To what exactly do you refer when you use the word deity?

@skado The same thing the vast majority of the world means when they say deity. Unlike you, I like to use common definitions so the things I say are clear and concise.

@ChestRockfield
Unlike me, you prefer to let common modern day religious literalists define your cultural worldview for you instead of building one yourself based on scientific principles that include, rather than deny, the last ten thousand years of human behavioral history, and the last two decades of research. You are clear and concise about that much.

@skado

They don't define my worldview, I just don't use words they have mangled because I don't wish to be misunderstood and I don't like to have to waste my time to explain.
It is very similar to how I have drastically reduced my use of the word 'literally' in everyday life because so many fucking idiots use it to mean 'figuratively', the exact opposite of its actual definition. When I do have to use in the the company of people that may be idiots, I'll actually have to waste my time following it up with, "and I'm not one of those idiots that misuses the word 'literally'." It's fucking annoying. So why would I ever use 'god' to mean 'universe' when 'universe' is infinitely less ambiguous and less annoying for me to use?
Look, words change definitions. Or at least add definitions with a change of the predominat use. I have said numerous times that there are just as many old people pissed that 'gay' no longer means 'happy' as there are homosexuals mad it now means 'lame'.
So you may log some amazing conversations, but I'll never stop thinking people who use 'god' for 'universe' are just as annoying and stupid as any of the other people that cling to archaic or niche definitions of words and insist that's the real definition.

@ChestRockfield

Whoever frames the language, defines the cultural worldview. You are free to turn your entire vocabulary over to popular whim, if that’s what makes most sense to you. Give the fundamentalists and science deniers all of our tools of communication, one by one. It’s a lot less trouble than having to explain yourself every time you speak.

@skado We're at an impasse. Just letting you know, invariably there will be people that think you're an idiot because of this, which you obviously don't care about.

@ChestRockfield
Thanks for “letting me know” what people have been letting me know for six years on this site - that when they run out of ideas, they throw personal insults.

It’s not that I don’t care. I wish they had some ideas to share. It’s that I have no control over what others think or say, and I don’t base my ideas on how well they might be accepted by random commenters on the internet.

An impasse is where there is no possible path forward. Where there are ideas to be shared and an atmosphere of mutual respect ( or even feigned respect ) there is always a possible way forward. But lack of interest, or lack of anything to contribute other than ad hom assessments, are perfectly valid reasons to opt out.

@skado You're not sharing any more ideas than me. You're saying it's worth using outdated definitions to spark conversation at any cost (on this topic and this topic alone) and I'm saying I personally don't think it is, and that if it was on this topic, it should be on others as well. You disagree with both of those. What other ideas are there to share at this point? Since apparently neither of us are going to change each other's mind, there's no use in saying anything else. I'm not resorting to ad hominem attacks because I don't have an argument, I'm pointing out a fact that some will see your use of outdated definitions as idiocy, just like some would someone wearing what appears to be a swastika, regardless of what they think it means.

@ChestRockfield
I have lots more ideas than what I've shared. One can only share what another is willing to receive.

I'm saying it's worth it to me to use definitions of certain religious terms that more accurately reflect the scientific, biological, evolutionary, and historically original meaning of the word, when conversing about related topics with people who have demonstrated an interest because those definitions are consistent with a more comprehensive worldview which has the potential to ameliorate many social and personal problems caused by the cultural usurpation and corruption of those words by regressive factions.

I'm not saying I do this everywhere in casual conversation.
I'm not commenting one way or another on whether it might be useful in other contexts.
I'm not saying everyone should do it.
I'm not trying to convince you to do it.
I'm not trying to convince you it's a good thing to do.
I'm not trying to change your mind about anything.

There is no impasse.

There is no argument.

I'm doing what is meaningful to me to do. What you or others think of it is your concern, not mine. There is no requirement that you agree with me, and no pressure to do so.

There are lots more ideas to share about this subject for anyone who has any real interest, but I'm not in the business of arm-twisting. When someone engages a post or comment of mine, I read that as interest.
I have heard your comments and have given them due consideration. If you have no further interest, neither do I. If you say more, I will too. I'm friendly like that.

I like you analysis.

I wouldn't say a cat, rock, or newborn are atheist for the same reasons I wouldn't say a squash is developmentally delayed because it would get score below 80 on an IQ test, or that a rhododendron is paraplegic because it can't move its legs. If a thing doesn't have the capacity for something, labels referring to an inability to do that thing are nonsensical and not applicable.

Even if there are no coherent, unambiguous definitions for 'god', a lack of a belief in any definition of any god meets the sufficient conditions for the label 'atheist'. If that applies to you, then that label would say something about your beliefs.

@ChestRockfield It doesn't say anything meaningful about my beliefs, no more than saying someone believes in God says anything about their beliefs. And I would say anyone who thinks this way isn't an atheist, because the only way to believe this definition is to ascribe some magical meaning to belief in God.

@Druvius It says something meaningful about your beliefs as a whole (in that none of them are beliefs in metaphysical gods). I'm confused about how you don't think this is necessarily true. It's essentially definitionally true. That would be like Catherine Zeta Jones saying, "Saying I'm a brunette doesn't tell you anything meaningful about the color of my hair."

Also, you can ascribe meaning to things without you yourself believing those ascribed meanings or attributes are true. "Superheros would have abilities like flight, invisibility, and teleportation." This does not mean I believe in superheros or that any person can fly, turn invisible, or teleport. I can also use these definitions to delineate between people who believe superheroes exist from people who don't.

@ChestRockfield You're basically saying there's people who believe in Santa Claus, and anyone who doesn't is a Asantaclausian. Technically true, but an utterly meaningless distinction. I haven't shared my beliefs with you, good luck guessing.

@Druvius How is distinguishing between people those that believe something (especially something patently false and/or dangerous) and those who don't, meaningless?? I think it would be very meaningful to know if a person believes black people should be slaves or not, or if they think all Jews should be exterminated or not. I also think it's quite meaningful to know if someone has the possibility of making irrational decisions based on religious dogma. Apparently you don't?

Also, I said, "If that applies to you". I didn't say you shared your beliefs. I'm not talking about you specifically, but any person in general.

@ChestRockfield Where in the hell do you get the idea that theists are by definition believing in something in something patently false/dangerous? All you're illustrating now is that you're virulently anti-religious. Your beliefs about religion are nowhere near mine, we're not the same.

@Druvius I didn't say all of them by definition, I said "especially something false and/or dangerous", and being religious necessarily increases the possibility that someone will behave in a dangerous manner because of their religious beliefs. And A LOT of religious people from A LOT of different religions believe some VERY dangerous things. Believing your god thinks abortion is wrong in all cases is dangerous. Believing you'll be rewarded in heaven for being a suicide bomber is dangerous. Believing god will cure your child so they don't need medicine or blood transfusions is dangerous. Believing your political leaders are anointed by god is dangerous. Genital mutilation is dangerous. Letting children handle poisonous snakes is dangerous. Honor killings are dangerous. And that's just off the top of my head in 2 minutes. There are countless ways religions get followers to believe and do false and dangerous things.

According to Pew Research, the world is becoming more religious, not less, and projected to continue so for the foreseeable future. The reason is that religious people reproduce at a higher rate than non-religious.
The “disease” is extinction. Ask the Neanderthals if it’s real. This is a science-based assessment.

@skado The theist do reproduce at a higher rate than atheists, however it does not follow that Theists produce lots of little theists for the churches to indoctrinate, in the west at least.
It has been my experience in the UK that about one in ten church children actually continue their indoctrination in to adulthood and even then it does not continue in to their wedded days and certainly not passed having children.
I see in the towns around me more and more closed down, converted, or demolished churches, Mosques, chapels, meeting houses and kingdom halls every year simply because their is no need for them and they are not being replaced.
The church in which I was Christened by my religious maniac mother has been for many years now been bringing true joy to the local community as a Squash Court and health bar.
I class each discontinued palace of piety as a victory for logic and morality.

@LenHazell53
Yes, in the West. Even so, in the world at large there is still a net increase. The maniacs get the press, and do damage, but the majority are not maniacs.

@skado That depends very much on how you define maniac

I have little problem with a none theist "god" such as deism, and/or seeing the whole universe as an equivalent to god. That is pretty much my position, and I would go so far as to say that I believe in worshiping the universe, which is perhaps more than most atheists/agnostics would admit to committing to.

But I am a little wary of calling the universe god, not for any technical reason, or because it could not be the exact equivalent of god. But simply because, god, is a word heavily claimed by the theists, usually for a personal, morally repugnant, goat herder in the sky, type of being. And theists are not very good at understanding that words only have usages not meanings, or that other people may have other usages, not like theirs, let alone tolerating and respecting other usages. The theist tends to think in absolutes. So that using the god word thus, can lead to confusion and angry misunderstanding. Which seems needless when there are plenty of other good words, like universe, cosmos, nature, and everything, which serve even better and already exist. Therefore I would prefer to say that, I worship the universe, rather than, the universe is my god, even those are equivalent statements.

And besides that, it seems insulting to the universe, which is so vast, rich and diverse, to call it by the same name as the, morally repugnant sky goat herd.

@Fernapple

I fully acknowledge that hazard and don’t wish to discount it.

What I am left with is the knowledge that the word will continue to be used by a majority, and my only choices are to try to frame it (by using it myself) in harmony with a scientific worldview, or to abandon it to the fundamentalists, who, I am convinced, have twisted it from its original, authentic context, to counterproductive purposes.

But I have no quarrel with folks who would rather avoid it altogether. Its use as metaphor for universe brings personal condemnation from all quarters.

@skado It is the best tactic, to abandon it to the fundamentalists. Since if you fight them for it, they are sure to win.

@Fernapple

As Chris Hedges said about the Occupy WallStreet movement, we don’t engage this battle because we are confident we will win, but because it allows us to sleep at night knowing we have done all we could do.

People will naturally vary as to what they regard as best for their own consciences.
There is room for more than one approach.

@skado Its just a word, and like all words it has zero value, since it can be redefined however anyone likes. Only fundamentalists fight over words, and their imagined meanings.

@Fernapple
That would make both of us fundamentalists, so let’s don’t!

@skado You are more than welcome to fight the fundies over a word, and I would not try to stop you. But there are two things to remember. The fundamentalist is an absolutist, and the fundamentalist mindset applies for them to everything, so that they will put far more store in the imagined meanings of words than a none fundamentalist ever will, because to them nothing is just imagined or metaphorical. That is what made them turn to fundamentalism in the first place.

And there is no word which they will claim as their own, so deeply and so seriously as the "god" word. You will get them to start eating babies, before they will ever concede that, god, is a word with usages, or that anyone except themselves, has any right to define it.

Best of luck in your fight, but I would not touch that Trojan horse, with a barge pole.

@Fernapple

I don’t fight with fundies (theist or atheist) because you can’t reason someone out of an idea they were never reasoned into.

I don’t claim that any particular meaning adheres to the word. I just use it the way it makes most sense to me, given my understanding of its etymology, and relevant studies.

And I don’t consider fundies (of any stripe) to be my enemies. So if anyone is interested in, and capable of, discussing philosophical justifications for using a given word in a particular way, I may share my views, because I think we’re all in this adventure together, and while words don’t have innate meanings, beliefs and understandings do have consequences for us all.

But each should be free to choose their battles, so to speak. I don’t regard it as a literal battle, but you understand the figure of speech.

At any rate, My aim is not to change the fundies. I doubt that is possible and I’m not convinced it’s necessary. I’m only insisting that I have as much right to our common cultural heritage as they do.

@Fernapple @skado
Using the word 'god' to mean 'universe' on principle is like naming your child Adolf because you've "always loved that name" and it "has nothing to do with Hitler". Words are supposed to help us communicate our thoughts quickly and effectively. When the use of a word is so overwhelmingly ingrained in everyone's mind as one thing, using it in another way, whatever your reasons, completely defeats the entire purpose of language. You have to spend even more time clarifying than if you had just abandoned the word and used something else. Maybe he'd learn that lesson if he tried wearing a svastika "good fortune" t-shirt with a nicely manicured "Charlie Chaplin" mustache, but I doubt it.

@ChestRockfield
I guess it depends on whether one likes progress and is willing to work for it, or is content with existing tradition.

@ChestRockfield Exactly. The svastika metaphor is perfect.

@skado

There really isn't any progress to be had on this front. The only way using 'god' to mean 'universe' wouldn't be counterproductive is if there was essentially no one left on Earth that used 'god' to mean sky daddy. Even if there was still a few, and everyone else thought people who actually believed in a literal god were idiots, you still couldn't use 'god' to mean 'universe' without people wondering if you were one of those few idiots.
And for what? It's still just a word. Changing the predominant use of it, alone, doesn't do or mean anything. Just push your agenda as you would, and use the extra time you save not having to convince people the figurative swastika on your shirt doesn't mean you hate Jews to make a better argument or reach more people. How do you not see that's an objectively better method to reach your goal?

@ChestRockfield

My goal is to learn.

I’ve always enjoyed learning. I’ve never been great at learning in classrooms. My brain isn’t wired that way. I learn best by following my curiosity and reading and engaging in conversation.

I go through phases of being fascinated with a given subject, and the current subject of interest is the perceived conflict between science and religion.

A sub-category of that fascination is how ideas captivate people and drive them to behave counter to their own interests.

Whether my fascination makes any sense to anyone else or not, I know I will not be able to stop pursuing it until I understand why intelligent people close their minds to further learning about subjects they claim to have superior knowledge about.

I have no quarrel with unintelligent or incurious people. If the best a person can do is believe in a literal god, I can only have compassion for them.

But when a person boasts of superior understanding and makes cruel fun of the “ignorant or malicious others” and yet is unable to demonstrate any greater understanding themselves… I become fascinated. I want to understand. I want to draw them into conversation in order to learn what their motivation and rationale might be.

And if I’m the ignorant one, I want them to teach me. I’m open to any outcome. I just see an apparent misunderstanding and want to resolve it.

Saving time isn’t the point. Engagement and understanding are the point. When I’m in need of saving time I know how to cut a conversation short. My goal here is rather the opposite - to make the conversation longer. To discuss issues I have curiosity about. When exploring ideas, I will happily trade “quickly and effectively” for slowly and deeply. “Quickly and effectively” is for ordering a meal at a busy lunch counter, or getting rid of door-to-door salesmen ( or sometimes just flashing a peace sign or other symbol of good will ).

Where expedients are concerned, on conversation platforms like social media, using words in socially unfamiliar ways is an enormously effective way to drive engagement.

And in casual conversation in the general public, when lengthy conversation is not the goal, saying “Thank God it’s Friday!” is more expedient than a clumsy “Thank Universe it’s the end of the alienated work week”.

As for Nazism, in addition to being a mass murderer, Hitler was a cultural thief and poisoner.

My friend Mr. Apple and I see eye to eye, as usual, in noticing how perfect the swastika comparison is.

As I’m sure you know, Hitler didn’t design the swastika himself. If he had been the artist he aspired to be, he possibly could have, but the meager talent of the homeless-draft-dodger-art-school-reject were not up to the task, so he just did what regressive authoritarians typically do - he hid his murderous insecurities behind a globally familiar ancient cultural symbol of:

“prosperity and good luck”

“conducive to well-being”

“of the vivifying role of the supreme principle of the universe”

“auspicious footprints of the Buddha”

“Gate of Heaven”

“the absolute God”

etc.

And in so doing he poisoned a nearly universal symbol of goodwill. He diminished the human family’s means of “quickly and effectively” conveying trust, acceptance, and community.

Indeed, a more perfect analogy I cannot imagine.

In identical fashion, the regressive biological instincts of our species have stolen and polluted the single most well-established linguistic symbol of the entirety of a benevolent reality - God - and have disfigured it with their idolatrous concept of an authoritarian strongman in the sky, to whom we must beg forgiveness for our existence.

Symbol, metaphor, and allegory have always been, and remain, Homo sapien’s most “quick and effective” language. How does one justify abandoning that efficient language, bit by bit, to the destroyers of life?

As long as there are people who are not aware of this insidious embezzlement, there is progress to be had.

Swastika
transcultural religious
symbol
[en.wikipedia.org]

.

@skado

So you use 'god' meaning 'universe' with the intention of starting conversations with people who are trying to figure out if you're an idiot or just a person wearing a svastika shirt?

"How does one justify abandoning that efficient language, bit by bit, to the destroyers of life?"
By recognizing the contrary contributes to hate, anger, division, and a list of other negative consequences. I'll go back to the svastika again. By your rationale, we should we wearing them to start conversations about the original meaning. In the process, I guess we shouldn't worry about any of the pain caused by the people that see it, but don't interact with us to learn it means good fortune, and we shouldn't concern ourselves that it offers moral support and the courage to those that want to display Nazi insignia to wear it proudly themselves? You said a whole bunch of words, but I don't see any valuable reason detailed within them that we should use 'god' to mean 'universe'.

@ChestRockfield
The good news is…
you’re not required to.

@ChestRockfield
If there’s something that makes the swastika comparison less than perfect it’s this: I think it would be a fair guess to assume that a majority of the human population recognizes that Nazism was pure evil.

Not so with God. 84% of Homo sapiens worldwide claim affiliation with an established religion. The remaining 16% is divided among folks who believe in a god but have no affiliation with a religious organization, folks who have all sorts of new age or nondescript beliefs, folks who have no interest at all, and a relatively tiny percent of hardcore atheists who, according to Pew Research, are diminishing as a percentage of world population.

The world doesn’t love Nazis for a good reason.

God, on the other hand, is not only literally worshipped the world over, he/she/it is arguably, from an evolutionary psychological perspective, the most successful antidote to evils such as Nazism ever devised by human evolution.

People who claim that the God concept has no benefit have allowed the religious fundamentalists to define God for them. It’s as nonsensical as saying that symbols are categorically useless or evil. From a purely scientific perspective, the capacity for creating and using metaphor is Homo sapiens’ superpower. Without it we would be moldering with the Neanderthals. Our capacity to believe in gods literally saved us. Don’t leave home without it!

To summarize, if I wear a swastika tee shirt, I put myself immediately at odds with the world. If I wear a God tee shirt, I am welcomed by the world. In that regard, the analogy does not hold up.

@skado

Regardless of the proportion of people that believe one way or the other (given that these are continuums you propose we work from one end to the other, the current proportion in irrelevant given the goal), your whole point was to not concede the use of these words to the other side. Thus, there really is no difference between the two scenarios. So what is the benefit of fighting tooth and nail to use a word's extremely niche definition and spending all the time required to clarify which definition you intended, and why doesn't that reasoning hold true for all niche definitions?

@ChestRockfield

Not sure which continuums, or goal, or scenarios you’re referring to, but I don’t experience a discussion about word use as “fighting tooth and nail”. We are all free to use words however we please - no fighting required. If someone wants to know why I use a word, I’ll try to share my thinking, but I have no obligation to explain, and I don’t need their permission, so it’s no burden for me. But it can provide an opportunity to discuss related substantive issues, so, as mentioned before, it can be a conversation starter, but nothing I would fight over.

And none of my time is required to clarify definitions with 86% or better of the world’s population. How they envision God is no stumbling block for me. We are in agreement that a supreme being exists, regardless of which word we call it. It’s the atheists who want to challenge me for the crime of being bilingual. And it’s the atheists who claim there’s no power greater than themselves.

So it’s not really a niche definition so much as a different way to envision the same thing. A supreme being is a supreme being regardless of how we imagine its attributes.

Deeper and broader understanding of any subject could be called a niche understanding I suppose, but having an interest in one field doesn’t obligate a person to be familiar with all fields. But if I had that capacity I would certainly prefer to understand everything deeply.

@skado You are free to use words however you'd like, but there is a cost associated with it. The more you use definitions of words that are not the widely used definitions, which make no mistake, using 'god' to mean 'universe' is, the less people will value what you have to say or even know what the hell you're talking about. You should probably get a deeper understanding of that.

@ChestRockfield

It takes all of two seconds to explain my meaning. It’s a cost I can afford. It generates the conversation I’m interested in having. I have tested it many times by writing about the same topics without using religious words, and getting virtually no response. I have an adequately deep understanding, thanks.

My curiosity is why you are so concerned whether people understand me, especially when I am perfectly satisfied with my results?

When I say God I mean Universe. Why is that so difficult? Why do you care so much?

@skado
Similar to how you're interested in people's responses to the stuff you say, I have a morbid curiosity about why people say and do shit that makes no sense and feel obligated to ask questions to try to figure it out. Seems we're both unfortunate that our proclivities intersect in this manner. I guess you keep doing your thing, and I'll keep saying I think it's stupid.

Not for nothing, but, "Svastikas meant 'good fortune' before they we a symbol for hate. Mine means 'good fortune'" takes a literal 5 seconds to say.

@ChestRockfield
I fully understand, and sympathize with how stupid unfamiliar-science appears at first. It’s naturally counterintuitive. But once we acknowledge how counterintuitive it feels, the only options left are to trust our intuition, or do the work of examining the science. Trusting our gut is a great comfort against the terrifying risk of having to adjust our worldview.

@skado Nothing about what I'm saying has anything to with denying science. Nice strawman.

@ChestRockfield

Apologies if I misunderstood.

If you aren’t denying the relevant science, then we are in agreement about everything.