Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[robvalue]

Atheism is more like a pre-emptive stance against the most popular uses of the word "God". And it isn't by default a denial of their existence, either.

"God" is a virtually meaningless word. If you want to use it in conversation to ask a question, you need to be clear what you mean. People can say the sun is God. They can say the universe is God. In those cases, I'm a theist.

Sure, there may well be life somewhere far more powerful and clever than us. If you want to call them gods, that's up to you.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I agree with the definition that god is simply a "Superior being".There's actually nothing more to it.Most of us think there are more to it because of the false information religion's provided us with.
And if there is life somewhere on some planet and that life is superior to humans in every aspect.
Then yes,they are by definition god(s).

Edit:
So if there is a superior alien race in a distant planet which is highly probably.Then god exists.

Problem solved or did i miss something?

[Longhorn]

I agree with the definition that god is simply a "Superior being".There's actually nothing more to it.Most of us think there are more to it because of the false information religion's provided us with.

And you know that how?

And if there is life somewhere on some planet and that life is superior to humans in every aspect.
Then yes,they are by definition god(s).


Edit:
So if there is a superior alien race in a distant planet which is highly probably.Then god exists.

Problem solved or did i miss something?

No, problem not solved because you changed what god means. That's dishonest and a dick move.

Life on other planets is not the same as the notion of god religion proposes.

[Aoi Magi]

Hi Pool!

You are not quite wrong, because "god" with the small 'g' is a really ambiguous term, and can be used for literally anything. And aliens as god isn't a new idea (that ancient aliens guy sees them everywhere apparently). However I personally see 'theism' as belief in 'supernatural', and I think most atheists are arguing against this concept of theists preaching 'facts' about this unknown 'supernatural' thingamajig.

In your case the major problem is, you are creating your own definition for a term (which has an established general understanding already) and arguing against it, so you are pretty much straw-manning by yourself.

Another thing is, there is no concept of "right to be an atheist", because either one believes in a god or they don't, it's not exactly a choice.

[The Inquisition]

I agree with the definition that god is simply a "Superior being".There's actually nothing more to it.Most of us think there are more to it because of the false information religion's provided us with.
And if there is life somewhere on some planet and that life is superior to humans in every aspect.
Then yes,they are by definition god(s).

Edit:
So if there is a superior alien race in a distant planet which is highly probably.Then god exists.

Problem solved or did i miss something?

If you go by that definition of god, then it's not unreasonable to believe superior aliens exist, but guess what? Now all you have do is provide proof that such aliens exist.

Back to square one........

[Alex K]

Problem solved or did i miss something?

The problem is that with that definition of yours I might not be an atheist (or at least not a strong atheist), but it will be a completely misleading label because I am still a quite strong atheist with respect to the Gods promoted by the large religions, but that fact will be obscured by your needlessly loose definition.

I'll give you an example to drive home my point:

I'm claiming that have made the a fantastic discovery: there are very probably unicorns in my fridge, it's true! People will say I'm crazy, but they are fools, for it is completely unreasonable for anyone to be sceptical about me having a whole herd of unicorns in my fridge. Why?

The trick is that I have defined anything which has a somewhat pointy piece or edge as a unicorn. That's my definition, deal with it. Duh. Now I'm butthurt that the zoologists on Facebook ridicule me and don't accept my claim.

Redefining words to become so general that they are useless for a specific application, and then insisting on using them for that application, is idiotic. In our case here, the application roughly is to express our lack of belief in the most common theistic propositions as they are held by religious theism in a wider sense. You are changing definitions of the words God and atheism until this demarcation is impossible because of bad definitions. That accomplishes nothing except deliberate obscurantism.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

@ Neimenovic,

I agree with the definition that a "God" is a superior being because of the fact that the main reason people even started worshiping Wind,Storm,Sun,Lightning,Thunder,or generally any strong force which is impossible to understand and which is not to be messed with, were because they thought that these forces were not to be messed with and they were probably intimidated by them and they couldn't understand it.Which implies the most basic definition of a "god" is in fact a "Superior being".
Why would humans even start worshiping them if they weren't "Superior beings",they wanted to please these forces so that it wouldn't do them no ill.
The most basic definition of "God" is "A superior being" there's nothing more to it.Religion may want us to think there is some kind of Justice or some other similar crap behind it but the
truth is that the most basic definition of a "God" is "A superior being" that shouldn't be messed with.


I didn't change the definition of a God i simplified it.

It would be not very smart to prove the existence of a god which religion depicts because the religious definition of "God" is inconsistent.
Most religion depicts "God" as some kind of unknown "being" that watches over us and with whom we shouldn't mess with. a.k.a "Superior being"

I believe there are other life on the universe.If any one of those beings is superior to humans in every aspect then they are by definition god.

My original point was that it was more logical to believe in the existence of a god rather than the non-existence of such and i believe i've provided sufficient input.

[Alex K]

I didn't change the definition of a God i simplified it.

Read my post and understand it.

[Longhorn]

Ok. Have fun proving your point without proving your point -_-

Read my post and understand it.

I believe that is one requirement above his ability, my hamster loving friend.

[Tonus]

I went into that discussion as a strong atheist but i came out as a not-so-strong atheist which was a resultant of my own argument against myself and atheism.

That sounds like a kind of subliminal self-programming. We don't control our subconscious, but we can influence it to some degree. We might think that taking the "devil's advocate" approach won't affect what we think and believe, but our subconscious is influenced by our activities, and it can adopt and reinforce behaviors that we perform routinely. If you are regularly arguing a side that you disagree with, you might find yourself accepting that side in spite of yourself.

It's not a bad thing, in the sense that it can give you a broader perspective on an issue. But you'll need to dig deeper than "we can't know everything, so maybe there's a god." Or you can go that route until you "find" the "evidence" that you need in order to believe. If that seems a bit far-fetched, look into Cotard's syndrome to see just how far the human mind can go in order to force the world to make sense.