Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
U sure about that?
Yes, why would they need to be? Antitheism and atheism are different terms with different meanings.
If the evidence ever came to light, they would still reject god. That’s a true blue atheist.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
U sure about that?
Yes, why would they need to be? Antitheism and atheism are different terms with different meanings.
If the evidence ever came to light, they would still reject god. That’s a true blue atheist.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
U sure about that?
Yes, why would they need to be? Antitheism and atheism are different terms with different meanings.
If the evidence ever came to light, they would still reject god. That’s a true blue atheist.
According to whom?
Then I guess they’re not a hardcore atheist. They’re just weekend warriors who denounce storybook gods.
Many Buddhists do believe in a deity - nontheistic Buddhism isn't universal, particularly in Southeast Asia. Also, you seem to be confusing atheism with antitheism. Most atheists aren't opposed to a deity existing, but simply see no evidence for it.
The majority of Buddhist do not recognize an incarnation of God. Not anti theistic? U sure about that? See no evidence? Sounds agnostic.
An atheist doesn't need to be opposed to the existence of a deity to not believe in one.
U sure about that?
Yes, why would they need to be? Antitheism and atheism are different terms with different meanings.
If the evidence ever came to light, they would still reject god. That’s a true blue atheist.
According to whom?
Then I guess they’re not a hardcore atheist. They’re just weekend warriors who denounce storybook gods.
Or you’re using an idiosyncratic definition of atheist.
I have never even heard of an atheist who knew that a deity existed but decided to hate them.
It really depends on how you define 'deity' and consequently 'atheist'.
If a god is a being that is worshipped - and that seems a reasonable definition - then the Roman Emperors were worshipped and therefore were gods. Christians in the Roman Empire believed that the Emperor existed; they just didn't believe he was worthy of worship. On those grounds they were referred to as atheists.
In Philip Pullman's Lyra series as I understand it "God" exists, although he's called The Authority. Again, Pullman thinks that worshipping The Authority is a bad idea. Again it seems appropriate to describe the good guys in the book as atheists.
In general, atheists believe that there's no such entity or entities as described. But there's definitely a subgroup who hold the stronger position that even if God does exist it's wrong to worship God, either on grounds of imputed character or because it's wrong to worship anything, and it would be odd to say that such people would stop being atheists just because they found that entities that some people worship did exist.
I have never even heard of an atheist who knew that a deity existed but decided to hate them.
But there's definitely a subgroup who hold the stronger position that even if God does exist it's wrong to worship God, either on grounds of imputed character or because it's wrong to worship anything, and it would be odd to say that such people would stop being atheists just because they found that entities that some people worship did exist.
I have never even heard of an atheist who knew that a deity existed but decided to hate them.
For one thing that person is a deist not an atheist. For another, it sounds like a slur, implying atheists are dishonest.
Deism is defined as the belief that God created the world, but does not intervene in its operations otherwise. It doesn't, by itself, indicate anything about whether a given deist loves, hates, etc the deity.
That's true but if one accepts that a deity exists, one is by definition a deist not an atheist. Denying that a Roman emperor is a god is not, necessarily a sign of an atheist. One can disbelieve in all god's except one and be a deist or a theist of course.
That's true but if one accepts that a deity exists, one is by definition a deist not an atheist. Denying that a Roman emperor is a god is not, necessarily a sign of an atheist.
My point was for a reasonable definition of "god" Roman emperors were gods. And therefore since it would be silly to say that atheists don't believe in the Roman Emperors - or in various contemporary people who are worshipped - an atheist doesn't believe deities exist is as such not true.
Some self-described atheists believe in fairies. There isn't any significant difference between a fairy and some of the minor Greek gods other than worship.
(Your last sentence is logically irrelevant to whether atheists can believe there are beings called gods.)
One can disbelieve in all god's except one and be a deist or a theist of course.
"Disbelieving in all gods except one" is a fundamental misunderstanding of theism. (It may be an adequate description of Mormonism.)
Yes there's a difference if fairies have no power. Believing that an emperor is a human and has no supernatural powers is not disbelieving in a deity. It's disbelieving a human when he says he is a deity.
I think a deity, as a definitional word, has meaning beyond "a person who claims to be special and worthy of worship" but I can't help how you use words.
My understanding is that the historic significance of deities was the role they played in relation to societies - collective identity, worship, morality, etc. The qualities of these deities centre around authoritativeness, answering the needs/desires of humans that centre around belonging. Alongside that, I think the historic view was that different deities (and groups of deities) catered for different groups of people.
Comments
If the evidence ever came to light, they would still reject god. That’s a true blue atheist.
According to whom?
Then I guess they’re not a hardcore atheist. They’re just weekend warriors who denounce storybook gods.
For one thing that person is a deist not an atheist. For another, it sounds like a slur, implying atheists are dishonest.
Why? Why would you think that?
If a god is a being that is worshipped - and that seems a reasonable definition - then the Roman Emperors were worshipped and therefore were gods. Christians in the Roman Empire believed that the Emperor existed; they just didn't believe he was worthy of worship. On those grounds they were referred to as atheists.
In Philip Pullman's Lyra series as I understand it "God" exists, although he's called The Authority. Again, Pullman thinks that worshipping The Authority is a bad idea. Again it seems appropriate to describe the good guys in the book as atheists.
In general, atheists believe that there's no such entity or entities as described. But there's definitely a subgroup who hold the stronger position that even if God does exist it's wrong to worship God, either on grounds of imputed character or because it's wrong to worship anything, and it would be odd to say that such people would stop being atheists just because they found that entities that some people worship did exist.
^^^^^this^^^^^
I don’t think or believe it. I know it. Believe was a poor choice of a word in my previous comment.
Deism is defined as the belief that God created the world, but does not intervene in its operations otherwise. It doesn't, by itself, indicate anything about whether a given deist loves, hates, etc the deity.
Some self-described atheists believe in fairies. There isn't any significant difference between a fairy and some of the minor Greek gods other than worship.
(Your last sentence is logically irrelevant to whether atheists can believe there are beings called gods.)
"Disbelieving in all gods except one" is a fundamental misunderstanding of theism. (It may be an adequate description of Mormonism.)
I think a deity, as a definitional word, has meaning beyond "a person who claims to be special and worthy of worship" but I can't help how you use words.