Ask An Atheist Anything

Originally posted by mhorndisk
God is man by definition.

Definition of "god":

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

Nothing in the definition of "god" indicates that it is man.

The whole concept of God is based on the drive that scientists have to study the universe and travel into the HEAVENS. That man can evolve into something super incredible. That is the journey and purpose of the pyramid and all science.

That's not the whole concept of god, although it may be your personal concept. Still though, this remains your unsupported assertion, partially based on an incorrect interpretation of the definition of "god".

So what? We're talking about the meaning, the definition. You have an impossible definition locked in your head, and it probably people like you, long ago who spread that impossible definition around when that was never what was intended.

3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Both those definitions can easily be applied to a physical man.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
So what? We're talking about the meaning, the definition. You have an impossible definition locked in your head, and it probably people like you, long ago who spread that impossible definition around when that was never what was intended.

No, I'm operating on the accepted and published definition of "god". You are redefining it to conform with your unsupported belief that god is man or man is god. You still must provide evidence supporting this notion and redefinition of "god"

And to think that you don't have supreme value is somewhat "humbling" but also based on your own NEGATIVE assertions.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
And to think that you don't have supreme value is somewhat "humbling" but also based on your own NEGATIVE assertions.

What NEGATIVE?

Could you explain that for me please.

The accepted and published definition? What definition and accepted by whom? Atheists and Christians. There are other accepted and published definitions. I don't fit the category of Christian or atheist so I'm not going to be construed to your definition.

It's negative to not see great value in yourself.

But there it is in your dictionary, saying that a god can be a powerful ruler, by DEFINITION, published!

Now prove that powerful rulers don't exist.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Both those definitions can easily be applied to a physical man.

Sure. Someone can be a "god" on guitar, for example. This does not mean that a great guitar player transmutates from human to "god". It means we apply the word as a noun referent as a form of admiration of one's talents.

They do exist don't they?

That's ok. You don't have to believe IN them. But certainly you must acknowledge their existence. Unless you're one of THEM. You know... one of those who believes that nothing really exists...

Originally posted by mhorndisk
And to think that you don't have supreme value is somewhat "humbling" but also based on your own NEGATIVE assertions.

No, sir, I value myself greatly and have high self-esteem and regard. I simply do not assume "divinity" based upon these qualities.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
The accepted and published definition? What definition and accepted by whom? Atheists and Christians. There are other accepted and published definitions. I don't fit the category of Christian or atheist so I'm not going to be construed to your definition.

Please provide the definition by which you refer "god".

Making up your own doesn't count.

Well I don't assume divinity either. I feel it, when I feel love for you and everything else in life. Divinity is the ability to love, and now we're defining something else, which is off topic.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
They do exist don't they?

That's ok. You don't have to believe IN them. But certainly you must acknowledge their existence. Unless you're one of THEM. You know... one of those who believes that nothing really exists...

Atheists are not people who "believe nothing really exists". They do, however, have a lack of belief in deities.

And to address something in your video, certainly people have concepts about god(s). This does not, however, validate something's existence. I can conceive of flaming unicorns which slide down rainbows, however, such things do not exist.

Why can't I make up my own definition? Someone else did dint they? They put it in a book and said it's officially a fact dint they? But we'll just go with your "accepted" definition because it works just fine.

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Divinity is the ability to love, and now we're defining something else, which is off topic.

We sure are re-defining something else.

Definition of "divine"

1 a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b : being a deity c : directed to a deity
2 a : supremely good : superb b : heavenly, godlike

I see nothing indicating that divinity is "the ability to love".

Oh here we go comparing an emperor with a unicorn now...

Originally posted by mhorndisk
Why can't I make up my own definition? Someone else did dint they? They put it in a book and said it's officially a fact dint they? But we'll just go with your "accepted" definition because it works just fine.

Sure, someone else made stuff up too, declared it a religious text and it turned out to be verified as incorrect.

Making up your own definitions of words confuses the rest of the world who uses the accepted definitions. However, if you can provide the evidence confirming that man is god or god is man then we may have a case for rewriting the definition of "god". Can you do so?