, that does not mean God cannot exist as unimaginable. These two are two separate subjects altogether. One is based on study of sociology, and the other is philosophical. So you have to separate the two. Or at least know it.

Absolutely seriously. Atheist does not mean "I reject this God". I have said this same thing multiple times in this thread. It never meant that, and it still does not. This is just a meme. Atheist is a person who "does" atheism. Like a driver is a person who "does" driving. Atheism means "A theism" as I explained. Theism is to believe in Theos or Divinity. That's the bottomline meaning of the word. If you are looking for definitions, no one as far as I know defines this Atheism as "I reject this God". I doubt that any educated atheist would do that. Only dogmatic preachers in debates do this kind of nonsensical argument tactics. Atheism might have many types of atheism. But Atheism cannot go against the bottomline meaning of atheism. A driver cannot be a non-driver at the same time. It's an oxymoron. It's a logical contradiction. A stamp collector cannot be not a collector at the same time. A theist cannot be called an atheist at any point for any reason because it's an oxymoron. Only a debater will use that as an argument to win some points and that's the only reason this nonsensical statement has become famous. Purely for debates. There are lots of memes like that people use for debates. "You reject theism with other Gods". Plainly nonsensical statement. Should not compute rationally. It should be "you reject other Gods".

Hmm. So what are you appealing to? Referring to a scholar is not appealing to authority. You are not appealing to anything whatsoever, but just making things up and insulting people. You are not referring to language, usage, or scholarship, but just banter and apologetics and then relying on an insult or two to feel good about yourself. I lack belief in most concepts of God, does not mean I am atheistic about those concepts. Because the word atheism does not mean that. If you want to stick to such strange made up dogma it's up to you. Have a great day.

If you want me to give you definitions of atheism, thats no problem. I can refer you to an atheist academic and scholar. Read John Gray who is an atheist philosopher. Book called seven types of atheism (hope I got the name exactly right). Now could you please provide the academic or philosopher who gave the definition of "atheist" you are providing? Thanks.

That's no "no true scotsman fallacy". I can't believe some one actually said something so absurd really. Anyway, could you give me the actual scholar or academic who defined atheism this way? If you want me to give you definitions of atheism, thats no problem. I can refer you to an atheist academic and scholar. Read John Gray who is an atheist philosopher. Book called seven types of atheism (hope I got the name exactly right). Now could you please provide the academic or philosopher who gave the definition of "atheist" you are providing? Thanks.

Said well.

Atheism is not like having a hobby. I used to collect stamps, but I don't anymore after I lost my collection. Someone stole it. I am no more a collector of anything. Atheism is for some people an identity statement. Just like theism. One cannot be called both because it's an oxymoron. If one person believes in one concept of God, and does not believe in all other concepts of God, calling him "you are atheistic about other concepts of God" just plain stupid. Sorry for using that word, but it is. It was popularised by atheist debaters to corner theists to their disbelief and equate them to themselves for the sake of the debate, but many people do that kind of nonsensical things for the sake of a debate. That does not mean it's an intellectual matter to keep repeating. "You don't believe in God because you don't believe in other concepts of God but only your concept of God". It's just plain nonsense. Atheism does not necessarily mean "I don't believe God". It means "I don't believe in theism". Anyway, I don't think this banter has any value. What needs to be said has already been said many a time. Cheers.

I get it. The word Imagine, the way you used it was also used by a philosopher long ago. I am trying to find his exact statement just to make a comparison but it will take time. It's in another language. Also, theists who instrumentalised the scientific method some time ago spoke of the metaphysical exactly the same as you. That was a thousand years ago. That is why I found your statement interesting.

I don't think its paradoxical at all. I think it's straightforward. I just like the way you put it.

Okay. So you think others are just like you and are just fishing for an exchange of insults to fill their time! Great.

What accusation? Is this your trick to avoid your bogus claim about a dictionary? Why not accept that you are just commenting on every post because you are "bored" as you claimed? So none of it contain any valid intellect. Just empty sentences. A lot of it! Have a great day.

Because you made a claim about a "dictionary". Unless now you claim your previous claim is just made up. If that's the case, just state it. It's okay. cheers.

That's a valid argument. So which dictionary defines atheism as "not believing in some Gods"? Thanks.

Interesting.

I don't know who this "we" and "us" group is. Sounds like some tribalistic group to me. Nevertheless, an atheist is a person who "does" atheism. Thats the default. So your argument defending this common meme on the internet is not valid. I think you have a much bigger capacity so you should reach higher than delve in this type of apologetic. It's nonsensical and is useless. Cheers. I am not saying all atheists are "anti religious" as in attacking religions or are eternally engaging in "anti religious campaigns". In fact I believe most of the atheists are just living their lives without having any of this discourse at all. they are just living their lives. I was talking about the meaning of the word atheist. Not what people do all over the world.

That phrase is wrongly used. It's used for argument by atheist apologists. It's used just for the sake of argument. It's nonsensical and is an oxymoron. It's a laughable argument. Generally, some of the most educated atheists don't use that kind of missionary type of arguments. They instead speak at a very much high level. I just hope you don't take it offensively but it seems like many do. Atheism does not mean "I am against some Gods". It means "A Divinity". Either Anti divinity as it is originally meant to be or as recently interpreted as "A Divinity" like "A Sexual". So your usage of this does not fit in anywhere but the anti religious apologetic group of atheists on the internet who make the same case like you. Why not engage in more pertinent arguments than this kind of baseless missionary type of dogma repeated by other atheists on the internet? Cheers.

It's a greek word. Theos does not only mean God. Ho Theos means The God. But Just saying Theos means Divinity. A is pronounced like "Are". Atheist means "anti or against theism". Ho is just a handle like "THe". Thus, atheism by etymology means no divinity. It's not just saying no to one type of God concept. It's saying no to all divinity. That's just by the meaning of the word. By definition of the western world that adopted this greek word, it is also practically the same. Atheism means anti theism. But some atheists do actually define it as A Theism as in "A sexual". It is still not A+"Some theism". That is the reason this apologetic some atheists keep repeating all over the internet is blatantly absurd. It's not a blame game, but just a touch of reality. Please don't take offence of what I say. Cheers.

Exactly. Not theist. It's an ontology. Nonsensical. Even if I don't believe Odin is mythology, I am still a theist. Projection.

You should try the Ganges in India.

That's not the meaning of the word or the definition. It's just a common meme. Projection.

No. Because that's not what it means. Maybe you have some scholar who said the definition of atheism is "not believing some Gods" and if so I would like to read his work. I don't believe in some Gods, but I believe in other Gods. Calling me an atheist because I don't believe in other Gods is an oxymoron. It's a meme. It's calling a theist an atheist. ).

Well, Atthakatha means the story behind the story. They claimed directly that they wrote stories to explain what was written earlier. The Tipitaka was written in Pali some time ago. Atthakatha were written much later to give a story context to what was written in the Tipitaka. Also, you should know that any story written can be analysed historically. Imagine you write a book today about something that happened a millennia ago, and someone unknown came up 500 years later and wrote some stories that gives a background to your story. It's absolutely unreliable. This kind of thing is prevalent all over the place in many theologies. Each one of these topics are very large topics that needs their own thread to be discussed extensively. It cannot be so easily simplified. That's the reason, making general sweeping statements are invaluable. It's just a baseless missionary activity.

Because that's the concept of Atthakatha. It does not need evidence. Lets say tomorrow you write a book and say "I am making these up to explain something written earlier", it does not need any further evidence that it's made up. Do you know what Atthakatha means in the Buddhist scripture?

Hmm. Your God is an electric appliance that was made by a man or ten. I mean as obviously as could be. No need to argue or give any philosophical rationalisation or reasoning. Just obviously.

Well. My point seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the first claim in the OP. Nevertheless, my second point is that atheism is not disbelieving in "some Gods". Atheism means "no to theism". Period. So lets say I believe in one God (as an example) and I disbelieve in all the other Gods ever thought of in the entire history of the world, that does not make me an atheist "to other Gods". That's just some apologetic repeated some atheists on the internet or even some famous atheists who make that statement for arguments sake. Thats my point. Hope you understand TheVat. Cheers.