How do the Mormons define an "Atheist?"

[_Uncle Dale]

Numerous gods are mentioned in the world's scriptures -- including a fairly large
number which can be found in the Bible.

Which biblical gods can I personally believe are non-existent,
without the Mormons calling me an "atheist?"

And -- at a more important level of consideration -- if I merely
believe in those various biblical gods, but refuse to worship them,
am I a good "theist" according to official Mormon doctrine?



What if I flat out deny the existence of Lucifer? I stand up in
testimony meeting and bear witness to the fact Satan is a myth.

Am I thus denying one of the gods? Am I thus making myself an atheist?

Uncle Dale

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Good questions and I don't have any answers. I just bet that if a person got up in fast meeting and denied Satan he'd get a much stronger reaction than if he denied God. If you decide to do it, please let me know so I can come and watch!

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think Mormons define atheism just like most other people do: a lack of a belief in any Gods.

[_Uncle Dale]

I think Mormons define atheism just like most other people do: a lack of a belief in any Gods.

Then we are back to something like the situation 2000 years ago, when the
Romans accused the Jews and early Christians of being "atheists," because
they did not affirm and worship the gods of the Roman Empire.

Or so it seems to me.

If I've rightly represented this position, then a person who worships
but one God, unlike any entities elsewise called "gods," is an atheist,
for denying the existence of "gods" in general.

But, who knows -- on some other planet, in some other star system,
there may exist advanced beings, so far evolved beyond the level
of human beings, that they would essentially resemble the various
gods earthlings have for so many centuries worshiped.

I'm willing to postulate the existence of those sorts of highly evolved
intelligent beings --- so, would that make me a theist?

Erich von Däniken, where are you, when we really need you?

UD

[_Ray A]

I'm willing to postulate the existence of those sorts of highly evolved
intelligent beings --- so, would that make me a theist?

Erich von Däniken, where are you, when we really need you?

UD

For your entertainment, Dale. (and for what it's worth, I take his ideas seriously, which of course puts me at serious risk for ridicule)

What Role Will Extraterrestrials Play In Humanity's Future?.

[_Uncle Dale]

I'm willing to postulate the existence of those sorts of highly evolved
intelligent beings --- so, would that make me a theist?

Erich von Däniken, where are you, when we really need you?

UD

For your entertainment, Dale. (and for what it's worth, I take his ideas seriously, which of course puts me at serious risk for ridicule)

What Role Will Extraterrestrials Play In Humanity's Future?.

I think that if von Däniken's theories were true, we would see some better evidence
of "space aliens" having visited us.

For example, a single footprint, left in the dust of our Moon's surface,
would still be in evidence 10,000 years from now.

One would think that visiting space aliens might have at least left a bit
of their garbage, scattered about on the Moon. Looks like the only landings
ever made there (or on Mars, Mercury.etc.) have been human ones.

UD

[_Ray A]

I think that if von Däniken's theories were true, we would see some better evidence
of "space aliens" having visited us.

Von Daniken is/was only a populariser. His seedling ideas and speculations are now taken far more seriously by others today, who, admittedly, still remain on the "outer fringes" of "conventional science". The linked article will give you more insight into what is still admittedly speculation, but still an area even which Paul Davies is prepared to enter.

Wild ideas I like to think about.

Think of how we have advanced since only 1900, and imagine a civilisation 1 million years more advanced than we are. One might even be tempted to call such a civilisation, "God".

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Think of how we have advanced since only 1900, and imagine a civilisation 1 million years more
advanced than we are. One might even be tempted to call such a civilisation, "God".

I have a theory about such speculation -- that the living environment of most
intelligent societies is destroyed, before they can progress very far.

And, those civilizations which are able to survive the endangerment of their
planet (or whatever living space they occupy), generally end up destroying
themselves, before they can progress very far.

However, if alien beings could evolve considerably beyond earthlings, they
might appear to be "gods" to us ---- and especially so, if they were so devious
as to study our ancient history and adopt the guise of our gods.

Imagine a "space alien" who arrived on earth, pretending to be Quetzalcoatl!
If that alien were sufficiently advanced he/she/it would no doubt end up
convincing most of the earthlings that they should adopt the Aztec religion.

Gives me headaches, pondering such possibilities.

UD

[_JohnStuartMill]

I think Mormons define atheism just like most other people do: a lack of a belief in any Gods.

Then we are back to something like the situation 2000 years ago, when the
Romans accused the Jews and early Christians of being "atheists," because
they did not affirm and worship the gods of the Roman Empire.

Or so it seems to me.

If I've rightly represented this position, then a person who worships
but one God, unlike any entities elsewise called "gods," is an atheist,
for denying the existence of "gods" in general.

But, who knows -- on some other planet, in some other star system,
there may exist advanced beings, so far evolved beyond the level
of human beings, that they would essentially resemble the various
gods earthlings have for so many centuries worshiped.

I'm willing to postulate the existence of those sorts of highly evolved
intelligent beings --- so, would that make me a theist?

Erich von Däniken, where are you, when we really need you?

UD

I'm afraid I don't follow, Dale. When I say "lack a belief in any Gods", I include a lacked belief in a single God.

Mormons don't call Muslims or Zoroastrians atheists. They call them Muslims and Zoroastrians.

Regarding extraterrestrials with superhuman powers: I think the question hinges on whether the extraterrestrials are considered "gods" or not. If you don't consider them to be gods, and you don't believe in other gods, then you're an atheist. If you do consider them to be gods -- and if they're sufficiently advanced, they would be, in the historically-used sense of the term -- then you're a theist. The social nature of language poses a problem here, though, because other people may consider aliens to be gods even while you don't. In this case, you'd consider yourself to be an atheist, but might identify yourself as a theist in public because social convention labels extraterrestrials as gods.

[_Uncle Dale]

...

Mormons don't call Muslims or Zoroastrians atheists. They call them Muslims and Zoroastrians.
...

But Mormons probably DO think of Buddhists, Taoists, Vedantists
and Confucianists as being "atheists."

There is a strain of gnosticism which views all the deities as part
of a vast delusion -- and yet still affirms a shared Divinity at the
core of all human beings.

I am not talking about the sort of pantheism which affirms all the gods,
but rather the recurring philosophy, found in several cultures, that
professes we all are One (One being more than just the sum total of our minds).

So -- what might Mormons call THAT sort of religious person? One who denies
not only the plurality of gods, but also the trinity, and God as a celestialized being?

Since "Nightlion" is unable to comprehend such a question, I'm asking other
thoughtful Mormons -- perhaps ones who served a mission in Thailand or Ceylon.

UD