Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[Copernicus]

What makes a god-concept non-Abrahamic is the existence of people who consider it a god-concept and its origin coming from outside of the Abrahamic traditions.

I asked you to explain the difference between what I listed as concepts associated with gods and the unexplained non-Abrahamic concept. I never questioned the existence of non-Abrahamic traditions. How are those other traditions different in a way that bears on my list of attributes of a deity?

Examples include the Japanese Kami, the Hindu Deva, the Greek and Roman Pantheons, the African Orisha, the Egyptian Deities (which include Isis, Osiris and Horus), Zoroastrianism's Ahura Mazda, the god-conceptions from Deism, Pantheism and Panentheism, the Mesopotamian deities (including Marduk and Inanna), and who knows how many others.

There are no meaningful formal boundaries and no well agreed requirements or properties to establish what does qualify and what does not, mainly because the traditions that establish them are so many and so varied in premises, natures, means and goals.

Yes, but my list was not about any specific god or gods. It was a non-comprehensive list of attributes that we commonly associate with gods generally, no matter what the tradition. Then I was informed that I was only talking about the Abrahamic god. If you believe that, then tell me how the other ones are different. I can come up with even more examples, since there have been thousands of religions. What they have in common is the god concept associated with most attributes on my list. You were responding to a list that I posted, claiming that it only pertained to the Abrahamic concept.

The eleven-items list from post #53?

I may have misunderstood what you meant to say with that list, then. I thought you were making a list of required attributes. Instead, it seems that you meant to make a list of varied claims that won't necessarily happen together.

Yes, that was the list your post was responding to. I described the list as "properties we typically associate with [gods]". I meant it to characterize the concept of a god that I, an atheist, have in mind when I say I reject belief in gods. Not every religion in the world has to associate every attribute on my list with their specific gods, but most of them. That is what allows us to translate their description of their religious entity as "god" in the English language.

I consider "god" and "deity" free-styled, not inherently meaningful terms. It isn't really reasonable to use the same word for the Abrahamic entities as well as the Devas and the Kami, for instance. Extending the concept to include, for instance, the Boddhisatvas further dissolves any inherent meaning that the word might have hypothetically had.

If there is a general meaning for those words, it must be that there are people willing to lend them meaning.

Well, people are, because that is what they do when they use words in a language. You yourself agreed that there are a great many different religions with different gods out there. Why do you make such a claim if you don't see some commonality of meaning between those entities and the ones you are most familiar with? There has to be some common core of meaning for the word "god" that allows you to do that. My list was just a preliminary attempt to do that.

Did it occur to you that the reason why I've been limiting my comments in this thread is because I'm not an atheist and this thread is specifically intended for atheists to describe their ideas and knowledge about gods? I stayed out of this thread for a long time because I didn't feel like it was my place to post in it. I still don't. And that's the main reason why I am "avoiding" what you are asking. Put it into a new thread and we'll see - there's a lot to discuss and share there, just don't expect me to debate as that's really not my thing.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that you did comment on my specific post. So that led me to believe you were trying to tell me something about why my list was being called "Abrahamic", and so I assumed you were agreeing with the others that the list was skewed in that direction. I may have misinterpreted your comment, so I apologize if I misconstrued your point.

To add, I don't fully agree with what Salix said about your list, so please do not lump my thoughts in with theirs; we're not the same person.

Thanks for the clarification. I should not have lumped you together with the others.

I know that, hence the defeatist "oh well" at the end there? But it really should not be too much to ask for basic respect. If I had a dollar for every time I've more or less been told to shut up because Pagan theology doesn't look like Abrahamic theology and is therefore irrelevant, I would have a lot more of my mortgage paid off. If it were just the cultural hegemony that would be one thing; it's annoying, but it is what it is. But feeling erased, ignored, dismissed, and denigrated? From both Abrahamic theists and their atheist detractors who should damned well know better given they have to deal with similar crap as a minority group?

It sucks.

It often feels like nobody listens and nobody cares. That sucks.

And responses like this are kind of an unfortunate example of exactly what I'm talking about there. It's totally not that society should maybe be more considerate of human diversity, it's totally that minority groups should just suck it.

Okay, meh, nothing new there. It's practically a favorite pass time of humanity. Yay.

Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure the Kami even are gods. They are a good example of non Abrahamic, non Western concepts at the edge of a possible common understanding. Kami are, in my understanding, more like animist spirits then they are like Western (including polytheist) gods.

I quite agree. All the same, at the end of the day it is quite the arbitrary call either way.

 

[LuisDantas]

I asked you to explain the difference between what I listed as concepts associated with gods and the unexplained non-Abrahamic concept. I never questioned the existence of non-Abrahamic traditions. How are those other traditions different in a way that bears on my list of attributes of a deity?

That may depend on how you intend to use your list.

But you are really asking two questions here; "how they are different" is answerable with "very much indeed". IMO even attempting "compare gods" misses the point of most other traditions entirely.

Which means that the list is, unfortunately, of very limited use. It ends up being a collection of Abrahamic expectations that might with some effort and liberty be projected into non-Abrahamic traditions.

Not sure there is a positive reason to make the attempt.

Yes, but my list was not about any specific god or gods. It was a non-comprehensive list of attributes that we commonly associate with gods generally, no matter what the tradition.

That may perhaps have been the intent. In that case, I have to say that it failed utterly.

Perhaps because there is no such thing as a true "general" understanding of divine attributes. There is instead a strong lobby of Abrahamic creeds to build one at the expense of the actual traits and structure of other traditions, and I do not want to lend undue validity to that lobby.

Then I was informed that I was only talking about the Abrahamic god. If you believe that, then tell me how the other ones are different. I can come up with even more examples, since there have been thousands of religions. What they have in common is the god concept associated with most attributes on my list.

Sorry, but that is not even in the same galaxy of the truth. Particularly the part that I emphasize.

For starters, it is very questionable indeed whether it even makes sense to speak of "gods" generally.

You were responding to a list that I posted, claiming that it only pertained to the Abrahamic concept.

Quite.

Yes, that was the list your post was responding to. I described the list as "properties we typically associate with [gods]". I meant it to characterize the concept of a god that I, an atheist, have in mind when I say I reject belief in gods. Not every religion in the world has to associate every attribute on my list with their specific gods, but most of them. That is what allows us to translate their description of their religious entity as "god" in the English language.

And all it takes is reducing the word to obfuscating, misguiding meaninglessness and trampling over the actual doctrines and structures of pretty much all non-Abrahamic creeds and religions...

Well, people are, because that is what they do when they use words in a language. You yourself agreed that there are a great many different religions with different gods out there.

If we go out of our ways to unproperly extend the meaning of the word? Perhaps.

Not a good idea. At all.

Why do you make such a claim if you don't see some commonality of meaning between those entities and the ones you are most familiar with?

I don't. Why would you think that I do? I think I made myself very clear on this matter.

There has to be some common core of meaning for the word "god" that allows you to do that. My list was just a preliminary attempt to do that.

There is no such common core.

Attempts are often made to find one, often strenuously and far too often with questionable ethics and means. But the motivations are naive at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

We atheists should not lend prestige to the attempts of some proselitists to claim that Abrahamic expectations of the supernatural are in some sense "universal".

 

[Copernicus]

That may depend on how you intend to use your list.

I was attempting to answer the challenge in the OP without reference to any particular non-Abrahamic god. The Abrahamic versions of god are just a subset of all the gods that we use the word "god" or "deity" to refer to. I suppose I could have used non-Abrahamic gods like Zeus or Quetzalcoatl as specific examples, but I didn't think it really necessary. The OP said:

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?

But you are really asking two questions here; "how they are different" is answerable with "very much indeed". IMO even attempting "compare gods" misses the point of most other traditions entirely.

Which means that the list is, unfortunately, of very limited use. It ends up being a collection of Abrahamic expectations that might with some effort and liberty be projected into non-Abrahamic traditions.

Not sure there is a positive reason to make the attempt.

Only if you want to make a comment that is more informative than just that you just disagree. So far, I don't see much else coming from you, so I'm beginning to suspect that you can't actually tell me how my list comes off as biased towards the Abrahamic concept.

That may perhaps have been the intent. In that case, I have to say that it failed utterly.

Perhaps because there is no such thing as a true "general" understanding of divine attributes. There is instead a strong lobby of Abrahamic creeds to build one at the expense of the actual traits and structure of other traditions, and I do not want to lend undue validity to that lobby.

Yet you yourself use the word "god" to refer to non-Abrahamic deities. That seems to contradict your point here. You have some intuition that these entities can be referred to with the word "god", yet you want to say that there is no general understanding of shared attributes. That strikes me as a very odd thing to say.

...What they have in common is the god concept associated with most attributes on my list.

Sorry, but that is not even in the same galaxy of the truth. Particularly the part that I emphasize.

How so? Please at least try to back up your disagreement with an explanation of why you think that.

For starters, it is very questionable indeed whether it even makes sense to speak of "gods" generally.

Starters? You have been saying only that repeatedly, but that is precisely what you do, including the generalization that you just made that it makes no sense to speak of them "generally". That is itself a generalization, is it not? How could you possibly know that if you had no general idea of what a god is?

And all it takes is reducing the word to obfuscating, misguiding meaninglessness and trampling over the actual doctrines and structures of pretty much all non-Abrahamic creeds and religions...

Please explain what you consider to be "trampling". So far you have avoided that.

...Well, people are, because that is what they do when they use words in a language. You yourself agreed that there are a great many different religions with different gods out there.

If we go out of our ways to unproperly extend the meaning of the word? Perhaps.

Not a good idea. At all.

Are you criticizing me or you for using the word to describe a broad range of beings referred to as "god"? We've both been doing it, you know.

...Why do you make such a claim if you don't see some commonality of meaning between those entities and the ones you are most familiar with?

I don't. Why would you think that I do? I think I made myself very clear on this matter.

But you do, because your use of the word "god" to refer to non-Abrahamic deities contradicts your claim that there is no commonality. What licenses your word usage other than the sense that there is some kind of commonality?

There is no such common core.

Again, word usage. You can't escape your own pattern of usage. My list was intended to express the kinds of commonalities that license usage.

Attempts are often made to find one, often strenuously and far too often with questionable ethics and means. But the motivations are naive at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

We atheists should not lend prestige to the attempts of some proselitists to claim that Abrahamic expectations of the supernatural are in some sense "universal".

Without a common sense of what it is for something to be called a "god", there is no such thing as atheism. You can't deny belief in gods if you don't have some idea of what they are.

 

[Kfox]

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?

Why on earth would atheists living in the west know about all the other imaginary Gods people worship?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, @Copernicus . I Just don't know how to be any clearer.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why on earth would atheists living in the west know about all the other imaginary Gods people worship?

For one thingl it helps.in addressing some of the most outrageous claims of the Abrahamics.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Why on earth would atheists living in the west know about all the other imaginary Gods people worship?

Why on earth would you ask such loaded questions?

 

[John53]

Why on earth would atheists living in the west know about all the other imaginary Gods people worship?

Curiosity.

 

[Quintessence]

There is no such common core.

Attempts are often made to find one, often strenuously and far too often with questionable ethics and means. But the motivations are naive at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

The best I've managed to puzzle out as far as a "common core" goes is that gods are that which peoples and cultures deem worthy of worship. It's something like a formalized title or attribution that expresses a relationship of reverence and respect, worthiness and value. Beyond that, the why something is deemed worthy of worship and what attributes the thing deified has varies tremendously, though it means something is greater than oneself (the sole exception being autotheism where wonderment at the self is grounds for deification). What I've more or less found is everything has been deified at some point by various cultures throughout history and also today. "God" can point to anything which is part of what makes it difficult to discuss theology sometimes.

@Copernicus in case you're interested.

 

[Copernicus]

The best I've managed to puzzle out as far as a "common core" goes is that gods are that which peoples and cultures deem worthy of worship. It's something like a formalized title or attribution that expresses a relationship of reverence and respect, worthiness and value. Beyond that, the why something is deemed worthy of worship and what attributes the thing deified has varies tremendously, though it means something is greater than oneself (the sole exception being autotheism where wonderment at the self is grounds for deification). What I've more or less found is everything has been deified at some point by various cultures throughout history and also today. "God" can point to anything which is part of what makes it difficult to discuss theology sometimes.

@Copernicus in case you're interested.

Yes, that's a good point, but it gets more interesting when you break down the concept of worship. What do you do when you worship something, and why do you do it? That's when the attributes I mentioned on my list become important.

 

[LuisDantas]

Pretty good question. Worship, too, is quite a vague concept on its own.

It is probably some sort of stance with a modicum of good will towards the object of worship, but beyond that, I just don't know whether there is anything else or even the requirement of anything else.

 

[PureX]

Yes, that's a good point, but it gets more interesting when you break down the concept of worship. What do you do when you worship something, and why do you do it? That's when the attributes I mentioned on my list become important.

Those attributes on your list are telling us why humans have been creating god-concepts and why they hold to and maintain them. The common element there is humanity. It's why most gods fit into a similar pattern conceptually. Humans need or want access to that 'higher power' that they believe they can influence to act on their behalf when they cannot do so for themselves. And this is the commonality of theism the world over, and throughout time.

Why some atheists are refusing to recognize this, is a mystery, unless they are just so beholding to their claims that gods don't exist because they are all so "different" that they simply cannot allow themselves to see how our gods are not really that different at all, in that they are all designed conceptually to fulfill the same purpose for humanity.

 

[MikeF]

Those attributes on your list are telling us why humans have been creating god-concepts and why they hold to and maintain them. The common element there is humanity. It's why most gods fit into a similar pattern conceptually. Humans need or want access to that 'higher power' that they believe they can influence to act on their behalf when they cannot do so for themselves. And this is the commonality of theism the world over, and throughout time.

Why some atheists are refusing to recognize this, is a mystery, unless they are just so beholding to their claims that gods don't exist because they are all so "different" that they simply cannot allow themselves to see how our gods are not really that different at all, in that they are all designed conceptually to fulfill the same purpose for humanity.

What you describe is superstition and I would suggest that that is exactly what is recognized.

Why do non-believers in the many forms of superstition care one way or another? Because they do not wish to be governed by superstition. In social systems, what people believe affects others in the group. The more widespread a particular belief the greater the impact on the group as a whole. I do not see it as unreasonable to seek ways to minimize the influence and effects of superstition on society as a whole, and therefore by extension, its impact on one's self.

 

[PureX]

What you describe is superstition and I would suggest that that is exactly what is recognized.

What label we put on it is irrelevant to the point being made. All gods have this very significant factor in common: that they serve the humans that created them as an accessible, manipulable 'higher power'. And this in no way stands as proof that such a higher power does not actually exist. Especially given the fact that the human belief in such a power seems to serve humanity in that regard sufficiently to keep us believing it.

Why do non-believers in the many forms of superstition care one way or another?

Very good question. And they certainly do. I think it's because they want to believe they are right and the theists are wrong. That their ego is involved. Perhaps they want to believe that they have no need for access to a 'higher power'. That they are their own 'higher power'.

Because they do not wish to be governed by superstition. In social systems, what people believe affects others in the group. The more widespread a particular belief the greater the impact on the group as a whole. I do not see it as unreasonable to seek ways to minimize the influence and effects of superstition on society as a whole, and therefore by extension, its impact on one's self.

So by controlling the beliefs of other one can control their actions. So, just like the theists, the atheists are seeking control beyond their means?

 

[LuisDantas]

@PureX , there are things such as unsolicited proselitism; intrusion of superstition into politics (that affects us all); and disregard for science in order to protect immature creeds.

If that troubles you... it troubles some of us others too, which makes questioning of beliefs a sheer necessity for the well-being of any society.

 

[MikeF]

What label we put on it is irrelevant to the point being made. All gods have this very significant factor in common: that they serve the humans that created them as an accessible, manipulable 'higher power'. And this in no way stands as proof that such a higher power does not actually exist. Especially given the fact that the human belief in such a power seems to serve humanity in that regard sufficiently to keep us believing it.

I would disagree. If you are focusing on a subset of a much broader condition, one does not get the full picture of what is being discussed. Not all superstition involve concepts of supernatural entities.

Very good question. And they certainly do. I think it's because they want to believe they are right and the theists are wrong. That their ego is involved. Perhaps they want to believe that they have no need for access to a 'higher power'. That they are their own 'higher power'.

As I said, there is more to superstition than imagined entities. There are also the less sentient-controlled notions of luck and fate, etc. The belief that certain specific actions can alter chance events, or perhaps interrupt the progress of a non-random chain of events to one's favor.

As for non-believers in superstition seeing themselves as their own 'higher power', that may be so for some small minority, but I would argue that in the main, they simply accept that there are those things that are out of one's control.

So by controlling the beliefs of other one can control their actions. So, just like the theists, the atheists are seeking control beyond their means?

I see it as advocating that belief in any particular superstition is not uniformly held among the electorate and therefore no one superstition should be legislated into law. Part of that process is letting others know that you do not share their superstitions.

 

[PureX]

@PureX , there are things such as unsolicited proselitism; intrusion of superstition into politics (that affects us all); and disregard for science in order to protect immature creeds.

If that troubles you... it troubles some of us others too, which makes questioning of beliefs a sheer necessity for the well-being of any society.

Not all humans see the world as you or I do. And not all of them are wrong. Nor is science the fountain of truth that you and others here so desperately want to insist that it is. And like it or not, you cannot control the minds of others. Nor can science. So you can learn to live with the beliefs of others and their odd behaviors as a result, or you can battle with them for control. Just as they will be driven to do with you.

Or we could seek the wisdom that would enable us to apply both our science and our superstitions to the service of the well being of mankind and the planet that sustains us. Maybe wisdom isn't a factor of who's right, but of inclusion under the umbrella of a greater cause.

 

[MikeF]

Not all humans see the world as you or I do. And not all of them are wrong. Nor is science the fountain of truth that you and others here so desperately want to insist that it is. And like it or not, you cannot control the minds of others. Nor can science. So you can learn to live with the beliefs of others and their odd behaviors as a result, or you can battle with them for control. Just as they will be driven to do with you.

Or we could seek the wisdom that would enable us to apply both our science and our superstitions to the service of the well being of mankind and the planet that sustains us. Maybe wisdom isn't a factor of who's right, but of inclusion under the umbrella of a greater cause.

I get what you are saying here, but what you advocate still requires a change in attitude, which may very well require a change in believe, of everyone. You are still asking for change from the current state of affairs.

 

[Stevicus]

What label we put on it is irrelevant to the point being made. All gods have this very significant factor in common: that they serve the humans that created them as an accessible, manipulable 'higher power'. And this in no way stands as proof that such a higher power does not actually exist. Especially given the fact that the human belief in such a power seems to serve humanity in that regard sufficiently to keep us believing it.

The power that keeps people believing in a higher power has always been the power of conditioning from birth, manipulation, intimidation, and (if all else fails) brute force. And it's been passed down from generation to generation for centuries. In more recent times, there have been more active attempts to break that cycle, along with an active promotion and encouragement of free thought, which is why religion is losing adherents and why there have been more open and brazen challenges to religion.

Without the ability to manipulate law and use brute force on people, religion will not survive.

Very good question. And they certainly do. I think it's because they want to believe they are right and the theists are wrong. That their ego is involved. Perhaps they want to believe that they have no need for access to a 'higher power'. That they are their own 'higher power'.

So by controlling the beliefs of other one can control their actions. So, just like the theists, the atheists are seeking control beyond their means?

Or it could be that atheists seek to identify, resist, and challenge attempts by religion to control thought or culture within society. Keep in mind that it's the theists who have a much longer and more atrocious track record when it comes to wanting to control others. Not just atheists, but even their fellow theists who don't believe in the exact same religion (and the exact same sect) as they do. Whatever conflicts or disagreements may exist between atheists and theists are nothing compared to the numerous and long-term conflicts of theists vs. theists.