Does atheism discount all gods?

stevejazzx

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

Tyrrial

There's loads of unknown stuff, i don't think any of it is a god, but i have no problem with someone saying "hey, that unknown stuff could be god". they're almost* certainly wrong though.


*almost as sure as i am that FSM was also some how involved.

Sam Vimes

something (unknown) started the universe"

Doesn't conflict

and I am going to call that unknown 'god'.

Does. Why call it a god? If you are able to call it god it must be known which would contradict the first statement

Galvasean

I'm with Sam on this one. If it's unknown then why would you label it with a word which has a clear definition?

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm with Sam on this one. If it's unknown then why would you label it with a word which has a clear definition?

If there's one thing that's become clear from this forum its that there's no clear definition for the word god.

As for the OP if that's the position a person takes then they're not an atheist but rather an agnostic. imho etc etc.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

If it's unknown then why would you label it with a word which has a clear definition?

"God" has a clear definition?

I dare you to invite ten religious people to your house and have them agree on a definition over dinner

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

"God" has a clear definition?

I dare you to invite ten religious people to your house and have them agree on a definition over dinner

Definition: "The God I personally know is the right one."

I can has prize now? :pac:

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If there's one thing that's become clear from this forum its that there's no clear definition for the word god.

As for the OP if that's the position a person takes then they're not an atheist but rather an agnostic. imho etc etc.

God is pretty much whatever people want him to be and his definition seems to change as people's morality changes or claims about him are proven wrong. The latest one is apparently god sent a memo saying that people who commit suicide don't go to hell after all. How nice of him

seamus

OK, replace the word "definition" with "implication".

Calling something "God" implies at least two things:

1. An intelligence
2. Omnipotence

If you believe there's an "unknown" that started the universe, it doesn't need to have either of those things to have started the universe. Calling it "God" immediately applies properties to this "unknown" which it doesn't necessarily need to possess in order to have started the universe.

Dades

I wouldn't say "god" has a clear definition, but it implies at the very least that we can even attempt to define whatever that "unknown thing" is. Which we can't.

Naz_st

stevejazzx wrote: »

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

Essentially, are you asking whether it's possible to be an "atheist deist"? I've wondered about this a few times. I think it is both linguistically reasonable (a-theism: rejecting a personal God + Deism the belief in a non-personal, 'creator' of some description) and not necessarily contradictory (reject monotheistic Gods, but believe in a first "cause"/"creator").

Given the very wide range of definitions for "God", while I don't think it's innaccurate for someoone who holds the above position to label it "God", it is confusing.

stevejazzx

I imagine that something which 'starts' a universe is a 'God' in some sense if it knowingly did it? The problem here is definitions. Trying to second guess something obviously way out of our grasp is and then applying human like qualities to it i.e 'knowingly did it' doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. However if one starts with an assumption that as sentient beings any higher being (which a universe starter is by default in this assumption) is also at least sentient or able to understand such.
If this is a persons reasoning is his position irreconcilable with atheism? It's an interesting question I think.

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

I imagine that something which 'starts' a universe is a 'God' in some sense if it knowingly did it? The problem here is definitions. Trying to second guess something obviously way out of our grasp is and then applying human like qualities to it i.e 'knowingly did it' doesn't seem to be particularly scientific. However if one starts with an assumption that as sentient beings any higher being (which a universe starter is by default in this assumption) is also at least sentient or able to understand such.
If this is a persons reasoning is his position irreconcilable with atheism? It's an interesting question I think.

I don't think knowingly doing it would make it a God. One of the characteristics that few disagree on is that a God must be omnipotent but in order to knowingly create our universe something doesn't necessarily have to be omnipotent, it has to be exactly powerful enough to create our universe. For all we know we're just an experiment run by a lab technician in a larger universe where the creation of our universe is an easy thing to do

ScumLord

Id' still call whatever started the universe god and whatever allows the universe to work god. I don't know what god is but's it's certainly not some disgruntled ex Jew zombie. It could be literally anything, and until it's got a better name I'll use god.

Galvasean

ScumLord wrote: »

Id' still call whatever started the universe god and whatever allows the universe to work god. I don't know what god is but's it's certainly not some disgruntled ex Jew zombie. It could be literally anything, and until it's got a better name I'll use god.

If it could be anything then why label it 'god', a word which (okay, clearly defined was a very poor choice of woords) has many connotations attached.
'Something' is a much more appropriate word IMO.

Osgoodisgood

stevejazzx wrote: »

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

Perhaps you are describing pantheism? The universe is god and all that. Perhaps this isn't what you meant and if it isn't I'll just butt out.

I don't really see how one can define oneself as an atheist and yet attribute the creation of the universe (or of anything else for that matter) to some supernatural form. I don't understand the 2 positions but I'm not at all bothered by such a dichotomy.

stevejazzx

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Perhaps you are describing pantheism? The universe is god and all that. Perhaps this isn't what you meant and if it isn't I'll just butt out.

I don't really see how one can define oneself as an atheist and yet attribute the creation of the universe (or of anything else for that matter) to some supernatural form. I don't understand the 2 positions but I'm not at all bothered by such a dichotomy.

I don't think it's pantheism actually. I think it's more like some kind of atheist spiritualism. (waits for fruit!:D) Norin summed it up pretty well by calling athiest desim but that is quite poncy. Imagine telling someone that you were an athiest deist - sounds like life of brian.
The crux of it is a hypothetical someone who categorically believes all mainstream religions and gods are hogwash but who, for one reason or another, believes in a higher being.

Galvasean

stevejazzx wrote: »

I think it's more like some kind of atheist spiritualism. (waits for fruit!:D)

Osgoodisgood

stevejazzx wrote: »

I don't think it's pantheism actually. I think it's more like some kind of atheist spiritualism. (waits for fruit!:D) Norin summed it up pretty well by calling athiest desim but that is quite poncy. Imagine telling someone that you were an athiest deist - sounds like life of brian.
The crux of it is a hypothetical someone who categorically believes all mainstream religions and gods are hogwash but who, for one reason or another, believes in a higher being.

Yes, you're probably right. To each their own. I don't think the label is important anyway is it? Even something as "funky" as atheist spiritualism, is going to require explaining at some point and my interest in justifying my total lack of belief in gods, goblins and giant ocean going arks is usually zero.

stevejazzx

Galvasean wrote: »

Wow. Thats a particularly disgusting photograph.

Zillah

This is a turnip.
*gestures at turnip*
I'm going to call it God.
I believe in God.
Therefore I am no longer an atheist.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

This is a turnip.
*gestures at turnip*
I'm going to call it God.
I believe in God.
Therefore I am no longer an atheist.

Your turnip can create universes can it?
No wait, it can't. So calling it God is really is not deserved. Although I do like turnips, particularly pureed with carrot and parsnip, a little double cream fresh thyme salt and pepper..that's actually quite an awesome combination..maybe a turnip can be god. I see your point.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote: »

Your turnip can create universes can it?

Doesn't matter. The issue is there is something being entitled "God" without being identified as God.

Basically your friend is stupid or real-life trolling you.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote: »

Doesn't matter. The issue is there is something being entitled "God" without being identified as God.

Basically your friend is stupid or real-life trolling you.

Hmm

Firstly I tried to be nice with you. Your turnip comparison is the only thing that is stupid. Stephen Hawking and Einstein essentially convey the outlook I described.
It's not me or a friend, it's hypothetical as expressly stated from the start and then reiterated some posts later. Perhaps read the thread?
Secondly accusing a poster who has been on these threads for five years of trolling in the forum where he posts most and whose opinion is usually in sync with most other regular posters is on your part is, if we're bringing out the 's' word, silly.

Dades

I think Zillah was accusing, not you, but your 'hypothetical question poser' of being stupid or of trolling you - which is a bit pointless I'd have to agree!

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Your turnip can create universes can it?
No wait, it can't. So calling it God is really is not deserved. Although I do like turnips, particularly pureed with carrot and parsnip, a little double cream fresh thyme salt and pepper..that's actually quite an awesome combination..maybe a turnip can be god. I see your point.

What exactly are the characteristics that something must have to be called a God? As I said earlier, our universe could have been created by a lab technician in a larger universe where such things are easily achieved.

Or it could be that the creation of the universe is naturally possible despite what we think. We say nothing can be created or destroyed but maybe for every piece of matter there's a corresponding piece of anti-matter and some day they'll all crash back together and there will once again be nothing until they separate again. Would you call the separation of matter and anti-matter God?

stevejazzx

Dades wrote: »

I think Zillah was accusing, not you, but your 'hypothetical question poser' of being stupid or of trolling you - which is a bit pointless I'd have to agree!

Ah you know it's fair enough - I know Zillah can be a bit abrasive but the trolling insinuation ("...or real-life trolling you") was a bit much TBH. He has a lot of anger that young man:).

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What exactly are the characteristics that something must have to be called a God? As I said earlier, our universe could have been created by a lab technician in a larger universe where such things are easily achieved.

Even if it turned out that it was easy to create universe that wouldn't change the scope of how we define it as of now.A future revelation that something is different from what we thought doesn't make the meaning (in terms of how it was felt) different historically. In the future if we find out that all dead are not dead at all that they just different energy fields then that's great but it doesn't mean that right now we shouldn't think of them as dead. In the same way if 'creating a universe' makes you a 'god' in a hypothetical assumption now then that is not invalidated by a future revelation that universe creation is trivial. If we apply your logic across the board then nobody deserves a title for anything becasue futures peoples might invalidate it?

Sam Vimes

stevejazzx wrote: »

Even if it turned out that it was easy to create universe that wouldn't change the scope of how we define it as of now.A future revelation that something is different from what we thought doesn't make the meaning (in terms of how it was felt) different historically. In the future if we find out that all dead are not dead at all that they just different energy fields then that's great but it doesn't mean that right now we shouldn't think of them as dead. In the same way if 'creating a universe' makes you a 'god' in a hypothetical assumption now then that is not invalidated by a future revelation that universe creation is trivial. If we apply your logic across the board then nobody deserves a title for anything becasue futures peoples might invalidate it?

Not exactly. Things can be labelled wrongly but just because that possibility exists does not mean that we can't label anything for fear that we've labelled it wrongly. If something currently matches the criteria for a given label we can give it that label with sufficient confidence, bearing in mind that the label might be removed if new evidence comes to light

The problem here is that no one can quite agree on what the criteria for a God are. I say something must be omnipotent before it can be called a God but you say it can be called one if it can create a universe. Omnipotence is not necessarily required to create a universe, it has to be exactly powerful enough to create a universe, so the ability to create a universe does not make something a God in my estimation.

Before we can label something "God", we must first decide on the criteria by which we judge something to be a God or, as was said above, we could point at a turnip and call it God or point at a God and call it a turnip. So by what criteria do you judge something to be a God?

togster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So by what criteria do you judge something to be a God?

Whatever you want it to mean. Zillah says a turnip, i would say something different and so on.

A turnip is a turnip.

God is what ever you say it to be, therefore it is correct to call the unknown, "God" if you desire because the meaning of the word itself is unknown.
Unless of course you are a christian or a jew or a member of an organised religion. Then someone else's definition of "God" is the one you use. And that's easy to argue against!

However if you are an atheist and use the word "God" to describe the unknown, in a way you are re-claiming the word. Keeping it real so to speak

oeb

stevejazzx wrote: »

So if someone was to say (FTR not me!:)) "I am an atheist but I believe that something (unknown) started the universe" and I am going to call that unknown 'god'. Does this conflict with atheism in any way? I don't think it does apart from maybe asking some questions about how this person has come to the conclusion there must be an 'unknown' factor in terms of universe creation.

I think that if they try in anyway to personify this 'something', especially by claiming that the universe was created by an act of will in some way, then they are probably more of a deist than an athiest.

Sam Vimes

togster wrote: »

Whatever you want it to mean. Zillah says a turnip, i would say something different and so on.

A turnip is a turnip.

God is what ever you say it to be, therefore it is correct to call the unknown, "God" if you desire because the meaning of the word itself is unknown.
Unless of course you are a christian or a jew or a member of an organised religion. Then someone else's definition of "God" is the one you use. And that's easy to argue against!

However if you are an atheist and use the word "God" to describe the unknown, in a way you are re-claiming the word. Keeping it real so to speak

If that is the case then it is impossible to be an atheist because anything in the universe can be God. Is God the only word that can be applied to everything in existence or could I pick, say, cheese and call every person, place and thing cheese?

Reminds me of this:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/south-park-south-park-marvin-on-marklar/1999091525