What is it about God's definition that makes atheists not believe?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Do you not understand atheism? It is the null position regarding any deity or deities.
I have no definition of any god or gods because there is no evidence that any such thing exists. I am making no claims.
You are making the claims Ernie.
"The question is, what characteristics / attributes does God have (as YOU define it) that makes YOU doubt its existence?"
None, I doubt any god or gods existence because there is NO EVIDENCE for their existence. Is that clear yet?
Defining attributes of a god or gods supposes that a god or gods may exist. Without evidence that such a thing exists it is pointless discussing hair color, sexual orientation, skin colour of such a supposition unless you want to while away and idle hour or two in idle speculation.
He's trolling, Breezy seems to be in on it as well, unsurprisingly.
You're avoiding the question. If you don't believe in God, it's because there's something about such a proposition that makes you not believe. But obviously you'd rather try and turn a thread about my question to you into a thread about your questions to me and your (poor and obvious) avoidance tactics. Color me surprised.
No Ernie, I do not believe in any god or gods. There is no evidence for any of the thousands of gods mankind has worshipped, venerated or sacrificed to over history.
My position is clear: I do not share your belief in a god or gods because there is no evidence for a god or gods existence.
Please try and get your head around that simple concept. My faith button is in the "off'' position. I make no claims about any gods existence or not. If you claim like Breezy that a god or gods exist then bring along some proof and we will discuss it in a reasonable manner.
If you are only interested in childish word games and one upmanship, then just play with Breezy. I have better stuff to do,
You seem to be asking a variation on that tired old chestnut about "dying and meeting god, what would you say?"
I have answered your question as it is put to us.
You most certainly have not answered the question.
Ernie: Obviously, our responses have been too complex.
@Ernie Re: "You most certainly have not answered the question."
Hey, Ernie, what - if anything - would make you stop masterbating in public restrooms?
(That's pretty much the same type of question you presented in your OP. Have fun answering that.)
Edit: (After a brief review I realized my question is not entirely similar to the OP question. Therefore, in the interest of being fair, here is the amended question.)
What characteristics and attributes of public restrooms would need to be amended (and how) for you to stop masterbating in them?
Ernie Sandel "You're avoiding the question. If you don't believe in God, it's because there's something about such a proposition that makes you not believe."
False. A newborn baby does not believe in god. If you are going to bring "god" into a debate, you should define it first.
I don't believe that "god" has "(poor and obvious) avoidance tactics." That would imply it exists.
@Ernie Sandal: Obviously you have already defined God to yourself, otherwise you wouldn't have an opinion on its existence.
Do you have definitions for everything that you believe does not exist? Did you go to the trouble of defining unicorns, goblins, leprechauns?
@Ernie Re: "...You've already formed a definition, and you're the atheist..."
Hey, genius, WE (atheists) did not/do not define any god. YOU and/or your particular holy book define your god. (Speaking of which - by the way - you still have not specified which particular god we are discussing. You DO realize, I hope, there ARE quite a few choices out there.) Therefore, unless you provide some sort of specifics, your question is (at best) a moot point.
Ernie Sandal,
Personally I don't give a rat's ass if one or all of these gods exist. But since they are all imaginary not any of them exists outside of superstitious twits' minds. So which one of them exists in your superstitious mind and why should I believe in your delusion?
http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/listofgods.html
Bullshit Ernie
We discover things all the time BEFORE we define them. In fact, that is the usual process. You don't define something then go out and discover it. Oh, wait, that is what christianity is all about. Making up something and then saying that they have discovered it. You are one bassakwrd fucked up individual!
The question is meaningless, because for me, if "god" was possible, it would not be "god".
I see no one wants to answer the question. Instead, you all want to ask me questions or otherwise avoid the topic one way or another.
Nothing is the answer of course, you can't define something into existence, there is either evidence or there isn't. Why do you keep ignoring the answer?
I don't think any atheist can answer the "question" Ernie. It has no meaning.
It is obvious you have no understanding of atheism . No atheist has a definition for something they have no evidence exists,
I am not posting a "child's guide to atheism" again for your education.
Get your head around atheists have no definition for "god or gods" theists and deists do.
Ernie Sandal "I see no one wants to answer the question. Instead, you all want to ask me questions or otherwise avoid the topic one way or another."
Seeing as you won't say what you mean by "god" in the OP, and you won't elaborate, we'll assume that you believe in all gods.
@Ernie Sandal: I see no one wants to answer the question.
Try this Ernie. Your god is defined as eternal and unchanging, but the bible records a very important change: the creation of the cosmos, the earth, and humanity. God was alone, and then god was with but outside of the universe. I don't see how something that's eternally unchanging can change like that. Theists tell me that god is outside of time and the universe, yet he's always popping in to set fire to bushes, cause plagues, nuke cities, and impregnate virgins.
Here's another. God is omnibenevolent. He's perfectly good, the very definition of goodness. I can't reconcile that with the existence of childhood cancer, abusive priests, and various other evils affecting innocent children. It's really insulting to tell victims of these horrors that it's god working in "mysterious ways."
And yet another: I can't understand why an all-powerful being would have such trouble communicating his wishes to his creations. The Bible is full of contradictions, and there are hundreds of cults, factions, denominations, churches, etc., all claiming to understand the real truth of god's message. Those disagreements among our greatest god "experts" make me doubt the reality of the myth.
And of course, as suggested by the summary in my first post in this thread, the whole biblical epic is considerably less convincing than "Lord of the Rings" or "Cinderella."
Well done for being the only one to address my question. Could you explain in a bit more depth how the attributes that you mention make you not believe that God exists. So far your explanations and arguments are a bit basic if you don't mind me saying.
You seem to be conflating the idea of God itself changing, with the idea of God changing conditions (no universe--->universe).
You haven't explained how influencing or interacting with its creation (popping in) contradicts existing outside of the universe.
You've used the "if God is loving why does he allow bad things?" argument. I probably should have expected that. But you haven't justified that as a valid argument. You haven't explained how a loving god would not allow bad things to happen.
The fact that people disagree on various issues regarding God, you haven't explained how this is relevant. Humans always disagree.
Aside from all this, you're basing pretty much everything you're saying on christianity. I've noticed that a lot of atheists tend to do this. It may be more useful if you didn't limit yourself to one particular religion.
You still have not defined which "god" you are referring to. If you wanted people to give reasons for not believing in a god, you should have said which god you had in mind.
Aha now I see what kind of answer you wanted Ernie.
Well Zeus has always been a problem for me with the giving birth through his head thing, infidelity to his wife with other gods, and worse several mortals, killing his children and half mortal children, torturing them for fun...and those thunderbolts so fekking LOUD.
What would make me believe in him? IF HE ACTUALLY FEKKING EXISTED.
@Ernie Re: "Aside from all this, you're basing pretty much everything you're saying on christianity. I've noticed that a lot of atheists tend to do this. It may be more useful if you didn't limit yourself to one particular religion."
Well, considering the fact you did not provide any specific god reference in the OP, Algebe was pretty much being polite by referring to the most commonly discussed diety. And just how in the hell can you expect anybody to answer your "question" in relation to multiple different religions? That is just ridiculous. Good grief!
@Ernie Sandal: You seem to be conflating the idea of God itself changing, with the idea of God changing conditions (no universe--->universe).
Creation also implies change in the creator. Presumably god became dissatisfied with the lack of a universe and so created one. A truly unchanging being would create nothing. Similarly, an unchanging being would never feel any motive to intervene in space/time.
You haven't explained how a loving god would not allow bad things to happen.
I don't have to because I don't believe god(s) exist. But when Christians and others posit a perfectly good god, they obviously create the problem of evil. And I don't think I said anything about a "loving god." I referred to a perfectly benevolent god. I think that's part of the usual definition, isn't it?
Humans always disagree.
This appears to negate the quality of omnipotence, which is also part of god's usual job description. He can do anything except make people understand what he wants. I would expect a message from god to be perfectly clear to anyone who heard it.
you're basing pretty much everything you're saying on christianity.
That's because most of the proselytizing here is done by Christians. Is there another religion that you'd like me to demolish?
If you want my views on whether other gods exist, you'd better first define what you mean by a god. I can accept that there may be beings in the universe with abilities that far surpass ours. That doesn't make them gods. That question has been dealt with satisfactorily on several Star Trek episodes.
You seem to be suggesting that a god that changes in some way or that doesn't intervene would be one that you would believe exists. If not, then you haven't clarified otherwise. I'm sure you could mention many other things attributed to God, but obviously you're particularly fixated on those ones. Not sure why.
Again you haven't defined any contradiction between being good (or benevolent) and allowing bad things to happen.
I'm not sure why you feel that an all powerful god can only be plausible if it creates robot like beings without minds of their own.
And again, let's not limit ourselves to christianity. They don't have a monopoly on the concept of God.
What was wrong with the Zeus post then?
@Ernie Sandal: You seem to be suggesting that a god that changes in some way or that doesn't intervene would be one that you would believe exists.
That's a rather shallow conclusion. My position is that an unchanging god would imply no universe. There is a universe. Hence there is no god. Isn't unchangeability a key part of your own definition of a god? If it is, then I think you've defined god out of existence.
Again you haven't defined any contradiction between being good (or benevolent) and allowing bad things to happen.
That's self-evident. If you think it isn't, please explain. And I think I said "perfectly benevolent". Isn't that part of your own definition of god?
robot like beings without minds of their own.
Now I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I said. Christians believe that Bible is the word of god. God apparently has a message but is unable to deliver it effectively, so people misunderstand it. How do you equate the ability to be understood with the creation of robots? That's nonsense.
Now that's enough interrogation from you. It's time for you to put forward your own definition of god, if you can. Put up, or shut up.
Algebe: The god of the OT becomes angry (as do many other gods). A change from one mood state to another. His moodiness seems very human!
Chimp3:
Yes. He behaves like a dimly remembered tribal chieftain from the stone age. God's a moody tyrant.
"Kill without mercy!", "Kill your son! Wait! I am only fucking with you!", " Thou shalt not kill!"!!!
What a confusing mess!
How would you know if the voices telling you to kill the babysitter are real or not? Wait! I say too much!
Pages