Is Atheism Irrational? NYTimes Opinion Piece (2 Viewers)

[MaxThreshold]

I am a unicorn ist.

But in ancient Greek that doesn't mean what it means.

Look up Positive Atheism. They even have their own website. Or maybe it's awebsite?

 

[cstu]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

Exactly.

 

[Jayrod]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

Exactly.

I'm a believer and follower of Christ and I don't care about the distinction at all.

 

[timschochet]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

Exactly.

I'm a believer and follower of Christ and I don't care about the distinction at all.

You've always seemed very confident about your Christianity. There are some people here who seem less so, or at least they feel they have the need to "prove" it in scientific terms, and, failing that, to demonstrate that no alternatives can be proven either.

 

[mr roboto]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

I don't really care, but they do actually mean different things.

 

[Jayrod]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

Exactly.

I'm a believer and follower of Christ and I don't care about the distinction at all.

You've always seemed very confident about your Christianity. There are some people here who seem less so, or at least they feel they have the need to "prove" it in scientific terms, and, failing that, to demonstrate that no alternatives can be proven either.

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

 

[joffer]

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

Would love to invite you back, to defend this absurd position

 

[joffer]

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

That's just sad

 

[Jayrod]

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

That's just sad

Curious as to why you think that.

 

[joffer]

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

That's just sad

Curious as to why you think that.

For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

 

[Jayrod]

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

That's just sad

Curious as to why you think that.

For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

I'm sure there are a lot of things in life like that, in your life included. And here's a little secret, I'm happier, more fulfilled, healthier and better off for this steadfast belief.Now explain to me why that's sad, exactly.

 

[joffer]

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

That's just sad

Curious as to why you think that.

For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

I'm sure there are a lot of things in life like that, in your life included. And here's a little secret, I'm happier, more fulfilled, healthier and better off for this steadfast belief.Now explain to me why that's sad, exactly.

That's easy, for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous. Read it again.

 

[Jayrod]

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

That's just sad

Curious as to why you think that.

For you to say that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

I'm sure there are a lot of things in life like that, in your life included. And here's a little secret, I'm happier, more fulfilled, healthier and better off for this steadfast belief.Now explain to me why that's sad, exactly.

That's easy, for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous. Read it again.

Read what again.

 

[joffer]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

 

[Jayrod]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

 

[joffer]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Your term, not mine. And yes.

 

[ummich10]

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

Maybe we don't know 100%, but I have capital-F Faith that gods don't exist. That's enough for me to bump it up to 100%.

 

[dgreen]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Your term, not mine. And yes.

I think saying "nothing can change my mind" is more of a prediction that no evidence will come across his path in life that will lead him to believe that Jesus is not legit rather than a hard stance that he won't change his mind regardless of what evidence he comes across. In fact, he can't just choose to never change his beliefs. Either they will be changed or they won't be changed based on the evidence he encounters.

I guarantee if God himself spoke to Jayrod through a burning bush, surrounded by angels, saying, "Jayrok...Oh, sorry, Jayrod, with a 'd': humans have gone too far with this Jesus thing. He wasn't my son. I have not yet sent the Messiah," then his belief needle would probably start to move.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

Probably because they mean different things.

 

[(HULK)]

At this point in my life, nothing could convince me that Jesus is not the son of God. I think a lot of people in Chritianity are wrong about a lot of things, myself included. But Jesus is legit, of that I'm sure.

That's just sad

I don't think its sad at all. I don't agree with him, but I'm not saddened when people look at world differently than I do and think/believe different things.

Now, if this belief was leading Jayrod towards some obvious catestrophic mistake, I'd be saddened. But its not. He'll probably waste some time in Church on Sundays, but it'll make him feel good about himself and his family, so is that really time wasted? If he follows Jesus's example, he'll be a heck of a guy in my opinion.

I couldn't for the life of me find a way to believe what he does, but I'm certainly not saddened by it.

 

[(HULK)]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

Probably because they mean different things.

Sure they do. The issue is that they're NOT mutually exclusive yet most assume they are.

For example, I am both an agnostic and an atheist.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why is it so important to religious people to make this ridiculous distinction between atheism and agnosticism?

Why do so many agnostics insist on being considered atheist when they are not?

 

[Captain Quinoa]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!

It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Plantinga is ######ed.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!

It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.

Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.

 

[Apple Jack]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!

It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.

Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.

Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."

 

[JZilla]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

 

[dgreen]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!

It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.

Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.

Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."

Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.

 

[Apple Jack]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

 

[JZilla]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!

It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.

Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.

Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."

Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.

It's as pointless a conversation as splitting hairs about atheism/agnosticism. No such evidence will ever exist, so Jayrod is safe in his cocoon.

 

[JZilla]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.

 

[Apple Jack]

for you to say to that nothing could change your mind is intellectually vacuous.

so you think me being mindless on this topic is sad...is that what you are trying to communicate?

Of course. Don't you know that nobody comes to religion through careful thought and examination? Critical thinking is strictly the domain of the atheist!

It has nothing to do with where he comes out. It's the insistence that no evidence could change his mind. I'm not going to call it sad or vacuous. But it is, by definition, irrational.

Well that's fine. Like dgreen said above, I'm sure he means 'no evidence that I'm likely to encounter here on earth in this lifetime." Also I disagree with your first sentence. I doubt that if you had posted "nothing could convince me that Jesus is the son of God" that Joffer would have jumped in with the same admonishment.

Kind of defeats the purpose of saying "nothing could convince me."

Seems silly to assume he means, "No matter what I ever encounter in life, I will refuse to change my stance about Jesus." He doesn't have control over that. Evidence is constantly being presented and his brain is interpreting the evidence and reaching conclusions.

I'm not assuming anything beyond the commonly understood definitions of the words in his post. What's the point in saying "nothing could convince me" if that's not what he meant? I don't mean to pick on him, but it's only because others are claiming to speak for him and declaring that he meant something that is the opposite of what he said.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

No.

This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.

 

[Apple Jack]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.

I don't think that's the case at all. It's certainly not when I discuss it. Plenty of people believe the Bible is a work of fiction but still believe in the possibility of a deity.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.

On a side note, the bolded part is wrong. Even if a theistic deity exists, it's not logically necessary that that deity be the one that's described in the Bible. (It would be nice for people like me if you were right about that part, but unfortunately you're not).

 

[Hooper31]

This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

No.

This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.

Even based on the excerpt that Mr. Roboto posted, atheism didn't mean "someone who denies the possibility of a God." In that excerpt, atheist is clearly being defined more akin to "one who does not worship god." In some cases, as when the worshippers of the Greek pantheon and the Early Christians were each calling the other atheists, it meant "one who does not worship the right [in our opinion] gods." That's a lot closer to matsuki's definition in this thread than any of his critics'.

The reason why the distinction between agnosticism is meaningless is because it means nothing to construct a truth claim that is literally incapable of rational analysis and then claim it is as rational to accept it or not. That's the classic argument from ignorance, and it's exactly what Russell's teapot is meant to illustrate. And it's exactly why Plantinga's interview (and what little I've read of him from other sources) is irrational. He essentially argues that insisting on evidence is inappropriate as a matter of epistemology. So he defines his own appropriate standard and declares belief in God rational. Kind of like forgetting the rules to solitaire, but dividing the cards into random piles and declaring yourself the winner.

 

[Apple Jack]

This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.

Exactly. Atheists have more in common with theists in their decision-making than they do agnostics. Atheists and theists think the information is there for an absolute yes/no. Agnostics do not.

 

[igbomb]

This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.

Agreed. I don't even understand why this is a debate.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Do you believe in god(s)? If not, you're an atheist.

Do you think it's possible to know for sure that there are no god(s)? If not, you're an agnostic.

They're different things and not mutually exclusive. Most atheists I know are agnostic atheists, that is, they don't believe in gods but admit that it would be impossible to prove that no gods exist.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe that God exists. Could something happen that could change my mind about this? Of course. But until it does, I don't believe in a god. I am NOT unsure about this lack of belief. In fact I have no doubts whatsoever, because I don't believe that anything will ever change my mind. It could, theoretically, but I don't think it will ever happen, and I'm not unsure about that either. I'm extremely confident.

Atheist or agnostic?

 

[igbomb]

I don't believe that God exists. Could something happen that could change my mind about this? Of course. But until it does, I don't believe in a god. I am NOT unsure about this lack of belief. In fact I have no doubts whatsoever, because I don't believe that anything will ever change my mind. It could, theoretically, but I don't think it will ever happen, and I'm not unsure about that either. I'm extremely confident.

Atheist or agnostic?

atheist

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't believe that God exists. Could something happen that could change my mind about this? Of course. But until it does, I don't believe in a god. I am NOT unsure about this lack of belief. In fact I have no doubts whatsoever, because I don't believe that anything will ever change my mind. It could, theoretically, but I don't think it will ever happen, and I'm not unsure about that either. I'm extremely confident.

Atheist or agnostic?

Both.

 

[JZilla]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.

I don't think that's the case at all. It's certainly not when I discuss it. Plenty of people believe the Bible is a work of fiction but still believe in the possibility of a deity.

Is a deity a deity if that deity is not recognized or defined as such? Now you're getting into the definition of deity. More hairsplitting.

In reality we are talking about God here. In any case, it is all Bronze Age mythology.

Is your definition of deity a "divine creator"? Because I don't think that's really the definition of deity. I think the definition of deity is some guy who's already been fabricated and worshipped and killed for and all that good stuff.

 

[Niles Standish]

Agnosticism is a philosophically strong position. Atheism is not, because it asserts the non existence of something which we lack the knowledge to assert. Our knowledge is finite; to assert the non existence of anything in the universe which we know not of, is to go beyond our knowledge. Whether that is the non existence of a particle, or a corner of the universe where our physical laws do not apply, or even somewhere where something can travel faster than the speed of light, or other universes with different physical laws, is beyond our capacity to assert. We cannot assert the non-existence of those with absolute certainty. We just don't know.

This has always been my opinion. I don't care if you believe or don't believe. To each his own. If something makes you feel better about life that's great. Nothing wrong with doing what makes you happy. But it seems like religious devotion and atheism are about the same. You take an absolute position on something you cannot know absolutely.

 

[timschochet]

Question for religious people: how do you feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you an atheist regarding his existence, or are you agnostic?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

This is why the atheism/agnosticism thing isn't just a matter of splitting hairs. "It is not possible for a theistic deity to exist" is a completely different argument than "There is not enough evidence of a theistic deity to justify the belief in one."

It goes without saying that labeling the first one "atheism" and the second one "agnosticism" is an imperfect solution. Any time you put any label on a particular point of view -- conservatism, liberalism, materialism, etc. -- you always lose some nuance, but those labels are still useful shorthand. It definitely doesn't help when people try to conflate two different schools of thought as if they were the same thing.

IMO saying you are sure there is no god makes you an atheist. Saying you don't know makes you an agnostic.

Exactly. Atheists have more in common with theists in their decision-making than they do agnostics. Atheists and theists think the information is there for an absolute yes/no. Agnostics do not.

I really hate when people say this.

 

[Black Box]

The reason why the distinction between agnosticism is meaningless is because it means nothing to construct a truth claim that is literally incapable of rational analysis and then claim it is as rational to accept it or not. That's the classic argument from ignorance, and it's exactly what Russell's teapot is meant to illustrate. And it's exactly why Plantinga's interview (and what little I've read of him from other sources) is irrational. He essentially argues that insisting on evidence is inappropriate as a matter of epistemology. So he defines his own appropriate standard and declares belief in God rational. Kind of like forgetting the rules to solitaire, but dividing the cards into random piles and declaring yourself the winner.

I don't think this is a fair summary of Plantinga. I'm no expert on him, but from what I understand, he argues that there are certain beliefs that are accepted sans evidence. I think his primary example is "others' minds", but he also refers to belief in the past in the article. Other beliefs are accepted based on evidence or based on these other, more basic beliefs. He then argues that belief in God falls under the type of belief that is accepted sans evidence.

Also, his primary objective is to just show that belief in God can be rationally held, not that it is necessarily true.

I'd also be curious to know what the actual rules to knowing are, since your Solitaire example seems to imply that they are simple, straightforward, and settled. But I'm pretty sure epistemology has been debated for centuries. Plantinga is just one voice on the subject.

 

[Niles Standish]

I put the Bible on the same level of reality as the Greek myths and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology series. What kind of atheist/agnostic does that make me?

The Bible is irrelevant. Do you acknowledge that it is possible that a deity exists?

No. Of course the Bible is relevant, as logically speaking the Abrahamic God/Yahweh is really the "deity" we are all talking about here.

I don't think that's the case at all. It's certainly not when I discuss it. Plenty of people believe the Bible is a work of fiction but still believe in the possibility of a deity.

Is a deity a deity if that deity is not recognized or defined as such? Now you're getting into the definition of deity. More hairsplitting.

In reality we are talking about God here. In any case, it is all Bronze Age mythology.

Is your definition of deity a "divine creator"? Because I don't think that's really the definition of deity. I think the definition of deity is some guy who's already been fabricated and worshipped and killed for and all that good stuff.

I think you're being a bit close minded. There are many religions in the world. And there are many ideas of god or gods or even just some higher power just in this country. Many more outside of this country.

Atheism says all religions are wrong. But not just that. It says absolutely no sort of higher power exists. It's not just an argument against Christianity.