Mark Twain was an atheist, not a theological noncognitivist. "A malign thug" is meaningful, but "God" isn't.

The logical positivists did claim the same thing, but they had a flawed "proof" for saying it that they called "the verification principle". We can discuss that if you like.

Stop downplaying the philosophy of language. Theists do not believe in a god, they only THINK they do! What you don't realize is that all modern religion is because people are tricked by LANGUAGE!! "God" actually has the meaningless circular definition "God is that which created everything but God". You'd have to already know what "God" means in order to know what "God" means. One correction is needed in what you wrote. It's not the UNcapitalized word "god" that we theological noncognitivists claim is incoherent. Don't confuse words for nonexistent things with meaningless words. The word "unicorn" is very meaningful even though unicorns do not exist. So is the word "god" with a small "g". Zeus' picture was on ancient Greek coins. They made statues of Zeus. Although Zeus was nonexistent, "Zeus" is meaningful and coherent. What we theological noncognitivists claim is meaningless is the CAPITALIZED configuration of three letters "God" that we claim is meaningless. All religion is because people are tricked by LANGUAGE. They are tricked by the meaningless words "Something intelligent must have created the universe". If people could only realize that that is a meaningless pseudo-sentence, they could neither be a theist, atheist, nor agnostic.

@EdwinMcCravy I wasn't downplaying it. I merely noted it neutrally, and asked what else you were concerned about in the debate over religion. Your defensive reply wasn't illuminating on that question. Whether or not people only think they believe in religion or God, frankly, I don't care. I do care about the appalling religions that DO exist, what we are going to do to confront them. Where do you stand on that? Proclaiming that religions are a trick of language will not make them go away.

@David1955 You think modern religion is belief in a god, but it's not. It's the illusion of a belief in a god. You must understand what religion REALLY is before you can confront them and show them that it's irrational. There is a big difference between belief in a god and the illusion of a belief in a god. You must show them that "creator of the universe" is meaningless.

@David1955 You are right. While there is much controversy over God, there is no dispute over religions, their writings, and dogmatics. They exist, they are real and can be investigated and criticized. This is what has import and meaning.

@Danail Yes indeed. @EdwinMcCravy seems like a thoughtful man, but this debate is irrelevant to me. It's like arguing with someone who thinks reality is a cosmic projection or dream and cannot be verified. So what. We still have to deal with it, whether it's real or not. Whether religious belief is real or an illusion of language, religion exists and needs to be dealt with. It's like arguing with someone who says we don't have to fix the world's problems because there are merely the language of problems and don't exist. No, we need to fix them.

@David1955 Completely agree.
Many texts and deeds there go far beyond the field of poetry.

Exactly, you don't need philosophy to understand religion is nonsense. As you say, the first idea of god was the sun and we now know the sun is not a god so the first god idea has been proved nonsense. The same with the thunder god which is just the sound of lightning. The same with the mountain god which is just a volcano. When humans couldn't explain something they created a god for it which I suppose was understandable at the time, now that we know what most things really are I am absolutely amazed that humans still consider god or gods to exist. You don't need philosophy to understand religion is nonsense, you just need to look at where the idea of god and gods came from.

Nope, you're under-thinkin' it, dude. Do you say Zeus is not a god? Read some mythology. Zeus is definitely a god. No we don't worship Zeus, but he's a god, an imaginary god. You don't have to worship Zeus to know that Zeus is a god, a nonexistent god.You don't have to worship the sun to know that the sun is an existent god.

No, you're thinking modern religion is belief in a god. No, it's the illusion of a belief in a god. No god named "God" has been defined. You are like them in that both you and they believe that a god named "God" has been defined. But you're both wrong. None has.

@smoyle If you think modern day religion is belief in a god, you are wrong. It's the illusion of a belief in a god. (Guess I've said that too many times).

@EdwinMcCravy So by your logic, Harry Potter IS a wizard. No, because wizards don't exist (in the HP sense) and neither does Harry Potter. Both have been made up by a humans imagination. Harry Potter, Zeus and ANY other god you care to name do not exist because they have been made up in a humans mind. The sun is not a god either, it's a giant ball of exploding gas, nothing more.

All of this deep thinking, trying to unravel the philosophical meanings of religion is pointless because religion is made up nonsense, required by cave men to make sense of the world.

Scientists speak of "the big bang" but all they have shown is that the universe is expanding, and accelerating its expansion. So "the big bang" talk is simply that they figure that if things are moving apart, they must have at one time been close together. You're trying to think about "what cannot be thought about". Stop it! It just shows that LANGUAGE TRICKS US! If you're speaking some words and are unable to imagine anything your words could be referring to, then please realize that you're only making sounds with your mouth, not thinking about something.

@EdwinMcCravy yes, abstract is not my strong suit, unless it is colors!

@Freedompath But theres' noting abstract about it.

@EdwinMcCravy it would be, if you lived in my mind!

But theists don't BELIEVE in a god. They only BELIEVE that they BELIEVE in a god. But they don't! They are simply tricked by meaningless LANGUAGE. They also don't worship anything. They only BELIEVE they worship something. They do indeed have the emotional feelings that they are worshiping something. They go through the same motions as if they were worshiping something, but they are not worshiping anything. That's because they know of nothing that they could be worshiping. It feels to them as though they are worshiping something, but they aren't.

Just try to stop believing that theists have defined a god named "God". They haven't. You and they both falsely believe that they have defined a god named "God". When you get rid of your belief that you share with them, you will understand what modern religion is all about. But as long as you share with them the belief that they have defined a god named "God" you will never understand what modern religion is all about.

Your error here is in assuming that just because you have a grammatically correct sequence of words, that you automatically have a proposition to label "P". "The creator of the universe exists" is a grammatically correct sequence of words, but it is not a proposition. It is incoherent because as I showed above, "create" can only be learned to be used in terms of an already existing universe.

@EdwinMcCravy if P is invalid you are justified in rejecting it. It does not mean P cannot be uttered or believed.

@hlfsousa You are confusing "P is invalid" with "P is meaningless". There's a big difference.

@EdwinMcCravy not confusing, but rather asserting.

Why are you speaking "Smob" as though it were an English word? Please explain. Then we can talk.

@EdwinMcCravy
It was you that introduced the concept of smob. Until your post, I had no concept of smob. It had never entered my psyche, nor had I considered any concept of anything that might be called smob. So up until the point that someone introduced the concept of smob, I agree that it would nonsense to say "I do not believe in smob" However, now that you have introduced me to the word smob, I can say "I do not believe that smob is an accepted word in the English language" My evidence for this is that I have had a look in my dictionary and it's not in there.*

It's the same with theism. There was no mention of god in my early upbringing, it was not a concept that I had any knowledge of. At this point "I do not believe in god is a nonsense statement. When I was introduced to god/s as I started school, I was told the Greek/Roman gods did not exist, but there was this other one that did. I didn't believe them. The evidence they tried to push onto me didn't make sense and I didn't believe what they were trying to sell me. I do not believe that the gods described in the various religions' holy books exist. I am the not one claiming that they do and the burden of proof is theirs. I am an atheist because I do not believe the claims of theists. I don't care what they think they believe in. It could be leprechauns or the easter bunny for all I care - they are wrong.

• Smob is defined in the urban dictionary as an aggressive overtaking manoeuvre, so I am no longer a non-believer!!! I have seen the light.

@Uncorrugated "Concept of smob"??? There is no concept to label "a concept of smob". Likewise there is no concept to label "a concept of God". To have a concept of X, you must be able to have a mental image of something that X refers to.

OK. Let me try to make this simple.

A few days ago 'smob' had never entered my consciousness. it had no meaning, I had no mental image of anything 'smob'.

Then up you pop in a post saying 'smob does not exist'. At that point YOU introduced a concept of smob. Whether we have the same mental image of smob is irrelevant. As a concept, it now exists as a construct (no physical properties) and we can discuss its meaning. As it happens, as a slang term, smob does exist - just to muddy the water.

God is the same. Theists have a mental image of what god means to them. The fact that I see no evidence for their version of god does not negate the concept.

The fact that every theist has a different concept of god does negate the concept.

The fact that most of them are unable to define properly their concept of god is irrelevant.

The fact that I cannot understand or form a mental image of what they mean when they describe their concept of god, does not mean they have no concept of god.

Thus, the concept of god exists.

I am an atheist because I see no evidence that any concept of god that theists describe, either does exist, or can exist in the reality that I experience .

Philosophical arguments are mostly just concepts, just because you don't understand what others mean by god, does not make it cease to exist. Or I could say that as I have no concept of your argument, it is invalid. Concepts are made up stuff with no physical properties.