Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[SalixIncendium]

This thread is inspired by some of the responses I'm reading in Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?.

For this thread, I am intentionally excluding the God of Abraham to get some sort of an idea as to the level of knowledge atheists have about gods beyond the Abrahamic paradigm.

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

I'm not even challenging atheists to tell me what they lack belief in that particular god...just wanting to see what they know about them.

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

 

[Stevicus]

It's been a while since I've read much on Greek mythology, although my recollection is that that pantheon of gods did not actually create the universe. Rather, they are descended from supposedly "retired" gods, though I can't remember if they died or just disappeared or what. So, as I understand it, whoever or whatever created the universe and set in motion the structure and physical laws which govern are no longer in the picture. This apparently leaves us with either their descendants (or some other beings of undetermined origin) who have a lot of magical powers and have sometimes been portrayed as generous and benevolent or other times as tyrannical, mischievous, and/or abusive.

I'm not sure what they actually do on a day to day basis. For example, Poseidon is supposedly the God of the Sea, but does that mean close micromanagement of every current, every wave, every storm? Is he sitting somewhere just watching the sea? And is it just on our planet, or is he to be found on every planet with large bodies of water?

Then there's the God of War? What is the God of War supposed to do? Does he cause wars or just fixes it for one side or the other? Why would there even be a God of War anyway? Isn't there supposed to be a Goddess of Love somewhere in the mix?

So, what do these gods do? They gave us good names for planets and the days of the week. Today is Saturn's Day. Next month will be the time of Saturnalia, which I heard was a pretty wild time back in the Roman days.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

Samuel L. Jackson works as an actor. He also likes using a certain word that I can't post here.

 

[Heyo]

This thread is inspired by some of the responses I'm reading in Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?.

For this thread, I am intentionally excluding the God of Abraham to get some sort of an idea as to the level of knowledge atheists have about gods beyond the Abrahamic paradigm.

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

I'm not even challenging atheists to tell me what they lack belief in that particular god...just wanting to see what they know about them.

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

The Great Green Arkleseizure created the universe by snorting it out.

 

[ChristineM]

Anoia is the goddess that looks after things that get stuck in drawers. She can be summoned by calling out the mantra "how can the damn thing go in but jam the drawer when i need it? Do i need it? Who bought the damn thing anyway?"

She also handles things that roll under other things and things that get stuck in sofa cushions.

She is thinking of branching out into stuck zippers.

She eats corkscrews.


Fun over...

Here are a couple that i like.


Aphrodite, Greek goddes of love and lust and associated emotions. The Roman equivalent was Venus.

Vesta, the Roman goddess of the home and family.

Minerva, another Roman goddess, of art and inspiration.

 

[Valjean]

Most of the Norse or Greek gods were pretty anthropomorphic, and went about affairs in their realms which much resembled human affairs. They were powerful, though, and could cause great harm to humans if annoyed, so it was best to placate them. They didn't usually seek to micromanage human actions and attitudes the way the Abrahamic Lawmaker/Judge/Jury /Executioner does.
Humans were more like occasional pets than God's obsession and magnum opus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

Not me. Pontificating on what some ancient society contrives is not one of my strong suites.

 

[Secret Chief]

not one of my strong suites.

Nor spelling

 

[Altfish]

This thread is inspired by some of the responses I'm reading in Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?.

For this thread, I am intentionally excluding the God of Abraham to get some sort of an idea as to the level of knowledge atheists have about gods beyond the Abrahamic paradigm.

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

I'm not even challenging atheists to tell me what they lack belief in that particular god...just wanting to see what they know about them.

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

I always think of gods as a way of explaining the unknown before science began to explain the world. There's thunder because Thor is angry with us, etc.
In many ways it then morphed into the 'leaders' being able to control their followers and then of course came money.

Now I'm not saying all religions are the same but many followed the above pattern.

 

[MikeF]

This thread is inspired by some of the responses I'm reading in Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?.

For this thread, I am intentionally excluding the God of Abraham to get some sort of an idea as to the level of knowledge atheists have about gods beyond the Abrahamic paradigm.

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

I'm not even challenging atheists to tell me what they lack belief in that particular god...just wanting to see what they know about them.

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

My memory is not what it used to be. I struggle with the details of audio books I've listened to recently. So, while I have had exposure to many non-Abrahamic belief systems as well as non-god animistic religions, I cannot speak about any of them with any confidence without looking things up to refresh my memory. Is that fact significant? What is your expectation for a non-believer of various gods or animistic belief systems? Should one have an intimate understanding of *every* religious belief system, and if not how many or why not none?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This thread is inspired by some of the responses I'm reading in Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?.

For this thread, I am intentionally excluding the God of Abraham to get some sort of an idea as to the level of knowledge atheists have about gods beyond the Abrahamic paradigm.

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

I'm not even challenging atheists to tell me what they lack belief in that particular god...just wanting to see what they know about them.

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

Thor, god of war and fertility. Son of Odin, ruler of Whalhalla.
Wields the mighty hammer known as Mjöllner and rides his chariot, causing thunder and lightning.
Battled, and slayed, the ice giants.

 

[sayak83]

This thread is inspired by some of the responses I'm reading in Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?.

For this thread, I am intentionally excluding the God of Abraham to get some sort of an idea as to the level of knowledge atheists have about gods beyond the Abrahamic paradigm.

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

I'm not even challenging atheists to tell me what they lack belief in that particular god...just wanting to see what they know about them.

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

They breed with humans and then put them in the Camp Halfblood...sorry could not resist.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is that fact significant? What is your expectation for a non-believer of various gods or animistic belief systems? Should one have an intimate understanding of *every* religious belief system, and if not how many or why not none?

I think they're significant, especially for the strong atheist. If one is going to reject all gods, shouldn't one at least have a working understanding of what they are or what they do beyond the Abrahamic paradigm?

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's interesting that the responses so far mostly discuss the gods of the Roman, Greek, or Norse pantheons, and that much of what was said can be learned watching Clash of the Titans or a few Marvel movies or comics.

While some of these are worshiped or revered today by some Neo-Pagan traditions, is known by atheists about the gods of other religions that are still worshiped and revered today?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think they're significant, especially for the strong atheist. If one is going to reject all gods, shouldn't one at least have a working understanding of what they are or what they do beyond the Abrahamic paradigm?

I'ld disagree with that.

If I have a specific reason to reject god X, and if that reason is a certain attribute or property that is deemed "impossible", then I could assume that I would also reject any other things (gods or otherwise) which also include that attribute or property.

That attribute / property here is "magic" or "supernatural" or alike.
So anything that is claimed to exist which includes the property of "magic" or "supernatural" is simply going to be rejected by me at face value. It doesn't matter what the rest of the claim is. Be it gods, ghosts, spirits, claire voyants, fortune tellers, voodoo sjamans, tarrot readers, astrology, lay on hands healings,... you name it.

It gets auto-rejected, ignored, cast aside,...
I know in advance it won't have any evidence and would require me to "just believe it" in some leap of faith kind of thing.

The very nature of the claim already rules it out for any serious consideration. There is literally no use in wasting any time or energy on pondering it.
We know in advance what the outcome of that exercise is going to be.

There isn't some unique reason for me to reject the abrahamic god which only applies to the abrahamic god.
Off course I could go into that lore and point out all kinds of things that don't make sense to me...
But that's not the main reason I reject it.

The main reason is not at all exclusive to the abrahamic god. It rather is for something it has in common with claims of any gods, any magical creatures like unicorns, or anything else that lives in the land of magic, the supernatural, the superstitious.


I really do not require an investigation into any and all such claims before I can reject them. The only thing I require, is identifying them as being that "type" of claim.

 

[MikeF]

I think they're significant, especially for the strong atheist. If one is going to reject all gods, shouldn't one at least have a working understanding of what they are or what they do beyond the Abrahamic paradigm?

No, not at all. What is being rejected is the treatment of fictional things as being literally existent outside of, and independent of thought. The category 'gods' is a collection of such fictions sharing some broadly similar definitional characteristics. One does not require any knowledge of anything in the category to reject any of it as fictional because everything in the category is fictional by definition.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If I have a specific reason to reject god X, and if that reason is a certain attribute or property that is deemed "impossible", then I could assume that I would also reject any other things (gods or otherwise) which also include that attribute or property.

How do you assign attributes or properties to things you know nothing about?

That attribute / property here is "magic" or "supernatural" or alike.

And you, of course, are certain that "magic" and "supernatural" are attributes or properties all divine entities people call God have?

If you know nothing about these gods, then how can you assign such attributes to them?

 

[SalixIncendium]

No, not at all. What is being rejected is the treatment of fictional things as being literally existent outside of, and independent of thought. The category 'gods' is a collection of such fictions sharing some broadly similar definitional characteristics. One does not require any knowledge of anything in the category to reject any of it as fictional because everything in the category is fictional by definition.

Do you think with the mindset that things not understood or not readily apparent independent of thought being dismissed as fictional would have been conducive to the discoveries science has made in the past few hundred years?

 

[MikeF]

Do you think with the mindset that things not understood or not readily apparent independent of thought being dismissed as fictional would have been conducive to the discoveries science has made in the past few hundred years?

Really? I don't think you have quite thought that through. Science requires "things" to investigate and try and understand. Something has to be apparent for scientific inquiry to begin.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Really? I don't think you have quite thought that through. Science requires "things" to investigate and try and understand. Something has to be apparent for scientific inquiry to begin.

I don't typically post without thinking things through. Science requires evidence, not appearance. Dark matter is an example of this. It wasn't apparent until early in the 20th century, and 90 years later, we still know very little about it.