A Civil Religious Debate

no argument here. i guess youre comparing theistic worship to blind trust in ultimate authoritarians, who you acknowledge as simply ppl that theists dishonestly refer to and defer to as 'god?'

i also assume that youre saying atheist hold scientists and certain philosophers in such high esteem that they simply accept any claim they make, as 'fact'? making scientists and certain philosophers the same kind of ultimate authoritarians?

the problem there is that theists encourage blind acceptance and denounce critical analysis. whereas atheists discourage blind acceptance, and encourage critical analysis, scrutiny,peer review, scientific enquiry, etc,.

anyone who holds faith as a pathway to ultimate understanding, has no grounds to question any 'ultimate understanding' gained through the faith of another. even if its contradictory to his own ultimate understanding found through faith. because doing so invalidates his own conclusions and the methodology used to reach them.

no atheist would ever have this problem if he remembers that anything can and should be scrutinized.

well thats just it. i don't think you're being dishonest, i simply have no idea what point you're attempting to make or what model you're attempting to use to do so. i have no idea what argument you're making, what proof you're offering or whether or not i should even take this seriously. i have no idea what you're saying. thats where i started and I'm still there. in fact after reading the replies of others, i still have no idea what's actually being discussed, here.

when you say 'god exists as a term' i suppose you mean that god exists as a concept? if not , i have no idea what you mean. but if you do, are you making an ontological argument for the existence of 'god'? because this type of argument has already been defeated. concepts 'exist' in the minds of men, but imaginary things are held in the mind as concepts that we acknowledge to have no actual existence.

lots of ppl have unwavering trust in their parents or siblings,. that doesn't qualify anyone as a god. 'god', generally denotes a supernatural being. so it's like someone already said: you can call a beer can a god but that wont make it any more likely for gods to exist. metaphors exist. you have to do all kinds of calisthenics to transform a being that is known for hurling lightning bolts and parting seas into "a group of beings worthy of trust'. there is no point in even using the word god here because you've not defined any exclusively godlike qualities. so no. we cannot agree on the usage of the word god.

you may have noticed that theists, clergy and other theologians have a completely disingenuous vocabulary where they use words in ways that warp & often contradict their generally accepted definitions, just to sweet talk the masses into blindly accepting notions that are generally only explicitly defined, after the fact.

thats called 'scriptural interpretation' but really its just blatant dishonesty.

1st of all you have clearly shifted the burden of proof. if you hold that a god exists as anything, it is up to you to demonstrate that. its not up to others to disprove it. you have provided no 'proof of god'. you havent even provided evidence of a god. you have simply used the word 'god' to define something that generally no one in the modern world considers a god. you have attempted to redefine god into existence through equivocation or for the sake of argument 'metaphor'. taking the word 'god' (thought of by most westerners as 'an eternal magical deity who created the universe) and equated it to 'a group of respected beings' as in clergy, police officers, teachers, firemen, parents, then you ask others to argue against your 'proof' which is really just unjustified and naked comparison. now you claim you cannot argue about the qualities of a nonexistent being. if you think of god's as nonexistent why are you asking ppl to argue against your 'proof of a god?' this really makes no sense. why call 'respected beings' god? is it just to attract ppl to have a debate about something that technically no one holds true? "parents are gods in the eyes of their children' and such? you know what? nevermind.

this isnt proof for a god. it's just equivocation. why not start with evidence for a god? either way, your argument defeats itself. most of the most trusted beings we know are just ppl. not gods.