/lit/ - Literature

>>6865911
9/11

>>6457152
>I feel OP's point is that the concept of a god is personally applied

You mean personally defined. You don't personally apply a god to yourself. That doesn't make any sense. This means atheists can not only appropriate definitions in order to reject them, but

>Because of it, atheism says more about the person's personal views of things in the natural world rather than their lack of a religion.

If definitions of god are personal, then one person's definition wouldn't impact the worldview of someone who disbelieved it. Otherwise someone who believed cheese is god, would not only impact the worldview of atheists, but other theists rejecting that god.

>This would mean most atheists are ill-defined and treat themselves, material things, metaphysical values, or other things as a god rather than rejecting gods overtly.

A poor definition of god means theism is ill defined. That atheism is ill defined is implied.

All your points can't be applied to atheists specifically, because they impact theism too, and in bizarre ways. They sound like fundie works, or Zizek, because I've heard both say some incredibly stupid things in this vein. And Zizek is popular on reddit, so maybe you're from there. At least Zizek recognizes that his definition is a unique snowflake, which is what I assume you left out.

Come to think of it, Zizek probably cribbed his position off of fundamentalist Christians. Precisely the kind of thing he'd do, not having a genuine bone in his body. Not his fault of course, all his argument strategies were born of hiding ideas like a faggot commie squirrel under Tito.