Do Jews, Christians and Muslims realize they worship an Atheist god ?

[koros]

The abrahamic god doesn't believe in a superior power. Doesn't believe he was voluntarily created by another force. He doesn't believe in any God. He is an atheist.

Koros

[ComestibleVenom]

God believes in a being greater than which nothing can be concieved. Thus God believes in God and is also the cadidate for the next swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated greater than which no candidate can beconcieved.

QED.

[B. H. Manners]

Originally posted by koros
The abrahamic god doesn't believe in a superior power. Doesn't believe he was voluntarily created by another force. He doesn't believe in any God. He is an atheist.

Koros



God is an atheist! Ha Ha Ha!

[logictrip]

God is a monotheist.

[conkermaniac]

Originally posted by koros
He doesn't believe in any God. Of course he believes in a God! He believes in himself.

[koros]

Believing in oneself doesn't mean you believe in "god". God, by definition, is our creator, a supernatural power.
From "his" point of view, god doesn't have a creator and is not ruled by a supernatural power and he is supposed to say that all the "other" gods are false.

He is an atheist.

[Peter Kirby]

Therefore, an atheist can do moral reasoning!

best,
Peter Kirby

[Jobar]

So, just what *would* God believe in? Is he a naturalist, d'you think? ;)

[koros]

Maybe "god" is ignorant about what is beyound his scope ?

[Drew J]

Granting that God exists, does it believe in a diety? I would say no because he does not believe he himself exists. He KNOWS he exists. So he woule be an atheist since he has no belief. However 'theism' can be redefined as "the view that god exists." So by knowing he himself exists he could then be called a theist for holding the view that he exists.

[xorbie]

Wow... a new all time low. I realize this is meant in sarcasm... but seriosly man.

*in the voice of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons*
worst atheistic argument ever

[Paradoxcycle]

Originally posted by xorbie
Wow... a new all time low. I realize this is meant in sarcasm... but seriosly man.

*in the voice of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons*
worst atheistic argument ever


why? i think he makes a logical point.

[xorbie]

Do you really? I am starting to become rather shocked at the lack of capabilities. God is defined as the creator of the universe, it is not a relative term. My car's God is not Ford. My t-shirt's God is not some Taiwanese kid.

God could obviously not have a God, because nothing created God. However (assuming God is self-consious), God would know that it exists, and would thus not be an atheist. Atheist does NOT mean: a lack of belief in the fact that one was created by something.

There are so many better (although I think all flawed) arguments against the EoG... why resort to nonsense like this.

[koros]

Theisme: the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.
Does "The [abrahamic] god" has a doctrine of belief in the existence of god(s) ? NO.

Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Does the "The [abrahamic] god" lacks of belief in the existence of god(s) ? YES.

There are about a thousand religions, and much more gods. "The [Abrahamic] god" denies the validity of ALL these gods, religions and belief. He doesn't believe in them, and doesn't believe in a creative superior power (to his).

He is a [very] strong atheist.
Koros

[Mullibok]

This thread definitely brings to mind the phrase "mere semantics".

[Mullibok]

Oh, and though you defined theism and atheism, you didn't define God. I dare you to find a definition of God that says "a superior power", the wording the OP uses.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by koros
The abrahamic god doesn't believe in a superior power. Doesn't believe he was voluntarily created by another force. He doesn't believe in any God. He is an atheist.

Koros

Not quite. If one knows that God exists, then one is not an atheist. Certainly God knows He is God.

Every single one of you atheists will meet Him one day, and He will explain it much better than me.

[wordsmyth]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Every single one of you atheists will meet Him one day, and He will explain it much better than me.

We are all tingly with anticipation too. :rolleyes:

[Tenek]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Not quite. If one knows that God exists, then one is not an atheist. Certainly God knows He is God.

Every single one of you atheists will meet Him one day, and He will explain it much better than me.

But God said he doesn't exist (http://www.jhuger.com/mystic_atheism.mv). Take that!

[koros]

Certainly God knows He is God.

If he knows, he doesn't believe. He doesn't *believe* in god. He knows, thinks he is god (but maybe he is not and was created by a superior power).

Koros

[Paradoxcycle]

Originally posted by xorbie
Do you really? I am starting to become rather shocked at the lack of capabilities.

Yes, and I think I was more annoyed at your overtly obnoxious, pretentious tone.

[xorbie]

I think I accidently gave this thread validity by responding. I thought it was meant to be a joke.... if only.

If he knows, he doesn't believe. He doesn't *believe* in god. He knows, thinks he is god (but maybe he is not and was created by a superior power).

Are you serious? If I know something, I can't believe it? If someone knew God was real, he would be an atheist? This has to be the most inclusive defintion of atheist yet invented. If I happen to know something, and someone asked me if I believed in it, should I answer no?

You see, for a Christian, Jew or Muslim, "God" is a specific entitity. It is not defined relatively as "my creator" or "someone more powerful than I am," although those both happen to be the beliefs of these people. So, as long as God was self-consious, he would be a theist, even though I am not particularly sure that any such label could be applied to God. Of course, it is a moot point in any case because it proves nothing.

[koros]

There is a difference between knowledge and belief; I just wanted to point it after reading your post, but I didn't strictly said that god is atheist *because* he [thinks he] knows.

If someone knew God was real, he would be an atheist?

No. Then it would be knowledge, not belief or lack of belief. It wouldn't be anymore a question of theism, atheism.

So, as long as God was self-consious, he would be a theist

Certainly not. Theism involves belief. God doesn't believe. He is suposed to know [that the thousands of gods invented by humankind do not exist, and he doesn't blieve in them - lack of belief].

Koros

[Mullibok]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth in the last post.

One part of post (emphasis mine):

"Then it would be KNOWLEDGE, not belief or lack of belief."

Next part (same with emphasis):

"God doesn't believe. He is suposed to KNOW"

You can conclude that people aren't atheists when they know God, and then presumably no other gods, but when God knows he exists and no other gods besides him, he's an atheist? Double standard!

[koros]

Well done Mullibok. You were more logical than I was.
I realized (too late) my mistake . I suppose this would have jumped out to my attention earlier had I used my native language.

Anyway, i'll keep this part:

[abrahamic] God ===> Denies the other gods ===> doesn't blieve in them ====> doesn't have a religion ====> doesn't believe in a superior power ====> Lack of god / religious belief ====> atheisit.

Koros

[xorbie]

Yeah, that's some fancy arrows. Still wrong though. Totally, utterly, completely, wrong. If God cannot believe anything at all, then the term atheist cannot even be applied. It would be like calling a rock an atheist. Or my dog. Are they atheists too? Because that sure would help our cause.....
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[koros]

Your dog is not supposedly the origin from polytheism to monotheism.

The abrahamic god is supposed to have monotheised this planet and atheised the polytheists gods, at least for a lot of people.

Greeks, egyptians, romans... were polytheist before the voracious abrahamic god supposedly came to reveal us they are all crap gods.

Abrahamic god lacked in belief in the polytheist gods, just as mondern atheist lack belief in "him" today.

From several to 1, from 1 to 0......maybe.

Koros

[xorbie]

First of all, even if by the most absurd, meaningles, semantic, word-and-meaning twisting argument of all time you somehow convinced someone that God was an atheist, it would not disprove God.

BIG if there though.

Now your argument comes to light. Of course God would be atheist with regards to another God such as Zues or Thor. They don't exist!! What kind of argument is this? However, the definition of atheist is not "lack of belief in at least one of the many gods out there." It is "lack of belief in any God."

I hope this does it.....

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Mullibok
Oh, and though you defined theism and atheism, you didn't define God. I dare you to find a definition of God that says "a superior power", the wording the OP uses.
Eh? I dare you to demonstrate that such a definition is incorrect. Non-physical entities are funny that way - there probably aren't two people who have the exact same concept.

Anyway, I think it's obviously true that God is an atheist, but trivially so. I don't think theism can be a reflexive position. It seems to require a belief in something separate from oneself. To say God is a theist because he believes in God is silly.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Eh? I dare you to demonstrate that such a definition is incorrect. Non-physical entities are funny that way - there probably aren't two people who have the exact same concept.

Well this is the first time I've ever seen that try to be used as a definition. A power superior to humans, sure, but a power to everything including itself? That's a new one, and it looks suspiciously like a strawman.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Mullibok
Well this is the first time I've ever seen that try to be used as a definition. A power superior to humans, sure, but a power to everything including itself? That's a new one, and it looks suspiciously like a strawman.
I don't see what the problem is. I can define "theism" as "belief in a superior power (or a power superior to oneself)." Thus, for any being B that believes in a superior power, B is a theist. If God does not believe in a power superior to himself, then God is not a theist. QED.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by koros
[B]If he knows, he doesn't believe. He doesn't *believe* in god. He knows, thinks he is god (but maybe he is not and was created by a superior power).

If that is the case (that knowing a proposition means that you do not believe), then I am afraid you either don't know anything, or you don't believe anything. Of course being from Paris explains quite a bit, but you are really reaching...

[koros]

First of all, even if by the most absurd, meaningles, semantic, word-and-meaning twisting argument of all time you somehow convinced someone that God was an atheist, it would not disprove God.
Here you go.
I didn't wanted to disprove god.

Now your argument comes to light. Of course God would be atheist with regards to another God such as Zues or Thor.
That was a part of my point.

They don't exist!!

Prove it ! (kidding).
What kind of argument is this? However, the definition of atheist is not "lack of belief in at least one of the many gods out there." It is "lack of belief in any God."
The abrahamic "god" lacks of belief in ALL the gods.
"Of course God would be atheist with regards to another God such as Zues or Thor. " ====> god is an atheist, as he lacks of belief in ALL the gods including the ones quoted.

You made my point this time.

Koros

[xorbie]

Let us say God exists. Now atheism with respect to that God would be a lack of belief that this specific God exists. Are you seriously saying that this God lacks a belief in his own existence? And if you can seriously say this, are you saying that it is possible for God to believe anything at all? It seems that you are saying God cannot believe in anything. In which case I believe calling God an atheist is tantamount to calling a rock or my dog an atheist.

[joedad]

God doesn't worship.

God doesn't pray.

God is a secularist and a functional atheist.

HAHAHA ... Too funny.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I don't see what the problem is.

Being an atheist would explain quite a bit of your problem.

I can define "theism" as "belief in a superior power (or a power superior to oneself)." Thus, for any being B that believes in a superior power, B is a theist. If God does not believe in a power superior to himself, then God is not a theist. QED.

That would be a bad definition and a useless point. There are many superior powers to me. Besides, assuming a strict definition, what if God is an atheist? So what? This God asks us to believe in Him. You will meet Him one day, and you can ask Him then.

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I don't see what the problem is. I can define "theism" as "belief in a superior power (or a power superior to oneself)." Thus, for any being B that believes in a superior power, B is a theist. If God does not believe in a power superior to himself, then God is not a theist. QED.

If you define it that way, and no one else does, then conclude from that that your god is an atheist, you haven't shown that anyone else's god is, so why should they care what your conclusion is?

[koros]

The vast majority of theism believe in a superior power, so its not just his definition.

Koros

[Mullibok]

Originally posted by koros
The vast majority of theism believe in a superior power, so its not just his definition.

Koros

A superior power to humans, as I'm pretty darn sure they would tell if you asked them to clarify.

[xorbie]

Koros, I will ask this one last time. If something incapable of belief in God (as you say God is) can still be an atheist (as you say God is) then wouldn't a rock be an atheist. Shouldn't my dog be an athiest?

[koros]

"Thanks god" i'm not your dog. Do you often discuss with your dog to know what it thinks ?
Your dog or a rock is incapable of building thoughts on this subject. It is not the case of the god that [supposedly] expressed itself on this subject, which lead to a clear conclusion about its atheistic moods.

Talking about theism or atheism in the case of a rock is irrelevent and should not even be brought in this discussion.
Its like if you would ask me, considering that since rocks don't have penis, if I consider them all to be females... this is absurd reasoning and I will certainly not reply you the "yes" you beg for.


Koros

[xorbie]

Actually, it would not be the same. I do not define "female" to be "lacking a penis." However, the definition of atheist is "lacking belief in God." However, it is generally assumed that this can only be applied to things for which it is possible to be believe in God.

Now, since God is omnipotent, it (by your logic that you cannot both know and believe in something) cannot believe in anything. Thus, it is incapable, by its very nature, of believing in God. So how can God be called an athiest? I agree that calling a rock an atheist is absurd... just like calling God an atheist.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine

That would be a bad definition and a useless point. There are many superior powers to me.
So add some specificity: something that has all powers that X has, and more (where X is the subject doing the considering).
Besides, assuming a strict definition, what if God is an atheist? So what?
"So what," indeed. I'm not the one who thought the OP should be refuted. It seemed logical to me, and it still does.
This God asks us to believe in Him. You will meet Him one day, and you can ask Him then.
Is it too much to ask that you drop the superfluous emotional rhetoric?

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by xorbie
If something incapable of belief in God (as you say God is) can still be an atheist (as you say God is) then wouldn't a rock be an atheist. Shouldn't my dog be an athiest?
Sure, as long as one employs a broad enough definition of "atheist." I don't see what the big deal is - it's just an extreme reductio ad absurdum. But I'm not going to start including rocks among our numbers because of it.

[joedad]

theghostinthemachine
There are many superior powers to me. Besides, assuming a strict definition, what if God is an atheist? So what? This God asks us to believe in Him.Stricktly speaking, would such a being be more atheist than theist or christian? This God doesn't sound like a christian. I mean it doesn't respect a higher power, doesn't pray, doesn't worship, doesn't keep the 10c's.

Just what kind of god is this? :) ;) :D j/k

on second thought....

Ah never mind.;)

[koros]

Actually, it would not be the same. I do not define "female" to be "lacking a penis." However, the definition of atheist is "lacking belief in God."
:rolleyes: Ok, then what about aguesis ? Not sure about the french spelling but anyway, it is a lack in the sense of taste. People with aguesis don't feel the taste of food. Lack of sense of taste is the definition of aguesis.
So is a rock aguesic ?
This will bring us nowhere, and as someone mentioned above, this is " reductio ad absurdum".
Maybe if the rock could express itself we could know, but until then its irrelevant.
It is not the same for the abrahamic god which expressed itself supposedly.

If theism is the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods, if a god is a superior and creative power [to ones point of view], then [abrahamic] "god" is a-theist.

Koros

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by Philosoft So add some specificity: something that has all powers that X has, and more (where X is the subject doing the considering).

OK. X is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, Eternal, Personal...


"So what," indeed. I'm not the one who thought the OP should be refuted. It seemed logical to me, and it still does.

That God is an atheist? That is illogical. God knows God exists - that pretty much puts God out of the atheistic category. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

Is it too much to ask that you drop the superfluous emotional rhetoric?

Phil...had you asked this from everyone here, your boards would be 99.9% empty, so I urge you to let me continue with my God-talk.

[xorbie]

To phil and koros:

absurdum is certianly the right word for all of this :rolleyes:

My point was not that rocks should be included, but that the definition of atheism should be limitied to "one who has the potential to believe in God but lacks belief in God." Is that good enough? I just don't see a defintion that would include God as an atheist but not my dog.

Same with that "lacking sense of taste" one. Obviously implied in the defintion is "human" or if you want to apply it to another species "alive."

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
That God is an atheist? That is illogical. God knows God exists - that pretty much puts God out of the atheistic category.

No, it doesn't.
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.
No, the inclusive definition is 'the lack of belief in a god or gods' where "god" is defined in relation to the person doing the considering.
Phil...had you asked this from everyone here, your boards would be 99.9% empty, so I urge you to let me continue with my God-talk.
As your comments don't break any forum rules, I certainly won't moderate them, or request that you cease in any official capacity. However, this forum focuses on philsophical and logical arguments about God. Your ideas about what God might think, or about what might happen after we die, are beyond philosophical discourse. They reek of smugness, IMO. But hey, if you think they're important to your arguments, I can't stop you. Just please consider the ways people might react to being preached at.

[xorbie]

No, the inclusive definition is 'the lack of belief in a god or gods' where "god" is defined in relation to the person doing the considering.

I see. So then you do concede that God exists? After all, if God is allowed to be subjective, how can I be an atheist? Is there not someone with more knowledge than me? More powerful than I am? More benevolent than I am?

Well, I might as well become an atheist :rolleyes:

I will repeat: absurdum indeed!