Spin off thread: atheists that believe in God

Heh, that's similar (but not identical) to the reality in one of my fantasy universes: the gods exist only because there are those who believe in them, and their power is directly proportional to the magnitude of that belief. I suppose you could say the text tackles the moral/religious quandary thereby posited.

The belief in an undetermined god or gods but not having a formed opinion about it is Agnostic (no matter what the version of god or gods is). Wouldn't the entire concept switch one from being Atheist to Agnostic?

veinglory said:

In many cases it would not. For the sake of simplicity I started with one example. Where the entity exists and its actions and abilities are agreed by both parties, but the believer considers that set of actions and abilities god-like and the atheist does not. Thus this athiest does believe in that god. I would argue that merely believing a god exists does not make the atheist a theist because s/he does not 'believ' in its godliness in relation to themself.

Click to expand...

But that would mean that the Atheist believes in bunnies and coleslaw, not god/s. This is really a play on words, not a belief in god/s.

There's a school of atheistic thought that says: gods don't exist, but it's beneficial to believe in them anyway. I dug it out of the Encyc. Britannica a while back.

My view is almost diametrically opposed: even if a magical creator of the universe existed and insisted on being our absolute moral authority, I wouldn't submit to it without some very impressive demonstration of superior moral bona fides. Or put another way: any god of the Universe must demonstrate through moral and ethical means that it is also the god of Man, and not of (say) Lovecraft.

.

I think that such an atheist could exist, but that he would no longer fit the word.

This is also making the assumption that worshippers have to believe in whatever god they are worshipping, which I don't happen to agree with.

In my religion (Asatru), no one needs to believe in the gods to do the rites, etc. In fact, my understanding that is the gods want you to believe in them, the onus is on THEM to make you believe. As long as you do the rites respectfully, you're a worshipper and reap whatever benefits the religion and gods can offer.

Thus, I have no problems with the concept there can be a atheist who's an active worshipper. Actually, I know many.

the one thing i do not doubt is the power of 'thought' as a primordial creative energy --as strange as it may sound to some, to me the creation of any reality (including ones featuring God or gods) starts with belief; hence i can easily accept that an endless number of them are as real as can be for as long as they are believed to exist.

God exists and rules in many such worlds, regardless of my acceptance or rejection of the possibility. He can desist only when his creators cease to empower him.

I would consider a 'god' created by people, even if it had 'god-like' powers, as it goes against the traditional definition of a god, which would include some kind of association with the origin of the universe/mankind.

In short, a godlike being created by man would by definition NOT be a 'real' god, thus while I could certainly believe that such a being could exist, this belief would not nullify my atheism.

The proper term may be 'idol'-a created object worshipped as if it were a god.

And I have trouble with the concept of belief impacting reality in any way other than the physical efforts of real people that the beliefs inspire.

Which seems to match my hypotheitic at least in relation to any gods you don;t personally give much credence or attention to. (Flying Spagetti Monster, Zeus...)

Click to expand...

not to belittle any god or credance... yes, any facet of the crystal can shine as brightly as the light shone upon it. I can believe that you (or he / she) believe -- therefore that it IS SO for you (or him or her).

Very good point Veinglory. I suppose that in a sense, god is real. When you consider the acts commited everyday in the worship/defence/name of god, the power that comes with the title. While I do not believe in a god, I do believe in the power and conviction of it's followers, whose numbers are fairly large. Their belief and willingness to act in it's name, creates this god, at least on one level.

Terry Pratchett addresses this in Small Gods I believe.

I'm imagining a bunny rabbit with a big long horn on its head.

It's real...isn't it? My imagination is real, but it does not itself possess Reality, but is possessed by Reality. A thing like God, then, if a product (rather than a source) of conviction, is something of the imagination, which makes it perfectly real. But not necessarily or ontologically Real.

What I want to stress now, though, is that people confuse perceptions of Reality with Reality itself. And the conviction in God certainly affects the perception of Reality, but the objective Reality still exists the way it actually exists.



AMC

Another possibility: that gods exist but do not have universal portfolios. E.g. Shiva exists, but is just a goddess of Hindus.

There's definitely a SF story lurking here.

I believe in the possibility of a being or beings so powerful that he/she or they may as well be a god or gods. But a being capable of creating and lording over a universe with a billion-billion suns? I kind of lose it there.

In The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, Comte-Sponville says something very interesting:



"All" is by definition otherless. If Atheists believe in no God, or have a disbelief in God, it seems that in this statement alone there could be, if one so desired, a source of spirituality. And the sense I got from his latter passages was that mysticism is the 'natural' way, then, for an atheist with spiritual sensibilities. He objects to the reduction of mysticism to mystification by saying that the mystery is in what we know, and cannot deny, which is being itself. That there is something rather than nothing.



One of my concerns, however, is whether or not elevating the All to an object of worship (even if not practically; by this I mean that by worshipping All there is still an understanding that the All is not, in fact, an object) is somehow making the All into a God-figure.



He opens up avenues for the discussion of Heidegger, Spinoza, and Wittgenstein; he strips Spinoza's nature of its will and delocalizes it so that there is no central Creator. I'm paraphrasing, in short, when I say that the All he describes includes nature, the sum of all relations (universe) and all the actual and possible points of view (truth).



But the mystery of our existence is our existence itself and the meaning of our existence is perhaps in its mystery. And from this mystery, from this inherent, ontological agnosticism gives rise to what I call "kommein," that which is shared by all. And from this [non]realization, he argues, must rise love and communion (which includes, because of the mystic aspect, solidarity with all humans) and prayer and intellectual awareness of being itself.



Not that I am surprised, but the foundations of his philosophy are nearly theological if what he calls being I were to call God. The main point I will make, however, is that no matter the language used, what he describes as being requires no belief, and not one iota of faith to worship.




AMC

Cool post...thanks!

On a related note, what about the 'believer', who, deep down at his subconscious, does not believe? Instead, he just thinks he believes (or wants to believe). Same goes for the opposite: the non-believer, who doesn't think he believes, but really does at the subconscious?

How does someone really really really know what it is they truly believe at the core of his or her being?

If you believe in a god, you are not an athiest.

And if men CREATED the god, then it exists. There'd be no question that a god exists. Doesn't matter if man created god or vice versa. If you believe, you're not an athiest.

Go to richarddawkins.net/forum
Us atheists will school you on what we think. LOL

By the way- I was overjoyed to see the different listing of the genre. Yay for atheism getting some notice!

Shadow_Ferret said:

If you believe in a god, you are not an athiest.

And if men CREATED the god, then it exists. There'd be no question that a god exists. Doesn't matter if man created god or vice versa. If you believe, you're not an athiest.

Click to expand...

So if I go out and light some sweet-smelling candles to a life-sized, sexy effigy I cast last week out of pale blue glass and called "Bouncy Nancy"... and if I "believe" in "Bouncy Nancy"...then I'm a "believer" and I can run for President of the US without being called an atheist?

I disagree, ferret, if man created a godlike being, it would be just that, a godlike being. I have no problem with believing in a godlike being, if it existed.

Man can't create God, as generally understood for two reasons;

One is that it has mutually contradictory attributes, as previously noted,
and
By definition God created man, not vice versa. A godlike being created by man would fail the basic definition of God.

Sarpedon said:

I disagree, ferret, if man created a godlike being, it would be just that, a godlike being. I have no problem with believing in a godlike being, if it existed.

Man can't create God, as generally understood for two reasons;

One is that it has mutually contradictory attributes, as previously noted,
and
By definition God created man, not vice versa. A godlike being created by man would fail the basic definition of God.

Click to expand...

Actually the complete confusion in the basic terms when it comes to what is or is not a god or a godlike being should be enough to suggest that when people say they are atheists and they believe in gods or god or God or Bouncy Nancy they should be believed.

For example, if I construct a nice silicon-filled goddess and keep her in the back yard and believe in her powers and devise fetishistic rituals and yet insist that -- by the definition of those who have defined terms such as believer and God and faith so that these terms exclude me and my faith in Bouncy Nancy -- I am an atheist, this seems to be no more than exactly true by the definition of those whose God cannot be put in the backyard and admired by strangers and friends alike for her life-like feel.