God is a chameleon
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 051103)

Some have iterated the variability of the word God. Certainly, elaboration is required if one is unclear as to what the word means.

God is a chameleon. God is a myth treated as a reality, just as Santa Claus is a myth treated as a reality. God is sometimes used as a term for physical things. God is often used to refer to a particular being or concept which is adhered to as if it is a reality, but not always.

God is oft-times used in two irreconcilable ways by those who believe in its reality, one way among likeminded believers, and in an ecumenical way (requiring philosophical tap dancing, a blurry God if you will) among believers with dissimilar views.

As for those that find comfort in saying "I disbelieve in God", rather than "there is no God", that's fine. As for disbelievers that find discomfort in the phrase "there is no God", relief for that discomfort may (or may not) be found in the following ...

Is Santa Claus mythical? Is God mythical? The evidence conveys "Yes", in my view, and in the view of most disbelievers.

If mythical, then why the worry over whether the myth is stated in terms of disbelief in its reality or if it's stated in terms of non-existence. Myths do not exist, in fact, but they do exist, in human imagination.

In response to the phrase "Since there is no god", some desire a more elaborate exposition, something like "Since the totality of evidence in the physical world conveys a near-certainty that God is a result of human evolution, created by an evolved ape to try to explain and control that which evolved apes had little to no understanding of, the largest and most powerful myth evolved apes could come up with" ...

The problem in the position of the discomforted disbelievers, that disbelief is OK, but stating something doesn't exist is not OK, something I've seen discussed endlessly at times in newsgroups, is like watching Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists argue over baptism or the Eucharist (aka Lord's Supper) ...

It's silly, in my view, arguing over water and salvation and wine and grape juice. However, in times past, people were willing to murder (yikes) over disputes about such matters.

Likewise, as everyone knows what "there is no god" means, as it's a firm statement of refutation to the "there is a God and you better believe or you'll be damned for eternity" or "there is a God, and you'll go to heaven if you kill the infidels" or "there is a god, at least one, we just don't know how to describe it, but believe in any one of them, or all of them, and you'll be OK" position.

It has nothing to do with some extra-terrestrial beings that might venture our way and say, we are your God, obey us or die. Why? Because the "there is no god" statement is referring to god as defined to-date in innumerable irreconcilable and illogical ways, ways defying any degree of logic, reason, completeness, or wholeness.

Some have mentioned that everyone knows that belief is entailed in all of those God statements that permeate our culture, without it having to be so stated. Might one consider being similarly reconciled to statements of negation of God that are easily interpretable in a similar manner, with disbelief implied rather than belief being implied?

I fail to see any practical advantage in disbelievers adopting meekness and humility in their disbelief, being careful to state their positions in deference to the possibility they could be wrong, while the whole God show gets shoveled incessantly as a certainty, to children and to adults, in religious settings and in some secular ones (as in God Bless America, the song sung at many sporting events since 9-11-01).