Definition of God

[_KevinSim]

What exactly is the God that atheists believe doesn't exist? If someone calls herself/himself an atheist what is a/he saying s/he doesn't believe exists?

[_SuperDell]

The Supernatural being who is so insecure that in the end he will destroy what he created and force all whoever lived to acknowledge he is top dog.
So many different religions have an insecure type at the top.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What exactly is the God that atheists believe doesn't exist? If someone calls herself/himself an atheist what is a/he saying s/he doesn't believe exists?

Whatever god you assert that exists.

- Doc

[Guest]

What exactly is the God that atheists believe doesn't exist? If someone calls herself/himself an atheist what is a/he saying s/he doesn't believe exists?

I'm not an atheist, but I don't think atheists consider "God" to be anything.

I don't believe in Unicorns, so if someone asks me to describe a Unicorn I'd just say 'They don't exist so I can't describe what they would be.'

If someone doesn't believe there's a God, trying to explain what God is would only apply to what someone thinks others who believe in God are putting their faith in. In that case I believe they'd say they don't believe in a supernatural power that intervenes in our daily lives.

Just my opinion of course as someone who doesn't consider himself an atheist.

[_Jersey Girl]

Supernatural being.

I'm not an Atheist, FYI.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

Not an atheist, but not a believer.

Atheists call me an atheist, I say i'm agnostic.

Atheists usually define themselves as people that do not believe in any kind of deity.
That's it.

Ghosts, the fey (see what I did there?) folk and vengeful spirits might be fair game...

[_Gadianton]

the word "atheist" will soon be officially dated and supplanted by the word "naturalist". A naturalist believes that any explanation of material cause is complete with reference to physical laws. Going the naturalist route avoids needing to specifically deny God, and simply propose we've got what we need to explain the problems at had and so, best that you take your religion to folks still looking for a nicely decorated black box. It also avoids the awkwardness of in-between positions of physicalism, and avoids passing judgement on philosophical matters such as purpose and morality. Oddly, naturalism is compatible with God, but probably not Theism. On even days of the week, the Sic et Non comment-sectioners argue for the "b" theory of the Mormon God, the non-theist, Social Darwinist version, where God is the highest-ranking contingent being in a universe, the Overman who has mastered all physical laws and has a fullness of Joy in limitless consumption.

In Theism proper, God is a necessary being. On odd days of the week, the Sic et Non commenters will deny important eternal truths such as the infinite regress of Gods, in order to embrace a typical theistic definition of God -- that is pretty much totally incompatible with Mormonism -- that God is the unmoved mover. They need this kind of God mainly in order to say that meaning and purpose are grounded in something not material. This God is defined mainly by the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. This is where Sic et Non's despised FSM falls short. Even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, then he, by the ontological argument, is God, provided that no conceivably greater being is logically possible. In other words, FSM might account for our world or the universe, but he can't be shown to be necessary without also by definition, being God. All facts about FSM that make him an entertaining creator are contingent, and could have been otherwise, and so if one were to try and make FSM the no-greater-being-that-can-be-thought of rather than God, at best you have a competing string of phonemes that references identical logical content.

Unfortunately for the SeN crowd, the Mormon God has more in common with FSM than the traditional God of Theism -- unfortunately for them 3.5 days out of the week, anyway.

One problem with taking on Atheism, is that since it's a denial of theism, then you kind of have to know what Gods are being proposed such that you know what we're denying. Typically that's a theistic God. But that's a problem when folks wish to bring in their own Gods that don't fit the traditional definition -- then, it's easier to consider God whoever the guy or gal is who created the earth and humanity. That's not very rigorous, but it works for most practical purposes.

Many atheists try and say that atheism is the empty set, and it's up to the believer to demonstrate God. That gets around the problem of specifying what God the atheist is taking on: begin with the empty set, and if you want to add something, then justify it. The philosophy here is logical positivism. I don't really agree with this, God has been around a very long time as an idea, and I don't think you can really be an atheist without specifically arguing against theism, which came first.

Do you have any questions, KevinSim? How may I help you figure out an apologetic for going against atheists?

[_KevinSim]

What exactly is the God that atheists believe doesn't exist? If someone calls herself/himself an atheist what is a/he saying s/he doesn't believe exists?

Whatever god you assert that exists.

That's easy. The God that I assert exists is Antonio Guterres, the current Secretary General of the United Nations. I think every nation in the United Nations would concede Guterres exists, so I think it's safe to conclude that God exists.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don’t believe Gutterres is God. Next?

[_canpakes]

Has God spent much time describing himself aside from simple terms like, jealous?

Perhaps what atheists reject are versions of God that are assembled by men.