The word "god" or "God" means "I lick boot", and how it disrespects and devalues all life.

.

Today, under this meme, someone said:

"We were created. (but) No god exists."
---
In reply, someone said;

"The water is dry and fire is cold!"
--
They were, in other words, calling out that comment as a nonsensical contradiction.

However, that second person was, without realizing it, expressing a point of cultural conditioning.

We have been conditioned by our culture to conflate the idea of a grand designer/creator ... with the title of "god".
-So that we will feel as though we should (or must) *grant* the respectful title of "god" to a "creator" IF one exists.

However, we could discover and obliterate that ingrained psychological and ideological reflex.

Consider:

The word "god" is an expression of:
*reverent awe*.

If someone refers to the idea of a creator-entity as a "god" or "God", they are attempting to say two things:
1. Such an entity exists.
and
2. They feel some kind of way about it.

If someone thinks such an entity exists *but* does not feel like x-Entity is worthy of our reverent awe, then that conceptualized entity is not a "god" or "God" to them.

In Stargate SG-1 (a popular sci-fi series),
...
The Ori are meant to be a fictional parallel to our real world's Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism).

Their "gods" are portrayed as beings who demand worship and obedience from others.

Essentially, they define themselves as gods through their power and the faith they inspire (via various forms of coercion and psychological manipulation) in their followers.

A key Ori quote reflecting this idea is:

"What is a god, but a being that is worshipped by those beneath?".

This quote encapsulates the Ori's perspective, where power and worship are the defining characteristics of a god.

In contrast, the ancient philosopher Epicurus argued:

*Even if* any such being exists, a human would need to have a critically low personal standard for which boot they're willing to lick, to call any such being (a) "God".

Likewise, as the late comedian George Carlin pointed out:
The nature of our world, if designed, "is what we should expect from an office temp with a really bad attitude".

I've made this same point before on my YouTube channel.

"If someone were to convince me that 'surely there must have been' a 'Prime Mover' and 'Grand Architect' for our reality,
I still wouldn't count as a "theist", because that conceptualized entity would NOT be a "god" or "God" to me, because I'd certainly and fairly be far too critical to regard it as my "God".

That word signifies a set of emotional dispositions that I could never adopt.

Regarding it as "God" would automatically devalue the significance of all the tragedies (including, but not limited to, suffering) humans and (other) animals have been subject to, against our best interests, and without our consent.

In any case, clearly, we are, as a species, "on our own, down here".

If any entities wanted credit and conversion, they would have been here all along, to claim credit and also be part of a productive and personal dialogue.
But no such entities have done any such thing.

Religions are all predicated upon the idea that "I heard from a guy, who heard from a guy, who heard from a guy ... that some ancient goat-herders and slave-traders had a private conversation with the architects of our reality".

If any such conversations really happened, with any such entities, ... "it's none of our business". And we shouldn't "take that on faith", in any case. Because doing so = placing that faith in humans.

Nor, in any case, would that mean those rumored entities should be shown the respect inferred by the title "god" or "God".

I don't have a boot-licking fetish.

I don't have a slave-minded
desire to be owned; nor a
sychophantic adoration of power.

The nature of our real world ... would absolutely count as severe and habitual abuse, if a willful entity had the power to provide, protect, and heal (always completely and without delay) ... but chose not to.

Some limited measures of risk, struggle, loss, pain, vulnerabilities, etc... could be argued as necessary to maximize our appreciation for good experiences.
But not the extremes of this world.
No amount of desperately strained religious apologetic copium could ever justify that.

"I don't know if any grand architect exists. But it would be better for their reputation if they didn't."