• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists: What qualities should a god have?

Alien826

No religious beliefs
My problem with this is that I don't allow for "supernatural" in my scheme of things. Not that I discount things that are beyond our current understanding, I don't, but that once something is understood to exist, understood or not, then it becomes part of the natural world by definition.

So what would I call "god"? Nothing really, as being supernatural is part of the general description of such things. Is there anything that would impress me so much that I would "worship" it though? Depends what is meant by "worship". I could be so impressed by the superior attributes of something that I might want to express that admiration, but that's not what I call worship in the religious sense. In fact, I find it a weird idea that a genuinely superior being would desire such a thing anyway.
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
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 ;)

How, in this age of communication overload, would you know it was the "real" god? Remember George Burns in the movie who attempted to prove his identity by presenting a card with "God" on it. He had to make it rain inside the car to convince the guy.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
How, in this age of communication overload, would you know it was the "real" god? Remember George Burns in the movie who attempted to prove his identity by presenting a card with "God" on it. He had to make it rain inside the car to convince the guy.
Easily, he could say I'm going to cure starvation; child cancer, reverse global warming - and then do it
 

Sand Dancer

Currently catless
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. :)
It's not fun when you insert logic into it. I can dream, can't I?:smile:
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
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.
Let me assuage you impression; I wasn’t expecting a “gotcha” nor did I think you were trying to trick anyone.
I took you at your word that weren’t going to challenge people on their views.
Nor did I challenge you on your views.

You suggested that you had seen some threads recently asking atheists about their perspective on gods……
I too have seen them and through about 5 decades have been asked about them myself and have witnessed many similar discussions.

I merely commented that I found it humorous that so often they start with a “poisoned well” fallacy, or in this case an “excluded well” (if you’ll allow).
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?

The part I find humorous is that I believe most times the person who initiate theses discussions don’t perceive that they are engaging in this practice as it seems you don’t in this case.

Let me try again.
The problem in your scenario is you are attempting to compare a known object that is universally agreed to exist (the ball), with an object/entity that has never been shown to exist, (a god) at least in my perspective; apparently not yours.
In order to boil things down to the basics…..
how do you get more basic than a need to have demonstrated that something exists?
Gods have not been demonstrated to exist.
The quality that would need to be added, would be that they be shown to exist.

Of course I’ve been exposed to a dizzying array of attributes of what others have claimed to be gods, yet as you accept there is no consensus on what those may or may not be.
Yes, I could list many of the attributes that others have claimed…..
but that would not be my expectations of a god, it would be the expectations of the people who claimed a god/gods exist, such as yourself with the expectation that the god in question should have devine power and be worthy of worship.

I have no problem accepting balls exist and being able to bounce, because I’ve seen them and I’ve bounced them.
I have no reason to accept that gods exist or have any of the qualities that have been purported to me, because I’ve yet to see any reasonable evidence of them regardless of the many often contradictory claimed attributes of them.
How could I possibly know the attributes of something that doesn’t exist.

It appears to be completely unimaginable to you that someone (such as myself) could not have an expectation of a god and as result have no expectation of the qualities of that thing which I obviously don’t believe exists.
In the same way I would have no expectations of the china pattern on Russell’s teapot. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot?wprov=sfti1 in the event you are unaware of the reference.)

Thus it seems only natural to me, in order to have a meaningful discussion on the subject, that one would seek to clarify what it is the person they are having the discussion with is talking about if there is a chance of misunderstanding.
Which, given the vast array of incongruous qualities attributed to the vast array of proposed gods, is almost inevitable.

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.
So, as a point of discussion,
you find nature worthy of worship, but apparently not a god unto itself.
Why the presupposition of “gods”, and not see the forces of nature as natural.
What makes “divine power” necessary over forces of nature, which are known to exist and are pretty reasonably understood?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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."
Well, I leave it to the theists to tell me what a god is.
Not what you wanted to hear? Cut me some slack, as I am firstly an Agnostic and only an atheist by definition and I have a caveat: They have to agree upon the properties, at least 95% of them and they have to be internally consistent.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I think Atheists are often at a higher degree of awareness than many Theists (I am a Theist) because they are 100% right whenever they state that Theists fabricate a God that fits their personal convictions and selfish needs.
In other words that God that they fabricate is them. They consider themselves God, and what they do is basically worship themselves.
That is called autolatry.
They think that God loves them more than anyone else on this planet. That's a fabricated God that doesn't exist.

The God which is present in the Gospels is a God that delegates humans, by giving them free will.
He is a just God, and loves all people equally.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Let me assuage you impression; I wasn’t expecting a “gotcha” nor did I think you were trying to trick anyone.
I took you at your word that weren’t going to challenge people on their views.
Nor did I challenge you on your views.

Okay that's good. Thank you for clearing that up :)

You suggested that you had seen some threads recently asking atheists about their perspective on gods……
I too have seen them and through about 5 decades have been asked about them myself and have witnessed many similar discussions.

I merely commented that I found it humorous that so often they start with a “poisoned well” fallacy, or in this case an “excluded well” (if you’ll allow).


The part I find humorous is that I believe most times the person who initiate theses discussions don’t perceive that they are engaging in this practice as it seems you don’t in this case.

Let me try again.
The problem in your scenario is you are attempting to compare a known object that is universally agreed to exist (the ball), with an object/entity that has never been shown to exist, (a god) at least in my perspective; apparently not yours.
In order to boil things down to the basics…..
how do you get more basic than a need to have demonstrated that something exists?
Gods have not been demonstrated to exist.
The quality that would need to be added, would be that they be shown to exist.

Of course I’ve been exposed to a dizzying array of attributes of what others have claimed to be gods, yet as you accept there is no consensus on what those may or may not be.
Yes, I could list many of the attributes that others have claimed…..
but that would not be my expectations of a god, it would be the expectations of the people who claimed a god/gods exist, such as yourself with the expectation that the god in question should have devine power and be worthy of worship.

I have no problem accepting balls exist and being able to bounce, because I’ve seen them and I’ve bounced them.
I have no reason to accept that gods exist or have any of the qualities that have been purported to me, because I’ve yet to see any reasonable evidence of them regardless of the many often contradictory claimed attributes of them.
How could I possibly know the attributes of something that doesn’t exist.

Fair enough, I'll try to explain my reasoning here. There are some interpretations of deity that refer to things that do exist but which may not be accepted as a god by everybody. Examples include certain forms of pantheism, autotheism and monarch worship.

An atheist (and indeed a theist) may agree that the things that are deified in those examples do in fact exist but would argue they don't actually qualify as gods. They presumably lack some kind of quality that would make them acceptable as gods to that person. That suggests to me a degree of expectation on the part of those who encounter these god concepts.

There have been examples of those expectations already, such as the capacity to perform miracles. As I said with the rubber ball, mere existence and the claim that something is a god just doesn't cut it for a lot of people.


It appears to be completely unimaginable to you that someone (such as myself) could not have an expectation of a god and as result have no expectation of the qualities of that thing which I obviously don’t believe exists.
In the same way I would have no expectations of the china pattern on Russell’s teapot. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot?wprov=sfti1 in the event you are unaware of the reference.)

Thus it seems only natural to me, in order to have a meaningful discussion on the subject, that one would seek to clarify what it is the person they are having the discussion with is talking about if there is a chance of misunderstanding.
Which, given the vast array of incongruous qualities attributed to the vast array of proposed gods, is almost inevitable.

Yes, discussions/debates between theists and atheists are often fraught with misunderstandings and miscommunications. It can also be difficult to see beyond our own understanding of deity and I'm certainly not claiming to be immune to that. That's why I've found these recent threads quite illuminating and wanted to give it a shot myself.

I wanted to know people's baseline expectations and didn't want to restrict atheists to a singular definition. My own definition is just one of many and I feel that many people veer towards a rough definition of their own, even if they don't believe that god exists.

Now I do also think it's possible for somebody to have no expectations of what a god is at all. I know for example that there are people who consider the question of gods to be utterly meaningless due to the countless interpretations of what a god is.


So, as a point of discussion,
you find nature worthy of worship, but apparently not a god unto itself.
Why the presupposition of “gods”, and not see the forces of nature as natural.
What makes “divine power” necessary over forces of nature, which are known to exist and are pretty reasonably understood?

Divine power was just for the ball analogy. I just stick to expecting something worthy of worship while acknowledging that what makes something worthy of worship is subjective.

I don't see gods as distinct from nature, they are nature. I view nature as all-encompassing and that it includes both the material and the conceptual. Gaia is the Earth, Thanatos is death, Nyx is the night and so on.

I prefer polytheism to pantheism as I easier to comprehend and appreciate nature in smaller sections rather than in its entirety. The use of personification is also something I find useful for this purpose. Think of it as a similar principle to the idea of the grim reaper. Death is sometimes personified as a skeleton wielding a scythe. If we want to visualise death, we might use that image as a way to make it more manageable than attempting to comprehend every individual death, every afterlife belief, every culture's funeral practices and every attempt to come to terms with mortality all at the same time.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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 think that at some point in time, decades ago, I would have expected a true god to be detectable because it would have a very discernible aura of wisdom around it. Perhaps also, at some level, other less obvious forms of transcendence.

I probably still do; it just happens that I don't expect that test to be satisfied.

Not by anything that an atheist would ever be challenged to believe in, anyway.

Much later (but still quite a while ago) I also came to notice that there isn't any core meaning to the words "god" and "deity". "Worship" isn't terribly meaningful either.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
"Worship" isn't terribly meaningful either.

This is a bit of a tangent on my part but I wanted to mention that you've illustrated one of the flaws with my own definition of a god. What constitutes worship is ambiguous and what makes something worthy of worship is even more ambiguous. The other flaws I see with it are that some things are considered worthy of worship but not viewed as gods (such as some forms of ancestor worship) or are considered to be gods but unworthy of worship (such as some forms of dystheism).

In other words, I can absolutely sympathise with those who lean towards ignosticism!
 

shongho

New Member
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?)
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
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.
In order for me to consider a being God, it would have to be the creator of the Universe, the most powerful being in the Universe, and good and fair according to my standard of good and fair.
(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?)
Come out of hiding and making himself known to all of mankind
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
In order for me to consider a being God, it would have to be the creator of the Universe, the most powerful being in the Universe, and good and fair according to my standard of good and fair.

Come out of hiding and making himself known to all of mankind

Thank you for this. That gives me a very solid idea of what you expect a god to be and what would constitute evidence for its existence. I appreciate your input.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
In order for me to consider a being God, it would have to be the creator of the Universe, the most powerful being in the Universe, and good and fair according to my standard of good and fair.

Come out of hiding and making himself known to all of mankind
So ... an all powerful God that is subservient to your wishes. :)

Sound like every God (big G) ever proposed.
 
Top