Atheists: What qualities should a god have?

[Erebus]

There have been a couple of threads asking atheists for their perspectives on gods so I figured I'd give it a shot too!

I'm interested to know what qualities something should have in order for you to consider that thing a god?

I'll note that this is in a discussion forum so I won't be challenging your views. I'm also not asking anybody to come up with a universally applicable definition of a god. I just want your personal expectations here.

That said, I will head off the one reply I don't want in this thread, which is anything to the effect of, "I leave it to theists to tell me what a god is." That reply is only ever partially true and I'll give an illustration of why: Imagine somebody handed you a rubber ball and said, "This rubber ball is my god. Its divine power is that it bounces when you throw it at a brick wall." In that scenario, you have a deity that you can see and touch, as can anybody else you care to show it to. You can also test its divine power as much as you like. However, I very much doubt it would convert you to rubber ball worship. That rubber ball lacks the qualities you expect of a god.

(Bonus question for anybody who wants to give it a go: After describing some of the qualities you would expect in a god, would you also be able to give examples of what evidence you might expect to see if that god existed?)

 

[CharmingOwl]

I want a god that makes me win the lottery.

 

[Erebus]

I want a god that makes me win the lottery.

If you find one, please send them my way!

 

[Twilight Hue]

There have been a couple of threads asking atheists for their perspectives on gods so I figured I'd give it a shot too!

I'm interested to know what qualities something should have in order for you to consider that thing a god?

I'll note that this is in a discussion forum so I won't be challenging your views. I'm also not asking anybody to come up with a universally applicable definition of a god. I just want your personal expectations here.

That said, I will head off the one reply I don't want in this thread, which is anything to the effect of, "I leave it to theists to tell me what a god is." That reply is only ever partially true and I'll give an illustration of why: Imagine somebody handed you a rubber ball and said, "This rubber ball is my god. Its divine power is that it bounces when you throw it at a brick wall." In that scenario, you have a deity that you can see and touch, as can anybody else you care to show it to. You can also test its divine power as much as you like. However, I very much doubt it would convert you to rubber ball worship. That rubber ball lacks the qualities you expect of a god.

(Bonus question for anybody who wants to give it a go: After describing some of the qualities you would expect in a god, would you also be able to give examples of what evidence you might expect to see if that god existed?)

For starters, something that isn't entirely, utterly, and completely invisible, helpless, deaf, blind, dumb, crippled, and mute without requiring human aid on its behalf to speak, act, and talk for it to even 'function' would be a boon.

 

[ChristineM]

Whatever the gods beliers believe theiir god has.
And can show it

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Whatever the gods beliers believe theiir god has.
And can show it

This really is the only way to answer this silly question.

Let's try another: "What qualities should a frumious bandersnatch have?"

See the problem? You can make up whatever qualities you like, and then call it a god (or a frumious bandersnatch). (As Alice said, having read the poem Jabberwocky, ""Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don't exactly know what they are!")

 

[MikeF]

There have been a couple of threads asking atheists for their perspectives on gods so I figured I'd give it a shot too!

I'm interested to know what qualities something should have in order for you to consider that thing a god?

I'll note that this is in a discussion forum so I won't be challenging your views. I'm also not asking anybody to come up with a universally applicable definition of a god. I just want your personal expectations here.

That said, I will head off the one reply I don't want in this thread, which is anything to the effect of, "I leave it to theists to tell me what a god is." That reply is only ever partially true and I'll give an illustration of why: Imagine somebody handed you a rubber ball and said, "This rubber ball is my god. Its divine power is that it bounces when you throw it at a brick wall." In that scenario, you have a deity that you can see and touch, as can anybody else you care to show it to. You can also test its divine power as much as you like. However, I very much doubt it would convert you to rubber ball worship. That rubber ball lacks the qualities you expect of a god.

(Bonus question for anybody who wants to give it a go: After describing some of the qualities you would expect in a god, would you also be able to give examples of what evidence you might expect to see if that god existed?)

I think my answer will be unsatisfying to you, but there are no set of qualities that would constitute what others might label a god, deity, etc. I find the whole notion of worshiping or deifying anything as anathema and contrary to my personality. Why debase one's self simply because there is an asymmetry of knowledge or ability? Whatever sentient being I might care to invent I would never assign it the status of a god in the same way I will never assign the status of being my king to another man. It is essentially the same exercise, in my opinion.

 

[Erebus]

I think my answer will be unsatisfying to you, but there are no set of qualities that would constitute what others might label a god, deity, etc. I find the whole notion of worshiping or deifying anything as anathema and contrary to my personality. Why debase one's self simply because there is an asymmetry of knowledge or ability? Whatever sentient being I might care to invent I would never assign it the status of a god in the same way I will never assign the status of king to another man. It is essentially the same exercise, in my opinion.

Actually I'd say this is the most satisfying answer so far in my opinion! I think it's completely reasonable to say that deifying anything goes against your personality and values.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"What qualities should a frumious bandersnatch have?"

It should be frumious.

See the problem?

Not really.

 

[Alien826]

It should be frumious.

And shun-worthy. Actually that's the one thing we know about bandersnatchs from the poem. They are something to be avoided.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This really is the only way to answer this silly question.

Let's try another: "What qualities should a frumious bandersnatch have?"

See the problem? You can make up whatever qualities you like, and then call it a god (or a frumious bandersnatch). (As Alice said, having read the poem Jabberwocky, ""Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don't exactly know what they are!")

Thats a pretty good name for a god. Heh!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

And shun-worthy. Actually that's the one thing we know about bandersnatchs from the poem. They are something to be avoided.

But only the frumious ones...the nonfrumious ones one need not shun...apparently...

 

[osgart]

Not even God would want to be God forever. Sooner or later God would want equals in character, strength, knowledge, wisdom, benevolence, deserve, and power. Infallibility of a being sounds to me like pure fantasy though at least from a human viewpoint.

If you are going to have a God it better have all the virtues, at least 100 of them, and be totally infallible with them.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I want a god that makes me win the lottery.

I'd join The Holy Church of the Mega Millions.

 

[MikeF]

I want a god that makes me win the lottery.

I'd join The Holy Church of the Mega Millions.

If everyone joins and therefore wins, won't the payout be essentially reduced to what you paid for your lottery ticket? Well, actually it would be less as there would be expenses involved in running the lottery to begin with, right?

Seems like a god the lucky few would like to keep under wraps.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

That said, I will head off the one reply I don't want in this thread, which is anything to the effect of, "I leave it to theists to tell me what a god is."

I find it amusing when people question atheists about what they will accept as a god, don’t want to define what they accept as a god.

I am an atheist because I have been presented with a multitude of definitions of “god”;
from“the alfa and the omega”,
to “the creator of the universe and everything”,
to “an all encompassing consciousness”,
to Elohim/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/Jesus et. al,
to Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva et. al, to Odin et. al,
to “the force or energy behind and within everything”,
to “the programmer of the simulation”,
to “love”, and many others.
None of which have, when subjected to investigation, presented any viable reason to rationally believe in.
This is why in my case and the professed case of many (most?) atheists the definition or explanation of the “god” being presented for discussion is asked for.
This to avoid the “Well yeah, that’s crazy. That’s not the God I’m talking about!” responses.

That reply is only ever partially true and I'll give an illustration of why: Imagine somebody handed you a rubber ball and said, "This rubber ball is my god. Its divine power is that it bounces when you throw it at a brick wall." In that scenario, you have a deity that you can see and touch, as can anybody else you care to show it to. You can also test its divine power as much as you like. However, I very much doubt it would convert you to rubber ball worship. That rubber ball lacks the qualities you expect of a god.

Here we have the perfect example.
In your scenario you present hypothetical atheist
(let’s say me) with an object (the rubber ball) which is verified to exist in reality (unlike any of the “gods” listed above), and declared it’s “devine power” is that it bounces.

I would look at the rubber ball, acknowledge it’s existence, understand that it’s ability to bounce is perfectly natural and thus understand that there is no “devine power” involved.
So, you are correct. I would not worship it.
Not because it “lacks the qualities” I expect from a god, but because I’m not in the habit of worshiping trivial objects.

I don’t have an expectation of the qualities of a god, since I’ve been presented with many which have failed to meet the purported qualities of those who presented them to me.

As result I don’t expect a god.

Thus when asked “what qualities should a god have” I may very well ask which god YOU are talking about.
It is your expected qualities of a god that you betray in your stated question……
apparently one of the qualities you expect from a god is something/someone that is “divine” and “worthy of worship.”

I’ve never seen any evidence of anything “devine” nor worthy of worship.

You seem to accept that there is not a “universally applicable definition” of a god.
Why would you deny someone of ascertaining your applicable definition if you are looking for an honest discussion?

 

[viole]

I'm interested to know what qualities something should have in order for you to consider that thing a god?

Evidence to exist, as a very first basic point. The rest is irrelevant.

Ciao

- viole

 

[EconGuy]

There have been a couple of threads asking atheists for their perspectives on gods so I figured I'd give it a shot too!

I'm interested to know what qualities something should have in order for you to consider that thing a god?

I'll note that this is in a discussion forum so I won't be challenging your views. I'm also not asking anybody to come up with a universally applicable definition of a god. I just want your personal expectations here.

That said, I will head off the one reply I don't want in this thread, which is anything to the effect of, "I leave it to theists to tell me what a god is." That reply is only ever partially true and I'll give an illustration of why: Imagine somebody handed you a rubber ball and said, "This rubber ball is my god. Its divine power is that it bounces when you throw it at a brick wall." In that scenario, you have a deity that you can see and touch, as can anybody else you care to show it to. You can also test its divine power as much as you like. However, I very much doubt it would convert you to rubber ball worship. That rubber ball lacks the qualities you expect of a god.

(Bonus question for anybody who wants to give it a go: After describing some of the qualities you would expect in a god, would you also be able to give examples of what evidence you might expect to see if that god existed?)

Start out with the simple question, why does a god need to exist?

 

[Erebus]

I find it amusing when people question atheists about what they will accept as a god, don’t want to define what they accept as a god.

I am an atheist because I have been presented with a multitude of definitions of “god”;
from“the alfa and the omega”,
to “the creator of the universe and everything”,
to “an all encompassing consciousness”,
to Elohim/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah/Jesus et. al,
to Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva et. al, to Odin et. al,
to “the force or energy behind and within everything”,
to “the programmer of the simulation”,
to “love”, and many others.
None of which have, when subjected to investigation, presented any viable reason to rationally believe in.
This is why in my case and the professed case of many (most?) atheists the definition or explanation of the “god” being presented for discussion is asked for.
This to avoid the “Well yeah, that’s crazy. That’s not the God I’m talking about!” responses.


Here we have the perfect example.
In your scenario you present hypothetical atheist
(let’s say me) with an object (the rubber ball) which is verified to exist in reality (unlike any of the “gods” listed above), and declared it’s “devine power” is that it bounces.

I would look at the rubber ball, acknowledge it’s existence, understand that it’s ability to bounce is perfectly natural and thus understand that there is no “devine power” involved.
So, you are correct. I would not worship it.
Not because it “lacks the qualities” I expect from a god, but because I’m not in the habit of worshiping trivial objects.

I don’t have an expectation of the qualities of a god, since I’ve been presented with many which have failed to meet the purported qualities of those who presented them to me.

As result I don’t expect a god.

Thus when asked “what qualities should a god have” I may very well ask which god YOU are talking about.
It is your expected qualities of a god that you betray in your stated question……
apparently one of the qualities you expect from a god is something/someone that is “divine” and “worthy of worship.”

I’ve never seen any evidence of anything “devine” nor worthy of worship.

You seem to accept that there is not a “universally applicable definition” of a god.
Why would you deny someone of ascertaining your applicable definition if you are looking for an honest discussion?

This was a little more intense a reply than I was anticipating to be honest! I get the impression you were expecting me to spring a gotcha on somebody? That's not my intention and I'd hoped that making this a discussion thread rather than a debate would set people's minds at ease on that front. I said I wasn't going to challenge people on their views and I've stuck to that.

You'll notice that I haven't told the people who offered some qualities they'd expect that they're wrong. I also gave a winner rating to somebody who said there are no qualities that would make them view something as a god.

I did give a heads up on the kind of reply I didn't want and tried to demonstrate why I didn't want it. You said you wouldn't worship the rubber ball because you don't worship trivial objects. That's the point of the scenario. It's an attempt to boil things back down to their basics by showing something utterly banal but demonstrably real. If the ball's simple existence (and the worshipper's claim that it is in fact a god) isn't sufficient to consider it a god, what qualities would have to be added to it for it to qualify?

Finally, you seem to think I'm being disingenuous by asking this question of atheists without providing my own views. I wanted people to give their views and didn't think my own were relevant. However, I can give my own view if it would help you see I'm really not trying to trick people.

You actually got it right in your post. My view is that a god is something worthy of worship. That's the quality I personally expect of a god, though I fully admit it's a fairly nebulous and highly subjective quality. For me, I find nature itself to be worthy of worship and find it useful to relate various bits of nature to some of the gods of European polytheistic religions. I'm particularly fond of the Greek primordial gods as I see them as most closely resembling forces of nature.

You're also exactly right that I don't believe there is a universally applicable definition of god. I don't expect people to adhere to my own view on what makes a god. For the purposes of this thread, I would prefer they use whatever definition they feel is most appropriate to their views.

 

[Altfish]

There have been a couple of threads asking atheists for their perspectives on gods so I figured I'd give it a shot too!

I'm interested to know what qualities something should have in order for you to consider that thing a god?

I'll note that this is in a discussion forum so I won't be challenging your views. I'm also not asking anybody to come up with a universally applicable definition of a god. I just want your personal expectations here.

That said, I will head off the one reply I don't want in this thread, which is anything to the effect of, "I leave it to theists to tell me what a god is." That reply is only ever partially true and I'll give an illustration of why: Imagine somebody handed you a rubber ball and said, "This rubber ball is my god. Its divine power is that it bounces when you throw it at a brick wall." In that scenario, you have a deity that you can see and touch, as can anybody else you care to show it to. You can also test its divine power as much as you like. However, I very much doubt it would convert you to rubber ball worship. That rubber ball lacks the qualities you expect of a god.

(Bonus question for anybody who wants to give it a go: After describing some of the qualities you would expect in a god, would you also be able to give examples of what evidence you might expect to see if that god existed?)

A good communicator.
Do not talk through 'messengers' and angels and prophets, use TV, the internet, new books, not 2000 year old tomes.

This is not hard, in the modern day and age, you could even set up your own Truth Social