The Atheist DMT Experience

[Hyperspace Fool]

Theists-------Agnostics-------Atheists.

As HF has already conceded, many people disagree with that way of looking at it and as far as I can tell the words them self back up the people who disagree, since theist/atheist is to do with belief and gnostic/agnostic is to do with knowledge.

This is not what I conceded. I said that there are people who use the terms as you do. It is a bit of a stretch to say many. Of the 100 or so books I have read on the subject... ALL OF THEM use the Theist - Agnostic - Atheist spectrum. This includes all the big atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens et. al.

They are not on the same axis, throwing a position pertaining to knowledge in between two positions pertaining to belief doesn't make sense. Agnostic doesn't tell you anything on it's own, it is generally used as shorthand for agnostic atheist... but agnostic theist is just as valid. An agnostic atheist doesn't have any god beliefs, but doesn't claim to know there is no god either (how many people have any of you seen ever claiming to *know* that there is no god?). An agnostic theist does believe in a god, but doesn't claim to know they are correct.

Linguistically your dual axis model makes sense, and there may even be some merit to some ways of interpreting such labels as some seem to think (especially in agnostic circles). But this is a philosophical debate that goes back for centuries... it has pre-existing terminology, and this terminology is simply not your dual-axis model my friend.

Your assertion about "not having any god beliefs" is patently false as we have been showing over and over on this thread. One must have some belief in this regard if one is aware of the subject at all. The belief might be that you can't know, or that you can but don't know, or that you don't care to know... you can be leaning in one direction or the other... as well as have the basic knowing in the positive or negative. No belief is simply not feasible if you have thought about it even for 1 minute.

As it goes, and I hadn't bothered mentioning this earlier since I don't think it is relevant, I am a fairly strong atheist. Every god proposition that has been given to me seems to collapse with a bit of thought. The bible is full of contradictions and paradoxes, so I have to assume that it wasn't inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent being. Same goes for the Quran, it has less contradictions than the bible and has a mechanism for dealing with them which the bible lacks, but it still has many things which seem to be written from the viewpoint of an ignorant man and not from the viewpoint of an all knowing creator of the universe, so I strongly reject both of these... I am as sure about the non-existence of the Abrahamic god as I am about the non-existence of Santa. I still wouldn't claim certainty though, since really I don't feel certain about anything at all (and that's not just a handy escape route to avoid taking a stance, I just think claiming certainty about anything is naive).

You don't seem like a very strong atheist to me. A strong atheist would own that he believes there are no gods. You seem to want to say that... thus your Santa analogy, but you have hedged your bet with the typical (and very rational I might add) stance that you can't be completely sure of anything.


At any rate, since it seems you want to duck out of this debate, I will just say that the Bible and The Quran are not the totality of theistic conception. They barely scratch the surface really... even among religious theism. It is quite possible you might find a branch of Theism that actually makes sense to you. I would look to the non-religious concepts of deity. If your willingness to entertain the concept of deity is limited to cursory inspections of the Jehovah of the Bible and the Allah of the Quran, then it might be more proper to think of yourself as simply anti-Christian and anti-Muslim (again both very rational stances to take).

 

[Garyp88]

The term agnostic doesn't go back centuries, it goes back a century and a bit. The terms atheist and theist were around centuries before the term agnostic... so what was used during that period to describe what you would call an agnostic? What label would someone like me have had at that time? (hint: atheist) Dawkins has identified himself on separate occasions as atheist, agnostic, and agnostic atheist (if you really insist I will hunt down a video of him identifying as agnostic in an interview... but I'd rather you just take my word that he did). Hitchens identifies as anti-theist and atheist. These people are two of the "strongest" atheist's I have ever come across, I have read a book of each of theirs and they all but claim certainty, and in passing they will make claims of certainty on the subject (Hitchens when asked what will happen to him when he dies stated "nothing, I will cease to exist". That is a gnostic claim). Yet when it comes down to it they will still call themself agnostic if that word is introduced.

You seem quite intent on putting your own labels on me. I am not anti Christian, or anti Muslim... although I am somewhat anti-Islam and anti-Christianity, but these are not defining points of my character. I know those are not the only god propositions floating around, far from it, but they are the only two that I have investigated and the only two that I have had people try to insist I should believe. I don't have time to look into the thousands of religions humanity has conjured up over the millennia. I got shit to do

I don't have to take a stance on things I am unaware of. I have no interest in investigating every god proposition ever thought up. I am always happy to have someone try and give me some evidence to change my mind. Not necessarily empirical evidence, anything that anyone wants to call evidence I will look at. If you want to explain to me your stance and why you call yourself a theist them you are free to and I will give it some sincere thought. perhaps you will turn me into some form of theist, or perhaps it will just be another proposition for which I see no evidence and am content to reject it.

I'm not particularly wanting to duck out of this debate. I signed up here after a long time lurking specifically to respond to something in this thread, but I had hoped I could just tell you I was right and that would be the end of it (j/k)

 

[olympus mon]

HyperspaceFool, you say you have read authors like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens but you are completely misunderstanding what they are saying. I being an atheist as well as an anti-theist have great passion for this subject and set aside time almost every night to self educating and learning on the subject. Here is what I have learned.

Were you seem to be confused. Atheism doesn't not conclude there is no god. Theist propose that there is a God or there are gods. Since its is their proposal of an omnipotent being the burden of proof is in their court. All atheism says is that none of their proposed evidence supports their claim of the existence of a god. Atheism does not make a conclusion that there is no god.

We simply say we have seen no evidence, heard no arguments that stand up convincingly for us to hold a belief that a god exists.
A proper atheist does not include his her own opinion on the matter which is why atheism should not try to conclude their is no god. The claim can not be falsified admittedly by science and philosopher's so personal feelings or thoughts are kept out. We look at the evidence and in the case of theism the overwhelming lack of evidence. Since nobody can prove there is no god atheism can't and should not try to make this claim, but only can state that there is no sufficient evidence to back up their proposal that god exists. Therefore there is nothing to believe in. Non belief is NOT a belief! This is where you are most mistaken.

On a separate note, besides all the above points I made, the burden of proof being pushed onto atheists to dis prove theist claims is ludicrous as well as a weak tactic of theism. If someone claims that there are unicorns in existence its not the responsibility of science to prove no unicorns exist. Also the very label of atheist has been shown to be an unnecessary and made up word. For example there is no name for a person that does not collect stamps. They are simply a person, while a person who does collect stamps can be called a stamp collector and this is accurate. The term atheist seems to give credibility to the belief of god by implying that it is such a rational and debatable claim that it warrants a name for those who don't hold this belief. In actuality a person that believes in god with no evidence but holds this belief of the existence of god on faith is a theistic person but a person that thinks rationally and with reason is a person with no extra descriptive titles needed.

Also you said to another poster that they are not a solid atheist because they don't conclude there is no god but hopefully you see that they are very proper in their thought process and are what a good atheist is.

 

[Eliyahu]

IMO ......

The belief that theism is an intelectually invalid choice is still a belief no matter how you care to cut it. Therefore the notion that atheists are only folowing some sort of natural law of observation by not believing in what is not physically apperant is a deeply flawed argument....

in a sense Olympus Mon is right.... atheism does not conclude there is no God... Atheism concludes that it is an intullectually superior theory..and that in itself constitutes the very definition of a belief. The belief that all other beliefs are intellectually inferior.

 

[olympus mon]

IMO ......

The belief that theism is an intulectually invalid choice is still a belief no matter how you care to cut it. Therefore the notion that atheists are only folowing some sort of natural law of observation by not believing in what is not physiically apperant is a deeply flawed argument....

in a sens your right atheism does not conclude there is no God... Atheism concludes that it is an intellectually superior theory..and that in itself contitutes the very definition of a belief. The belief that all other beliefs are intellectually inferior.

Well for starters your first point was never brought up till now in the conversation of atheism being a belief which it is NOT. Again atheism is the lack of a belief in a proposed being, god. So if you wish to discuss the belief that atheist believe theism is less intellectual I'd be happy to do so.

The belief of god is based on self evidence, faith and emotions all of which do not fall under intellect at all so yes I would agree that I hold your stated belief. Not believing in god after looking at the data from observing our physical universe on the other hand is using intellect to decide whether you share a thesistic belief in god or not.

Next... ATHEISM is NOT a theory! I'm not sure how many times it must be correctly defined for people to understand what atheism is and isn't. Your so called flawed method of determination couldn't be more rational and responsible. To determine if a claim is valid or true there is no better method than observation and study of the physical universe other wise known as science. Its is not a natural law of observation as you put it, in fact there is no such thing. If there is a god, one that effects the world we live in then that god or its effects should be able to be detected or observed with the method of understanding and observation we call science.

 

[JacksonMetaller]

IMO ......

The belief that theism is an intulectually invalid choice is still a belief no matter how you care to cut it. Therefore the notion that atheists are only folowing some sort of natural law of observation by not believing in what is not physiically apperant is a deeply flawed argument....

in a sens your right atheism does not conclude there is no God... Atheism concludes that it is an intullectually superior theory..and that in itself contitutes the very definition of a belief. The belief that all other beliefs are intellectually inferior.

I don't think anyone is saying theism is invalid, at least they'd be dumb to think so. I think the main argument is that it appears silly to pick certain doctrine with no evidence. Out of all the possible religions and mythology it seems almost illogical to point to one and say "well THIS one is true but not the others." But of course that's just a belief. I'm sure some people have well justified reasons for believing their religions, but not all. Many are just sheep that take after tradition. I think why some people hold science in high esteem is that there is no tradition involved (at least there shouldn't be). It's purely unbiased observation in it's most true sense.

Also, atheism doesnt include the belief that it's superior. Thats just the personal bias that tends to tag along with our ego's.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

@OlympusMons

It appears that you have not read this thread all the way through, but are merely jumping in somewhere near the end. We have gone through this over and over and it is kind of beyond debate at this point as to the clear definition of Atheism that has already been established.

Since you seem to have missed it, though I will present a quick recap. Atheism is defined into broad and narrow definitions as so:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. "

It is typical for agnostics who like to think of themselves as atheists to insist on this non-belief thing. But even here, the broad definition is simply not a lack of any belief but a rejection of belief. It may be worthwhile for you to check out Atheism - Wikipedia for a more detailed explanation of broad v. narrow, weak v. strong, negative v. positive, and implicit v. explicit. It is simply not helpful for anyone to project the idea that your version of the word is the only correct usage... when in fact, this is not the case.

No one denied that you could use the term in a weak manner, but we spent a few pages coming to the conclusion that used in that way, the term is nearly worthless as it says nothing that the word agnostic doesn't already say. Now we have a similar revival here with Garyp88 and his insistence that only his usage of these terms (an interesting if not all that widespread 2 axis version which leaves us with 8 possible varieties of theist, atheist and agnostic) is valid.

The fact is, guys, that people use these terms all kinds of ways. My point is that sticking to the most well established and specific usages makes the most sense. This is clearly the spectrum of Atheist - Agnostic - Theist. In this model, all you "atheists" who want to waffle about their disbelief in, or belief that there are no, gods are probably more accurately agnostics.

I always love this burden of proof thing, though. It is as if I came on this thread trying to convince you that there are gods. I have not done, and will not be doing, any such thing. I have merely been defining here various lesser known types of theism that often include people who start off claiming atheism.

At any rate, there is no burden of proof either way... everyone knows that there is no proof possible for atheism or theism. Asking for the impossible is somewhat childish. The only rational stance to take outside of direct personal revelation is agnosticism. (Apatheism and Possibilianism are also rational). Proof either way on any universal scale is not likely to be forthcoming.

I submit that if you don't believe in gods... own that. Be an atheist in its proper sense. If you refuse to say you disbelieve, but want to cling to some "lack of belief" or "absence of belief" model, I have to cry foul. Disbelief is a belief. If you have spent time thinking about this... you have a belief. It might just be that you believe you don't have enough information to sway you towards theism and you default to atheism out of principle.

This is clearly agnosticism though. If you are Garyp88 you might want to call this agnostic atheism. If this was merely about rejecting claims, you couldn't debate this with people who weren't making any claims.

No. I firmly believe this is a Question. One that every human of more than 4 years of age will probably ask themselves even without any prompting whatsoever. The question is:

"Do you believe in G*d or gods?"

There is nothing to reject here. You simply answer yes, no, maybe, possibly, not sure, don't care, or whatever.

All the rest is just typical muddying the waters to avoid the issue. (A logical fallacy by the way)

Note that a god can be an ET who interacted with humans or even just the natural universe as it is without anything remotely mystical or supernatural about it.

 

[JacksonMetaller]

IMO ......

The belief that theism is an intulectually invalid choice is still a belief no matter how you care to cut it. Therefore the notion that atheists are only folowing some sort of natural law of observation by not believing in what is not physiically apperant is a deeply flawed argument....

in a sens your right atheism does not conclude there is no God... Atheism concludes that it is an intullectually superior theory..and that in itself contitutes the very definition of a belief. The belief that all other beliefs are intellectually inferior.

I don't think anyone is saying theism is invalid, at least they'd be dumb to think so. I think the main argument is that it appears silly to pick certain doctrine with no evidence. Out of all the possible religions and mythology it seems almost illogical to point to one and say "well THIS one is true but not the others." But of course that's just a belief. I'm sure some people have well justified reasons for believing their religions, but not all. Many are just sheep that take after tradition. I think why some people hold science in high esteem is that there is no tradition involved (at least there shouldn't be). It's purely unbiased observation in it's most true sense.

Also, atheism doesnt include the belief that it's superior. Thats just the personal bias that tends to tag along with our ego's.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Well for starters your first point was never brought up till now in the conversation of atheism being a belief which it is NOT. Again atheism is the lack of a belief in a proposed being, god.

It has been brought up, and Atheism is certainly a belief.

It really seems you have not read this thread or the simple to grasp wikipedia page linked to above.

Lack of a belief may well be agnosticism... but even that (if swept into atheism via a very broad definition) is still a belief. It is a belief that you have not enough proof to sway you from your default position that there are no gods.

Note to JM: There are (as I have discussed here many times) plenty of branches of theism that are non-religious. It is very possible to reject all religions and be firmly anti-religion and still be a theist.

 

[JacksonMetaller]

Disbelief is a belief. If you have spent time thinking about this... you have a belief. It might just be that you believe you don't have enough information to sway you towards theism and you default to atheism out of principle.

I have spent time thinking about it. I came to the conclusion "I don't know." By such a statement I "have no belief in God." Or I "do not believe in god." But also by that statement I acknowledge a lack of knowledge and therefor a lack of belief. And that's why not believing is not the same as believing something "is not" which makes atheism, by literal definition, capable of both passive and aggressive stances. I won't argue it in a historical context, but if you want to go strictly by language that's what it is.

Also, hyperspace fool... you keep referencing the wikipedia article. I already referenced my defense in the same article and you still seem to be ignoring it.

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." That was the sentence RIGHT after the ones you quoted.

 

[Eliyahu]

Olypus Mon wrote:

If there is a god, one that effects the world we live in then that god or its effects should be able to be detected or observed with the method of understanding and observation we call science.

I absolutely agree with that...what I don't agree with is the belief that the scientific method is a flawless method of observation...

I don't actually think people understand the full potential of their observational powers and I believe that this is part of what psychedelics clearly demonstrate to us...

By assuming that it is imossible to see god you are asserting that your observational potential as a living being has been fully realized. I'm sure you noticed by now from taking DMT that it has not.

You are seriously believeing that there is not more to the story of reality than what your eyes plainly percieve there to be in sober reality?

It is a widely accepted idea in modern psychology that humans see what they want to see. How then could human being possibly be recieving a comepletely accuarate picture of reality as it truly exists outside of perceptual interpretations?

 

[SnozzleBerry]

I guess my question for all of the atheists who claim that they are merely stating that the theists have failed to provide adequate evidence of god (which, by itself runs counter to the whole faith thing, no?)...what do you believe?

Do you claim to have no belief with regards to god, other than that the theists have presented inadequate evidence? Not in the slightest? Not at all? Really?

Personally, I just can't imagine occupying such a space...given the multitude of assumptions we make on a daily basis, by which we live our lives, it seems (to me) to be an "unhuman" feat.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Disbelief is a belief. If you have spent time thinking about this... you have a belief. It might just be that you believe you don't have enough information to sway you towards theism and you default to atheism out of principle.

I have spent time thinking about it. I came to the conclusion "I don't know." By such a statement I "have no belief in God." Or I "do not believe in god." But also by that statement I acknowledge a lack of knowledge and therefor a lack of belief. And that's why not believing is not the same as believing something "is not" which makes atheism, by literal definition, capable of both passive and aggressive stances. I won't argue it in a historical context, but if you want to go strictly by language that's what it is.

Also, hyperspace fool... you keep referencing the wikipedia article. I already referenced my defense in the same article and you still seem to be ignoring it.

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." That was the sentence RIGHT after the ones you quoted.

I didn't ignore it. I specifically said that the broadest, most inclusive and weak definitions of atheism were basically worthless.

I said that using the word in such a way that I (an anti-religion theist who disdains belief and faith in favor of direct experience) fall under the category of atheism... is ludicrous and counter-productive.

I understand that this thread is long, and my posts have been long... it is possible you simply did not read them. I referenced the wikipedia article so that people who continue to cling to one definition of atheism can see the many facets and ranges and come to understand that the way I am using these words is not only valid, but historically the most common.

While others like yourself seem to be insisting that we adopt your broad or implicit definitions of atheism, I have always acknowledged that you have a right to your usage. It has precedence and people do use the word in that way from time to time. I merely state that IMO it is a waste of time to open up the word so broadly that it looses any real meaning. This is a prevailing opinion among theologians and philosophers.

All of you "non-belief" folk can call yourselves atheists if you like... but you are still agnostics. And deciding to not believe something is still a decision made based on a belief.

You can not escape it. You believe something here. It may be that you only believe that you have not heard any convincing arguments in favor of theism. It may be that the concept of deities is not worth having a specific belief about. But you can not simply have no belief AND call yourself a member of an ISM. If you self-identify as an atheist... you believe something.

If not, you would be rather silly to form clubs, create camps, write and read books, attend lectures based on a mutual absence of belief. It is laughable. To publicly announce to all and sundry that you are an atheist (without god) and then spend time and energy to defend some wishy washy middle ground null belief... is beyond pointless.

You said earlier your answer to the fundamental question was "You Don't Know." That is not atheism. That is the definition of an agnostic. Why the push to turn your agnosticism into atheism?

Perhaps it is the other way around. Maybe you are an atheist but you want to have the rationally defensible stance of agnosticism because it is painfully clear that true atheism is just as indefensible as theism. Thus, this passionate push to have the word atheism stretched to include all of agnosticism.

What would you say if someone started a worldwide community with clubs, newsletters, texts, magazines and even summer camps around some other non-belief? How about "We have no particular belief in whether dragons exist -ism?"

I hope you realize that this makes no sense. My feeling... along with many other philosophers... is that atheism should be reserved for people who explicitly disbelieve in gods.

Again, you guys can use the term how you like.

 

[Garyp88]

I guess my question for all of the atheists who claim that they are merely stating that the theists have failed to provide adequate evidence of god (which, by itself runs counter to the whole faith thing, no?)...what do you believe?

Do you claim to have no belief with regards to god, other than that the theists have presented inadequate evidence? Not in the slightest? Personally, I just can't imagine occupying such a space...given the multitude of assumptions we make on a daily basis, by which we live our lives, it seems (to me) to be an "unhuman" feat.

Personally I believe the claims about a god made by the major mono-theistic religions are almost certainly false. As for the very broad concept of some kind of sentient something outside of our universe that initiated the state of affairs that we see around us, I really don't know... I hold no belief, for all I know we were farted out of the tail end of a hyperdimensional babel fish. Who knows? When it gets to more specific things, like a god who is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient and has an active interest in what we are doing I am inclined to again go to "almost certainly false" since the state of affairs on earth does not suggest that there is an omnibenevolent being keeping an eye on us.

You use the word "god" as if we should know what you mean. "God" is a meaningless word until you start giving it attributes (such as omnipotence, or that it is the creator). Some people think there is a god that has no role in our universe, some people think the polar opposite and think god is something that will punish you for thinking about bonking your next door neighbours wife.

If by god you mean just "some entity outside of our universe" then I think such a thing is quite likely, but that isn't "god" in the sense a lot of people use the word. It is a highly charged word with hundreds of different meanings to different people.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Personally I believe the claims about a god made by the major mono-theistic religions are almost certainly false.

Yes...but this is essentially the antithesis of what I asked...

Even among theistic groups, we find widely varied definitions of god, so I see no reason to give it a rigid definition here.

I'm not interested in what you believe about other people's beliefs...only what you believe with regards to the vague abstraction that is the concept of "god".

 

[Garyp88]

Personally I believe the claims about a god made by the major mono-theistic religions are almost certainly false.

Yes...but this is essentially the antithesis of what I asked...

Even among theistic groups, we find widely varied definitions of god, so I see no reason to give it a rigid definition here.

I'm not interested in what you believe about other people's beliefs...only what you believe with regards to the vague abstraction that is "god".

I don't know what you mean by "god". I have told you where I stand on various attributes that I have heard given. I have no belief about "the vague abstraction that is "god"". I'm not just trying to dodge here, I genuinely don't know what you are asking me... I answered to the best of my ability.

And incidentally, you quote one part of what I said and call it the antithesis of what you asked... but that was just one part, I tried to cover every angle I could think of. You are asking me to cover angles that I am not aware of.

 

[anrchy]

I'm not atheist. I'm more or less agnostic. My thing is, that I really don't think we have even the slightest understanding of what a god/gods are if they do exist and the whole idea of "worship" IMO seems like a negative way to go about practicing religion.

The way that's it's explained, generally, is that there's a heirarchal design in everything. God then angels then us so on an so forth. This seems more like a humans outlook and design on how things work. Everything we do is designed like this. Parents are the gods. Your boss is the god. The president is the god. We are gods.

Spiritually I accept that it is beyond my current comprehension and accept the possibility that there is a "higher power" for lack of better terminology.

Scientifically it sounds very silly, and no perfect system would work in such a low grade humanistic way, such a crap design.

 

[olympus mon]

Olypus Mon wrote:

If there is a god, one that effects the world we live in then that god or its effects should be able to be detected or observed with the method of understanding and observation we call science.

I absolutely agree with that...what I don't agree with is the belief that the scientific method is a flawless method of observation...

I don't actually think people understand the full potential of their observational powers and I believe that this is part of what psychedelics clearly demonstrate to us...

By assuming that it is imossible to see god you are asserting that your observational potential as a living being has been fully realized. I'm sure you noticed by now from taking DMT that it has not.

You are seriously believeing that there is not more to the story of reality than what your eyes plainly percieve there to be in sober reality?

It is a widely accepted idea in modern psychology that humans see what they want to see. How then could human being possibly be recieving a comepletely accuarate picture of reality as it truly exists outside of perceptual interpretations?

No my brother I don't feel the scientific method is flawless nor would any scientist but I will assert its constantly the best method we have to understand the physical universe and reality, utilizing redundancy and peer review to come up with the most accurate information we can at this time. Of coarse its not flawless if it was theories would never be overturned and conclusions would never contradict each other over time. What is so wonderful about science is that it allows this all to happen and keeps biased opinions out.
I certainly don't think for something to exist it must be observable by my eye's. Dark matter is impossible to be seen as many other things such as gluons or other sub atomic particles but they can all be detected and measured once we figured out how to do so. There are many many things that can't be seen but can be studied or detected. if god exists there is no reason why the same shouldn't apply to it.

As far as if I think all there is to this thing we call reality is what we see again no way Jose but what I don't do is assert a god inti the gaps of our current understanding. I'm just much more strict about taking on a belief than maybe yourself or others after years of being duped by new age ideas and judeo christian dogmas. If its real I'd like to see some evidence for it that's all. If we dont understand something as a species I'm not ready to call in god from the bench.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

In the interest of not rehashing the "what is the definition of Atheism" debate until the cows come home, I will direct you to this post The Atheist DMT Experience - Welcome discussion - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus

There are links there and significant evidence to show that in basic English usage, in philosophy, and in theology Atheism is typically used in the narrow and explicit sense that I have been talking about.

Now... on to the definition of deity.

We have come back around it seems to the question of what is meant by the word god. You will note that typically we talk about (a)theism in reference to belief in G*d or gods. Those are two different categories of deity. Typically when used with a capital letter, it signifies a monotheistic or at least omnipotent deity... also generally associated with a modern religion, but can be used in non-religious ways by Deists, Pantheists, Panentheists etc. With a lower case g it can refer to any being that is more powerful than humans and has enjoyed worship or inspired fear.

I posted this link before, but it is probably worth posting again as people seem to have reverted back to talking about G*d in solely Abrahamic religious terms. Conceptions of God - Wikipedia

This is just a basic primer, and mostly deals with religious conceptions... but it includes Extra-Terrestrials and a decent variety of atypical theistic belief. It is worth going on and reading up on the various other branches of theism as well. Not believing something that you have not given serious consideration is not an example of critical thinking IMO.

I, for instance, used to consider myself something of a transtheist... until my experiences forced me to modify that stance.

Anyway, have at it. I hope this clarifies to some extent what is meant by the term god. As well as what it truly means to be an atheist.

 

[Garyp88]

As well as what it truly means to be an atheist.

According to you

(I know, round and round we go)