NationStates Jolt Archive

What if g(G)od(ess)(s)(esses) was an atheist? As in, he/she/they/it didn't believe in humans? Maybe there are a race of gods, who debate about differing views on the existance of Humans?

Woah.

Look up the word Atheist in the dictionary mate.

Look up the word Atheist in the dictionary mate.
You are missing the point, I am redefining atheism from the standpoint of dieties. it sounds better than ahumanism, no?

Perhaps they look down and think of us as no diffrent than all the other animals on this planet...

I think the proper term would be ahumanist.

But, since god needs followers in order to be god, no gods would exist if the god's didn't believe in us.

You are missing the point, I am redefining atheism from the standpoint of dieties. it sounds better than ahumanism, no?
Ahumanism is more descriptive.

But, since god needs followers in order to be god...
That's quite an assumption.

Ahumanism is more descriptive.
But doesn't sound nearly as cool. I rest my case :D

I think the proper term would be ahumanist.
Acknowledged, but see above. Plus, I did say that:

You are missing the point, I am redefining atheism from the standpoint of dieties. it sounds better than ahumanism, no?

But, since god needs followers in order to be god, no gods would exist if the god's didn't believe in us.
But my conjecture asks whether they are a sperate species, so we are detaching ourselves from the standard viewpoint. Perhaps we met each other at some point, and both formed religions based on long faded memories of each other?

That's quite an assumption.
Not really. Hume's master-slave relationship.

The master is undoubtable the master, yet, he is a slave to the slave. If you take away the slave, who is the master? He is simply a man with no one to rule. Therefore, he is no longer a master.

The same applies to god. God is only god because we believe in him(her, whatev) as god. If we take the human belief out of the system. Who does god define himself in terms of? Only himself. Since he no longer has any worshippers to adore his presence and think of him as god, he only think of himself as he thinks of himself (i.e. not god). Once he looses the bond of his worshippers, he is no longer god because he has no one to be god for.

Not really. Hume's master-slave relationship.

The master is undoubtable the master, yet, he is a slave to the slave. If you take away the slave, who is the master? He is simply a man with no one to rule. Therefore, he is no longer a master.

The same applies to god. God is only god because we believe in him(her, whatev) as god. If we take the human belief out of the system. Who does god define himself in terms of? Only himself. Since he no longer has any worshippers to adore his presence and think of him as god, he only think of himself as he thinks of himself (i.e. not god). Once he looses the bond of his worshippers, he is no longer god because he has no one to be god for.

That's deep man.

If gods didn't know one way or the other, they wouldn't be very good gods, now would they? Omniscience is one of those things you look for in a god.

Not really. Hume's master-slave relationship.

The master is undoubtable the master, yet, he is a slave to the slave. If you take away the slave, who is the master? He is simply a man with no one to rule. Therefore, he is no longer a master.

The same applies to god. God is only god because we believe in him(her, whatev) as god. If we take the human belief out of the system. Who does god define himself in terms of? Only himself. Since he no longer has any worshippers to adore his presence and think of him as god, he only think of himself as he thinks of himself (i.e. not god). Once he looses the bond of his worshippers, he is no longer god because he has no one to be god for.
Very true, except I think what the author was referring to the idea that we have g(G)od(ess)(s)(esses) who we worship but who still don't necessarily believe in us. You're not taking away the worshippers, just the belief that you are being worshipped. An odd case in any sort, because that goes to say that the god does not believe (s)he is a god by the word's very definition. Pretty much impossible if the god referred to happens to be omniscient. Would be funny though...a god that goes around changing every aspect of existence without even realising it.

What if? What do you mean 'what if'? I think you answered your own question. If a theoretical race of gods or single god questioned the existance of humans then they would debate the existance and nature of humans. This would bring in to question the reason for the existance of these gods as when we think of a god we usually think of a higher entity that in some way affects our lives. If these gods did not do this then we can draw one of two conclusions: one, that they indirectly affect our lives by giving us rainy seasons and dry seasons and such, or two, that they don't actually affect our lives and as a result would lead us to expand our concept of what exactly a god is.

In the first situation we have to wonder why they do the things they do. Maybe they believe in some or all lifeforms besides humans and provide just for them. Now we have to wonder why they can convince themselves of the existance of some lifeforms and not others; especially the one that has the most impact on the world around it. Maybe some gods simply don't believe in any life and some gods do. That would mean that the gods that are in some way affecting our lives are doing it without any proof of our existance. This means that they either only perceive non-living things or that they don't perceive the planet that we do at all, and by association they couldn't perceive anything in space composed of the same matter that exists on our planet or the same energy that exists or has existed on our planet. In the first cast I have to wonder why they can perceive non-organic compounds containing the same elements that the organic compounds that make up our body do. The second case must lead these gods to wonder whether they are actually doing anything when they wiggle their fingers and affect the lives of humans on a planet they can't even prove to exist in the first place. How do they determine whether their incantations work, or, for that matter, whether they're gods at all? Either they can't prove that they're a god any more then you or I can, or they exist in an alternate reality and simply believe that they can affect our reality (but shouldn't a god exist outside reality? good question, and no theologian has ever addressed it I'll bet). I suppose you could draw the conclusion that these gods you speak of might as well be us humans. If my reasoning is sound, that means that we don't believe in ourselves. I could draw more conclusions but there's more logical fallacies here then I care to list so I won't.

In the second senario I... don't know. I can think of three or four different conclusions I could draw from that, but with every case I would be begging the question so it's completely irrelevent. All I can say is that they wouldn't be gods in the traditional sense. We'd need a new definition for them. Their existance couldn't even be revealed to us, though, so the chances of me saying "There is a god who calls himself Bob. He does not believe in humans, but his friend Steve, also a god, does. Steve wiggles his fingers and tells Bob that he is affecting the lives of humans in some way. Bob mocks him incessantly about this. Steve does not actually know if he affects the lives of these humans. He cannot perceive these humans and as a result he cannot say for sure whether his powers actually affect humans. Steve either cannot see the results of his powers or he cannot see the affect humans have on the environment as a result of his powers. Because he cannot perceive us I'm willing to say that it's both. Steve cannot be sure whether his powers are doing anything for humans. Humans cannot prove that these powers originate from Steve because for all they know his powers could work in the form of what we know of as 'natural phenomenons'." and actually be right are beyond miniscule.

In any case, the idea is incongruous with the monotheistic concept of god and such an entity would not be a god by definition.

That was a completely pointless question. It's fun trying to think of answers for it though.

Not really. Hume's master-slave relationship.

The master is undoubtable the master, yet, he is a slave to the slave. If you take away the slave, who is the master? He is simply a man with no one to rule. Therefore, he is no longer a master.

The same applies to god. God is only god because we believe in him(her, whatev) as god. If we take the human belief out of the system. Who does god define himself in terms of? Only himself. Since he no longer has any worshippers to adore his presence and think of him as god, he only think of himself as he thinks of himself (i.e. not god). Once he looses the bond of his worshippers, he is no longer god because he has no one to be god for.

It wouldn't matter how a god defined himself. The concept of god is relative even if we're talking about a god in the most extreme meaning of the word (the single God of monotheistic religions, as opposed to, say, Greek gods). Omnipotence and omniscience are relative to what we perceive, really. What I mean by this is that whether we exist or not is irrelevent. This god still posesses the powers, or the potential powers, that he would if we did exist. Of course god in the most extreme sense has the power to create humans. If there happened to be another god that created humans and he couldn't perceive them, he could simply create a power of perception of humans for his own use. With this I concede that this it would be hard for either of us to argue against each other because we cannot clearly define what a god is. Greek gods couldn't have done that. They're just as credible as any other god humans have thought of.

That was a completely pointless question. It's fun trying to think of answers for it though.
That's the whole point of this thread, I'm glad you picked up on it :)

What if g(G)od(ess)(s)(esses) was an atheist? As in, he/she/they/it didn't believe in humans? Maybe there are a race of gods, who debate about differing views on the existance of Humans?
And the winner for the "Most Politically Correct Post" is j00!

Mabye God doesn't believe in us....Mabye we are all characters in a video made by the Holy Gaming Corporation, and God is actually the nickname of Lil Johnny Godford. And by the state of things in this Game world, God is getting his ass kicked by Satan...

What if g(G)od(ess)(s)(esses) was an atheist? As in, he/she/they/it didn't believe in humans? Maybe there are a race of gods, who debate about differing views on the existance of Humans?
While being mind numbing they would hardly fit the deffinition of "god"


god Audio pronunciation of "god" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.

1. God
1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
2. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

At least if they fall in the conventional deffinition 1 or 2 (3 no being not a being)

It wouldn't matter how a god defined himself. The concept of god is relative even if we're talking about a god in the most extreme meaning of the word (the single God of monotheistic religions, as opposed to, say, Greek gods). Omnipotence and omniscience are relative to what we perceive, really. What I mean by this is that whether we exist or not is irrelevent. This god still posesses the powers, or the potential powers, that he would if we did exist. Of course god in the most extreme sense has the power to create humans. If there happened to be another god that created humans and he couldn't perceive them, he could simply create a power of perception of humans for his own use. With this I concede that this it would be hard for either of us to argue against each other because we cannot clearly define what a god is. Greek gods couldn't have done that. They're just as credible as any other god humans have thought of.

Again, philosophy kills the argument. I believe this one was Kant but I may be mistaken.

The basic theory is that all presence as we(humans) see it is subjective. We can never know something completely on this earth no matter how hard we try because there is always a shaded side, if you will, of the object, something we cannot percieve. So, all of our definitions are subjective to our sense of the object. This includes god. I could go on and say that therefore god is subjective and doesn't exist, but I;m continuing along the more entertaining line.

The only completely objective matter in the entire universe is god. However, in order to be an object in a subjective world, god must be percieved on some level by humans, making it a subjective appearenece. (we see this by all the different religions). But, in order for god to be percieved by humans so god could give us knowledge or faith of his existence, then he is tied to the subjective world. Since god is tied to the subjective world, he is no longer a completely objective force and is manifest in humans. Because of that, god is subject to the perception of humans which leads back to Hume's master-slave relationship.

God belives in us... why? free will... if God didn't, we wouldn't be here or there would be no free will.

Of course that isn't to say God isn't always happy with us...

All of your arguments forget one thing - they all are THEORIES about dieties, not absolute truth, as we DON'T KNOW. Therefore, A) My conjectures are philisophically valid and B) My later theory that Gods and Humans are two seperate species who met at one point, and that we made into legend then deified faded memories of them.

All of your arguments forget one thing - they all are THEORIES about dieties, not absolute truth, as we DON'T KNOW. Therefore, A) My conjectures are philisophically valid and B) My later theory that Gods and Humans are two seperate species who met at one point, and that we made into legend then deified faded memories of them.
just let the philosophy ride man. Its the only way to form a decent religious debate. Otherwise all it is is this:

Person 1 "my god is awsome"
Person 2 "but this says it isn't so"
1 "yeah, will you can't know god so I'm right"

and then it degrades into a flame fest.

All of your arguments forget one thing - they all are THEORIES about dieties, not absolute truth, as we DON'T KNOW. Therefore, A) My conjectures are philisophically valid and B) My later theory that Gods and Humans are two seperate species who met at one point, and that we made into legend then deified faded memories of them.
But then you are using a different deffinition of diety then the rest of us ... its all fine to make up deffinitions but dont get mad at us who use the real deffinitions of thoes words you argue with

To BLARGistania:


I believe that is Berkeley, describing idealism. All of reality is mental constructs based upon perception. There is only one form of object in the universe, and it is neither matter nor spirit, but solely what our minds create. Since all we sense is from experience and senses, and since such things can be mistaken, we can never really know.


As for the debate on the divine, it implies that anything we discuss as arguments for "paying attention" would be woefully inadequate to comprehend with language the sheer magnitude of complexity. While we may operate on several levels (hypothetically), such a being/s would operate on infinite levels, as befites omnipotenece. To ask whether such a being would be able to comprehend us would be meaningless, as our definition of "comprehension" would be limited by our own experiences. It would be like the case of a two dimensional object trying to comprehend how three dimensions would work.

But hey, good way to get brain cramps, heh.

Issue: God is subject to vis own perception of verself. No objectivity there.

As for not believing in humans, probably isn't going to fly. Assuming Ve created humans directly, why the HELL would a deity not believe in Vis own creation?

And assuming Ve just kicked off the process that led to humanity, Ve'd have no opinion either way, unless Ve was observing it; in that case, being an entity which can detect EVERYTHING, Ve wouldn't be able to miss that sort of thing.

Or it's something like a simulation. Again, impossible to miss.

(I'm using gender-indeterminate pronouns - they exist, and I prefer these (from some sci-fi novel, forget which one) over the Spivak set.)

To BLARGistania:
I believe that is Berkeley, describing idealism. All of reality is mental constructs based upon perception. There is only one form of object in the universe, and it is neither matter nor spirit, but solely what our minds create. Since all we sense is from experience and senses, and since such things can be mistaken, we can never really know.


Good call. I don't have my notes so I had to try and remember. Oh well, at least I got the idea of it down.

just let the philosophy ride man. Its the only way to form a decent religious debate. Otherwise all it is is this:

Person 1 "my god is awsome"
Person 2 "but this says it isn't so"
1 "yeah, will you can't know god so I'm right"

and then it degrades into a flame fest.
Well, my argument only works if you suspend disbelief, since it isn't even a half-serious thread anyway. It was made serious, so I'm trying to point out that philisophical objections don't really fit here.


But then you are using a different deffinition of diety then the rest of us ... its all fine to make up deffinitions but dont get mad at us who use the real deffinitions of thoes words you argue with
It isn't that uncommon - Terry Pratchet, at least in Small Gods, uses a similar idea, as does the author of the Neverworld series, whose name I can't remember. Appelgate, I believe; I may have gotten the series name wrong as well. Neeither has my idea in that they are still the uber-dieties, but they still have a framework in which this could exist. So now I have two popular authors backing me, and I'm sure more are out there somewhere.

Well, my argument only works if you suspend disbelief, since it isn't even a half-serious thread anyway. It was made serious, so I'm trying to point out that philisophical objections don't really fit here.


It isn't that uncommon - Terry Pratchet, at least in Small Gods, uses a similar idea, as does the author of the Neverworld series, whose name I can't remember. Appelgate, I believe; I may have gotten the series name wrong as well. Neeither has my idea in that they are still the uber-dieties, but they still have a framework in which this could exist. So now I have two popular authors backing me, and I'm sure more are out there somewhere.
Which makes them work of fictuons and not true dieties they would not fit the general deffinition
Fiction writers are welcome to give names they feel like but it makes it hard to base arguements off of fictional deffinitions of words

Well, my argument only works if you suspend disbelief, since it isn't even a half-serious thread anyway. It was made serious, so I'm trying to point out that philisophical objections don't really fit here.


Well, in order to even argue about god, nay, to even discuss god, you have to suspend disbelief. Otherwise the argument doesn't work.

I think this thread has some serious philosophy potential.

Issue: God is subject to vis own perception of verself. No objectivity there.

As for not believing in humans, probably isn't going to fly. Assuming Ve created humans directly, why the HELL would a deity not believe in Vis own creation?

And assuming Ve just kicked off the process that led to humanity, Ve'd have no opinion either way, unless Ve was observing it; in that case, being an entity which can detect EVERYTHING, Ve wouldn't be able to miss that sort of thing.

Or it's something like a simulation. Again, impossible to miss.

(I'm using gender-indeterminate pronouns - they exist, and I prefer these (from some sci-fi novel, forget which one) over the Spivak set.)

Sounds like you are saying "We" over and over :) Also, I'm looking at Gods in the sense of less of a creator and more as a seperate species off somewhere, maybe even extraplanar/extradimensional.


Which makes them work of fictuons and not true dieties they would not fit the general deffinition
Fiction writers are welcome to give names they feel like but it makes it hard to base arguements off of fictional deffinitions of words
Neverworld actually uses dieties that were not made up; the Norse and Aztec, as well as a made up Alien god, are all represented, as well as others (I only read the second and third books, so my knowledge of which dieties are included is minimal).

Actually, the Norse dieties lead me to another point: dieties are not always omnipotent and omniscient. The Norse gods ultimately LOSE, and they are not omniscient (although, granted, Odin comes close after giving up an eye).

Neverworld actually uses dieties that were not made up; the Norse and Aztec, as well as a made up Alien god, are all represented, as well as others (I only read the second and third books, so my knowledge of which dieties are included is minimal).

Actually, the Norse dieties lead me to another point: dieties are not always omnipotent and omniscient. The Norse gods ultimately LOSE, and they are not omniscient (although, granted, Odin comes close after giving up an eye).

You mean the K.A Applegate series 'Everworld'? That's an awesome series, hate the ending thouigh, that last book, the ending ruined it...don't read the last book, it'll just piss you off!
btw, its got EVERYBODY...THey even got Leprechauns! Lessee, the series has the Irish deities, the Egyptians, Greek, that freak Alien God, and even King friggin Arthur...

Again, philosophy kills the argument. I believe this one was Kant but I may be mistaken.

The basic theory is that all presence as we(humans) see it is subjective. We can never know something completely on this earth no matter how hard we try because there is always a shaded side, if you will, of the object, something we cannot percieve. So, all of our definitions are subjective to our sense of the object. This includes god. I could go on and say that therefore god is subjective and doesn't exist, but I;m continuing along the more entertaining line.

The only completely objective matter in the entire universe is god. However, in order to be an object in a subjective world, god must be percieved on some level by humans, making it a subjective appearenece. (we see this by all the different religions). But, in order for god to be percieved by humans so god could give us knowledge or faith of his existence, then he is tied to the subjective world. Since god is tied to the subjective world, he is no longer a completely objective force and is manifest in humans. Because of that, god is subject to the perception of humans which leads back to Hume's master-slave relationship.

All I can really say is that if a god posessed the quality of omnipotence he could override the subjective nature of perception and give us an objective glimpse of himself or his knowledge and ideas. I'm sure that a better counter-argument exists but I don't know nearly enough about philosophy yet to construct something like that. I have a vague notion of what that argument would be but I'd have to think about it for a while before I could put it in words. It would be something about how simply because we cannot perceive a presense objectively does not mean that the presense cannot itself be objective. This is true, but there's no way to verify it, save god using his omnipotence. All I can say is 'it's certainly possible that the converse is true'.

You mean the K.A Applegate series 'Everworld'? That's an awesome series, hate the ending thouigh, that last book, the ending ruined it...don't read the last book, it'll just piss you off!
btw, its got EVERYBODY...THey even got Leprechauns! Lessee, the series has the Irish deities, the Egyptians, Greek, that freak Alien God, and even King friggin Arthur...
YES! Thank you, I couldn't remember the details of the name and the author! And you forgot Merlin and the Coo-hatch :)

Don't want to list everyone...Too many...Its even got that 'perfect knight' guy, who *sniff* dies a very painful and brutal death at the hand of the freak alien Dude-Supreme...And then that creepy ass sister (forget the name :confused: )

<snip>

okay, here's the basic argument.

humans = subjective thinkers
god = objective presence
god makes humans percieve him
god becomes tied to subjectivity
god is at will of people

what the argument states is that once god made contact with people. god ceased to be objective. God, despite his power could not override it because he had to maintain the connection with the people thus maintaining his own subjective nature. In the end, once there is subject in an object, the object can no longer go back to objective because the people will always have the subjective view.

Bump

I think that God doesn't believe in me, even if Ve ( :) ) does believe in humanity.

I bet the Deities (if there are more than just the One) just shake their heads and go: "Dude, did 'free will' include all this nonsense?!?" :rolleyes:

What if g(G)od(ess)(s)(esses) was an atheist? As in, he/she/they/it didn't believe in humans? Maybe there are a race of gods, who debate about differing views on the existance of Humans?


Who said there is no such thing as a stupid question?


Unanswerable mishmash of nonsense.

You may be on to something there, GN :)

I can just see Odin going, "What the hell are they doing? Arguing over us? Don't they have better things to do, like drink mead? I went through a lor of work to get that for them! Drink mead, fool mortals!"

Edit: My error, it was Odin who brought the divine mead, not Thor.

Who said there is no such thing as a stupid question?


Unanswerable mishmash of nonsense.
There are stupid questions, and then there are intentionally stupid questions. It is unaswerable mishmash, but fun to ponder when you are bored. If you want serious theology, go to one of the countless threads that care.

Sounds like you are saying "We" over and over :) Also, I'm looking at Gods in the sense of less of a creator and more as a seperate species off somewhere, maybe even extraplanar/extradimensional.

And they would see themselves as no more unusual than you or I see the other. Simply put, as long as they knew what to look for, they'd have no reason to deny humanity's existence. If a being can see something, logically it has to account for it; now whether that explanation involves mechanisms of illusion or intoxication is anyone's guess, but such a being could not ignore something's existence without actually rendering it nonexistent, and since we're talking about it right now...