Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[SalixIncendium]

I think that the best way to answer the challenge posed by the OP is to break down the concept of a deity in terms of the properties we typically associate with them. Here is a partial list that comes to mind for me:

1. Gods can perform supernatural miracles in the physical world that contravene the laws of nature.
2. Gods may have absolute control over one or more aspects of natural reality (sea, wind, love, war, weather, volcanoes, etc.)
3. Gods are considered socially "above" human beings socially and expect to be obeyed by humans.
4. Gods can be disembodied or embodied spirits.
5. Gods can communicate, interact, and form relationships with human beings.
6. Gods may be predisposed to grant favors for human beings or groups of beings, especially when worshipped, offered sacrifices, and prayed to.
7. Gods have comprehensive knowledge of reality.
8. Gods are immortal and omnipotent.
9. Gods can have emotions such as anger, sympathy, love.
10. Gods are beyond human understanding or comprehension.
11. Gods are thought to embody perfection in all their attributes.

Congratulations. You just listed all the qualities of the God of Abraham.

So clearly, this isn't the best way to answer the challenge. Nice try, though.

Maybe the best way to answer the challenge in the OP is directly; by picking any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and listing 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.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

Man was made in God's image. God reflects higher human potential, since we have been made in his image. The analogy that results is like playing a sport. Many people who play sports have a hero in that sport, who they try to be like. You can choose the best player on your team, of the best player in world wide as the example for rising. God is even more steps higher, in terms of an example to strive towards. By definition he's the man.

The gods of mythology are easier to see in terms of examples. Mars, for example, was the God of war. When it came to war, he was the man; the very best at that sport. So if you wanted to become a better soldier, you would try to be more like Mars, and even hope to meet him, some day. Many would even pray to seek his council.

Atheists reach too low, because it is about the ego, which thinks the ego is as good as it gets. It harder for the ego to acknowledge short comings, never mind have the self awareness to transcend through extreme examples. Humility is needed so you can continue to grow and strive to develop higher human potential. But to reach higher, you need those who are already set above as the highest possible examples. It has positive psychology benefits.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheists reach too low,

Or perhaps they reach as high or higher in another direction, one that doesn't have an imaginary friend sitting on their shoulder telling them what is right and what is wrong according to said imaginary friend.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Atheists reach too low, because it is about the ego, which thinks the ego is as good as it gets. It harder for the ego to acknowledge short comings, never mind have the self awareness to transcend through extreme examples. Humility is needed so you can continue to grow and strive to develop higher human potential. But to reach higher, you need those who are already set above as the highest possible examples. It has positive psychology benefits.

While I appreciate your comments, this isn't a thread to criticize atheism, and your post isn't exactly on topic, unless by God you mean some other god besides the God of Abraham.

Also, gods aren't required to experience humility.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What makes you think God is something that was invented out of the blue?

The fact that god concepts don't start from a well-defined set of data that requires explaining.
And that these god concepts are always unfalsifiable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is psychosoma or its effects fiction?

While gods might be fiction to you, to the believer, they are not. They and their effects are quite real. This is why it's an affront to the believer to dismiss that which is a very real part of their lives.

I don't think @MikeF would dismiss, or is dismissing, people's subjective experiences or any of the many very real effects that beliefs (regardless of accuracy) can and do have on people's lives.

In fact it seems to me that it was quite explicitely clear that he isn't doing that.

This is the point of this thread. It's important for an atheist to understand exactly what they're dismissing. Not all gods share the qualities of the God of Abraham.

And what I, and several others, have already informed you off is that our rejection of the god of abraham is not dependent on "qualities" that are unique to the god of abraham.

I reject santa, fairies, leprechauns and unicorns for the same reason. I don't need to dive into the lore of santa or leprechauns. All these things share the "quality" of "magical" and "supernatural". And that's why I reject them. It matters not what the exact contents of the claims are. The fact that they include magic / the supernatural / superstition is all I require to cast it aside.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then before you dismiss all gods, you might want to learn more about gods of other paradigms, because your keyhole is quite small.

I have no need to.

I can only talk about the gods I know off, that have been presented to me.
I can't talk about gods I don't know off, that haven't been presented to me or that will be invented in the future.
I fail to see the relevancy.

As for all gods that HAVE been presented to me, they all required ingredients of magic / supernatural / superstition.
So yes, I reject all gods. Where "all" obviously means "those I know about".

Feel free to present me with a god concept that requires no magic / supernatural / superstitious ingredients.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I don't think @MikeF would dismiss, or is dismissing, people's subjective experiences or any of the many effects that beliefs (regardless of accuracy) can and do have on people's lives.

In fact it seems to me that it was quite explicitely clear that he isn't doing that.

Is calling the subject of such experiences "fictional things," doing exactly that?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I have no need to.

Then you are no different than a creationist that rejects evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All of this is irrelevant unless you are saying that dark matter was demonstrable, detectable, and measurable around 1900,

????

I don't get the point of this statement.

or unless you're saying that science is finished discovering and explaining things.

Why would I have to say that?

The hard problem of consciousness and understanding dark matter make it clear that it's not.

Did I claim otherwise?

None of this changes the fact that dark matter is a label we use to refer to a detectable phenomenon in commonly observable reality.
I wasn't the one that brought Dark Matter up as an analogy to gods. I'm merely picking up on it and explaining who that's a very false equivalence.
They are nothing alike in terms of rational justification to underpin them.

And these are things science is looking for/into. Is science looking for gods?

Good question. The answer is no, because there doesn't seem to be anything there to look for.

Was science looking for dark matter before 1900?

Great question again. The answer is again no, because at that point there also wasn't anything there to look for.
Now there is. In fact, it's only AFTER there was, that dark matter came up. The data required it.

The point exactly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is calling the subject of such experiences "fictional things," doing exactly that?

Not in my opinion.

Consider a placebo. A person believes it's a real medicine and he actually physically improves as a direct result of that belief.

Informing that person that the thing he's taking is actually just candy and not medicine at all, does not dismiss the fact he got physically better as a result of believing it was a real drug, right?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not in my opinion.

Consider a placebo. A person believes it's a real medicine and he actually physically improves as a direct result of that belief.

Informing that person that the thing he's taking is actually just candy and not medicine at all, does not dismiss the fact he got physically better as a result of believing it was a real drug, right?

Correct. And it's the result that matters.

What do you think that result would have been had you told him before or while he was taking the medicine that he was taking a placebo?

This is why the first line of my signature is what it is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you are no different than a creationist that rejects evolution.

That is not the case at all and I have explained multiple times now how it's not.

I can only summarize it again.

God-claims belong to a specific category of claim.
Claims end up in that category according to a set of criteria.
I don't just reject individual claims. I reject the entire category of such claims.

The category being claims that are unfalsifiable and / or require magic / supernatural / superstitious things.
So it matters not if your claim is about Jawhe, Ra, Thor, The Force, Santa, Quetzalcoatl, Jupiter, unicorns, leprechauns, smurfs....

If it fits that particular category, I'm just gonna shrug my shoulders, roll my eyes and walk away.

And I feel like I'm perfectly rationally justified to do so. All the claims in that category require a "leap of faith" to be believed. All of them are unfalsifiable. None of them can be distinguished from truth or false things. This category is a set of claims that is potentially infinite in number, only limited by human imagination.

You ask me to "ponder over" such claims before rejecting them, but I'm telling you that there is nothing there to ponder over to begin with.
"pondering over" a claim, in my world, means to test its validity against external commonly observable reality.

But the very category the claim is in makes that an impossibility. These claims are unfalsifiable, meaning they are untestable / unverifiable.
You either just believe them or you don't.

And I don't do "just believe". "just believe" is a great way to end up being wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct. And it's the result that matters.

Not to the point we were discussing though.
Which was about being dismissive of the effect of the beliefs vs dismissing the accuracy of the beliefs.

As said, and by @MikeF also if memory serves me right, it's perfectly possible to hold a false belief while gaining positive effects from those beliefs.
Which literally is what a placebo is: a belief that achieves positive result while the belief is nevertheless incorrect.

What do you think that result would have been had you told him before or while he was taking the medicine that he was taking a placebo?

Then the "becoming better" directly related to his belief it was a real drug, likely wouldn't have occured.

This is why the first line of my signature is what it is.

Let's put this a bit into perspective though.... A placebo will only achieve so much....
The placebo effect for example is not going to be very helpful when you have full blown sepsis or whatever.

Or "you think I'm cleaning this wound with desinfectant but really it's just sewage water". Believing it was desinfectant isn't going to stop nasty sewage bacteria infecting the wound and raging havoc in your body...

Then there's also the fact that I personally don't know of any "positive" effect a religious belief brings a person that can't be achieved in some secular way, without having to hold up false / religious beliefs.

And in many other cases, I think MUCH good might come from destroying the "spiritual path" of people.
And I'm 110% certain that you yourself have already come up with at least one example before getting to the end of this sentence.


So.... while I do certainly get what you are shooting for, I think reality is quite a bit more complex then that and as a result your signature statement is obviously not a universal true-ism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The fact that god concepts don't start from a well-defined set of data that requires explaining.
And that these god concepts are always unfalsifiable.

You think falsifiability is an appropriate standard for every facet of human experience? Why on earth would you believe that?

 

[LuisDantas]

You think falsifiability is an appropriate standard for every facet of human experience? Why on earth would you believe that?

I am not @TagliatelliMonster , but I want to point out that god-concepts are indeed outside the scope that requires falseability... if they are used correctly.

Unfortunately, typically the groups that insist on valuing the idea that their gods are "real" use those concepts very wrongly indeed. That is no minor mistake, and people have the right and the duty to defend themselves from that mistake.

There are literal hundreds of millions of people that somehow expect to earn privileges and exceptions simply because they have convinced themselves that they are believers in the "one true god".

That... is just way too wrong and way too dangerous to be tolerated.

 

[Little Dragon]

But given your satirical post previous to this one, I'm concluding you're not interested in participating.

How narrow minded of you. When really, what is the difference between Santa and any other supernatural controlling entity? After all, isn't that what a God is? Don't millions of children believe in him? I see no significant difference between Santa, and any of the Gods of humanity. Aside from his lack of holy texts.
Conclude what you will. I am done on this thread anyway, you will be relieved to know. I wasn't being entirely satirical, I was making a point, sorry, furthering my agenda...naturally.

 

[Little Dragon]

I reject santa, fairies, leprechauns and unicorns for the same reason. I don't need to dive into the lore of santa or leprechauns. All these things share the "quality" of "magical" and "supernatural". And that's why I reject them. It matters not what the exact contents of the claims are. The fact that they include magic / the supernatural / superstition is all I require to cast it aside

Quite...a point that is lost on some.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I am not @TagliatelliMonster , but I want to point out that god-concepts are indeed outside the scope that requires falseability... if they are used correctly.

Unfortunately, typically the groups that insist on valuing the idea that their gods are "real" use those concepts very wrongly indeed. That is no minor mistake, and people have the right and the duty to defend themselves from that mistake.

There are literal hundreds of millions of people that somehow expect to earn privileges and exceptions simply because they have convinced themselves that they are believers in the "one true god".

That... is just way too wrong and way too dangerous to be tolerated.

I would suggest that intolerance of beliefs which differ from our own, is the greater danger.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How narrow minded of you.

Thank you. I'll keep in mind that you like to attack character rather than what is said.

When really, what is the difference between Santa and any other supernatural controlling entity? After all, isn't that what a God is?

Not in non-Abrahamic religions...which is kinda the point of this thread.

Don't millions of children believe in him? I see no significant difference between Santa, and any of the Gods of humanity.

That's unfortunate.

Conclude what you will. I am done on this thread anyway, you will be relieved to know. I wasn't being entirely satirical, I was making a point, sorry, furthering my agenda...naturally.

Good to know since you never actually began.