That god is kind of embarrassing, and its embarassing when those believers are the face of religion. When atheists debunk belief in that kind of god, its a reminder that one is using words like “god” with supernatural baggage, and it raises uncomfortable questions .

Personally, I find theists who claim not to believe in the supernatural to be easier to argue against, not harder;-) However, that doesn’t make the supernatural move a strawman, because those embarassing supernatural believers are very much the face of religion.

Yeah, that verse from Proverbs is kinda rude, and I’ll bet that one verse has set off a whole bunch of atheists. I remember using that verse in arguments when I was a teenager. It’s no place to start a conversation, so I can’t blame atheists for grousing that.

“The fool says in his heart there is no god” which is about belief and desire at the same time. And I suppose it is also fundamentally rude.

For what it’s worth, my partner and I have this conversation sometimes. She would call things like ‘love’, ‘human relationships’, ‘the universe’, etc. “god” and I disagree. I believe in those things and their value, but am still an atheist, for all intents and purposes. She doesn’t see why I am uncomfortable with god language, if it’s put into that kind of context. And I don’t see why it’s necessary, if put into that context.

Don’t know if that helps the conversation or not….

Chance, how can you consider your beliefs as described to not be theistic, when panentheism means “all-in-God” (according to Wikipedia).

That’s what it sounds like to me. Please help me to understand!

The problem I have with trying to expand the meaning of words like “atheist” is that it just makes a discussion about theism and atheism that much harder. Shouldn’t we be striving to make words that actually describe what people believe? As opposed to words that describe so much that they eventually become meaningless?

I guess there are two things I object to. One is smug atheism, which is how I see the McCarthy definition. Atheists aren’t smarter than the rest of us. If they compare theism to stupidity, they’re being rude and don’t deserve a hearing.

My other objection is that atheists only get to define atheism as much as theists get to define theism. Both go back dozens of centuries. The definitions have shifted over time, and they will shift more still. Someone considering themselves an atheist doesn’t earn them the right to define the term. Nor does it earn them the right to define (away) theism. These words belong to everyone. Atheists don’t get to define the terms to their own liking unless everyone else does too.

The way it often plays out (in online atheism anyway) is that an atheist will define theism as belief in the supernatural. That’s certainly true of some forms of theism. But not all. Maybe not even most.

Making the supernatural move is a straw man move. Folks can not believe in the supernatural and still be theists, but that’s harder to argue against. I just want atheists to admit that there’s more to it than werewolves and tooth fairies.

A good definition of atheism won’t be condescending.