iNow

As this is not possible and is logically inconsistent, we instead describe god using an ego-centric view... We make god(s) look more like ourselves, made as a reflection of our self-image and personal hopes and desires.

My doing this would be an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because an academic or philosopher does or does not use a particular definition does not ipso facto mean my own usage is inaccurate. You lack belief in MOST of the gods ever invented by humanity. You are atheistic ABOUT THOSE GODS, even though you're not an atheist about all of them. But this has all been said. I can't force you to be correct and stop asking me to use a dictionary to support my self-evident point. Please don't. I know exactly what definition you're using and I'm reminding you there are others.

So your response is to use the No True Scotsman fallacy to suggest you're not using the No True Scotsman Fallacy? Good times. That's some recursive shit right there.

Very first sentence in my link above: The word “atheism” is polysemous—it has multiple related meanings. You're basically using the No True Scotsman fallacy as an argument against my entirely valid point. So you've said, and we disagree for reasons already articulated. There are different definitions. Again, as already supported and articulated.

How does one imagine something that cannot be imagined at all? Do you intend to say that "god" is a catch-all term for things we cannot otherwise easily describe (sort of a magnified version god-of-the-gaps)?

Being atheist ≠ Being atheistic toward specific deities. Being globally atheistic ≠ being locally atheistic.

Being atheist ≠ Being atheistic toward specific deities There's also an important distinction between "global" atheism and "local" atheism. Since I'm being challenged specifically on the philosophical precision here, maybe a more robust source will highlight my points validity more clearly to you: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Many people were, but it’s been the consensus view for quite some time now.

Hobbyist = Person with a hobby. In context of stamp collecting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of quilting, I’m not a hobbyist. In context of playing bridge or shuffleboard or even day trading, I’m not a hobbyist. However, I enjoy woodworking. In that context I AM a hobbyist. One can be both a hobbyist in some contexts and not in others. But at this point, I really am using crayons to draw pictures in attempt to assist you in comprehension. It doesn’t matter how rigidly you are trying to force everyone to adhere to one single definition from one single dictionary. The meaning of words is often derived from the context and qualifiers used when using them. In this case, I’ve explained the context. The point is valid. In terms of / in context of most gods ever invented by humanity, your lack of belief in those gods makes you atheistic about those gods, even though you’re not an atheist about ALL gods.

So says you. A*Theist = NOT*Theist. In context of Odin, you’re not theist. In context of Zeus, you’re not theist. Relative to Poseidon, Apollo, Vishnu, etc… you’re not theist. You are a theist in context of your own personally preferred flavor or version of god, but you’re not theist in context of any of the others… which is precisely what I said all those many months ago (Jebus… I just looked… it was over 2 years ago) before you necro’d the thread trying to take me to task for a comment you clearly can’t properly comprehend nor validly rebut with anything more substantial than, “nuh uh!” I wouldn’t know about any of that. Memes are everywhere. I barely care about them, but you’re implying I’m here merely repeating something from a meme and that these thoughts aren’t my own. That’s a load of horseshit, much like the content of most of your posts. Delusion. Your turn.

Ergo, you are atheistic about some gods, but not others. Here. Let’s change font. Maybe that will help it penetrate and absorb: You are atheistic about some gods, but not others. There’s that trouble with reading comprehension again. Nobody called you an atheist. The comment was that people are atheistic IN CONTEXT of 99+% of the gods that have been invented and discarded across the eons by us puny humans with our tiny ape minds. Don’t worry, though. We know the word atheist makes you feel all yucky and icky inside. Nobody is saying you’re a hard atheist. Hell, nobody is even saying you’re a soft atheist, or even an agnostic theist. We’re just saying you’re atheistic about Odin and Brahma and all the others too numerous to count.

Your punch velocity needs to be: 3725.95mph https://www.boredpanda.com/physics-major-calculates-how-hard-to-slap-chicken-to-cook-it/ Now, should you ever wish to cook a steak by dropping it from a great height (instead cooking a chicken by punching or slapping it), the required height depends on the level of doneness you prefer (rare, medium, well done). https://what-if.xkcd.com/28/

For what purpose... To argue that the rest of the jug of milk is NOT soured even though the first several sips are?

Who's taking ANY studies as "absolute truth?" The preponderance of evidence rather consistently suggests that when asked to describe "god" or "gods," respondents rather consistently form said god(s) using characteristics and values they prioritize in themselves as part of their own self-image. God is nearly always ego-centric. We quite literally make god in our own image. If you have strong evidence to the contrary, then I'm completely willing to reconsider my provisional acceptance of the validity of this conclusion.

Are ANY studies "causal?" Your unreasonable thresholds continue to be... well... unreasonable. This is me being decent. I've been holding back.

That more than ONE concept of god was invented. You said SOME, and provided evidence of ONE. But I care less about that and more about why YOU choose to not believe in Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Dionysus, Poseidon, Anubis, Osiris, Ra, Loki, Freya, Jupiter, Pluto, Quetzalcoatl, Xmucane, Xpiacocre, and all the countless others. Where is your evidence supporting that lack of belief? That's the claim you keep making of others, after all.

And you also seem to evade direct requests for evidence when they're made of you. That looks like hypocrisy.

You also demanded evidence. You also kept moving the goal posts. You also kept accusing others of composition fallacies. You also kept posting strawmen and demanding support of things others didn't say. You also couldn't seem to comprehend the comments people were posting despite multiple corrections and clarifications. You did "ask a question," but let's be 100% clear here: You did lots of other things, too. Would it perhaps be helpful if I recommended a qualified reading remediation and/or speech therapist in your area? I know I have, and you're welcome.

Without any qualifiers or limiting criteria on the comment? No, that's not a definition to which I subscribe. However, my comments here have clearly and repeatedly mentioned... in context of those 99% of dead gods laying in the graveyard of human mythology people are atheistic... so here AGAIN you're moving the goal posts and strawmanning my actual stance. It's boring. You seem to be a reasonably smart individual, but your arguments and apparent reading comprehension is so extremely bad that I find myself questioning that with each new post you make. My offer stands to present my position in crayons to help you better grasp it.

Swansont has clearly pushed back against this claim confirming nobody here is claiming this... it's irrelevant to the actual discussion taking place, so again reading comprehension appears to be a problem for you. No, it is not. You asked me for evidence. I'm willing to offer it, but only after you clarify... Evidence for what, specifically?

Evidence of what, specifically? That most people don't today believe Odin created the universe? Or that Zeus is real? You're not making much sense.

As was mine when you demanded evidence of mine. Why is it sufficient for you to apply logic and reason but not me, instead demanding my claims rise to a higher threshold of support? Special pleading again?

Where is your evidence of this? Your one single anecdotal mention sadly doesn't rise to that threshold Unless you'd like to revise your claim and instead say ONE concept was invented?

The text is there for all to see. This is a lie. Yes, you've suggested I'm making a composition fallacy. You've ALSO plainly stated that (and I quote): "Some concepts were definitely invented" as a DIRECT response to my request for clarification regarding whether you believe those countless other gods are real or invented.