[ATLian]

Is God an Atheist?

Before the Christian dismisses atheism as irrational or condemns the atheist as immoral, he should consider the disturbing possibility that the God of Christianity is himself an atheist. And if this is true, it means that the Christian worships, obeys, and has devoted his life to an atheistic being who does not believe in any power superior to himself, never prays, is utterly without faith, and who does not acknowledge any authority, either cognitive or moral, external to himself.

If theism is loosely defined as belief in a higher power, a mysterious being whose essential nature cannot be understood (whether in whole or in part) by the believer, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a power higher than himself, nor can there be anything which he fails to understand, for nothing can be unknown or unknowable to an omniscient being.

If theism is defined as the belief in a supernatural being, then God is an atheist. His own powers, though supernatural from a human point of view, are comprehensible to himself. Everything is "natural" from God's perspective.

If theism involves a relationship of subordination and dependence between a theist and her object of veneration, then God is an atheist. He is a self-sufficient Being who disbelieves in any power greater than himself. He worships nothing, never prays, never seeks forgiveness, and never acknowledges his own errors.

If theism is the belief in a creator, or first cause, who is ultimately responsible for one's own existence, then God is an atheist. He believes himself to have existed eternally--though, as Kant suggested, even God must occasionally wonder where he came from.
If theism involves the belief in an external moral authority, a being whose moral law is obligatory for his creatures, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a higher law, nor does he think himself capable of doing wrong. He does not regard himself bound to respect the rights of any other being. God is morally autonomous, a law unto himself.

God is therefore an atheist. Moreover, he is a positive atheist of the most dogmatic variety, for he claims to know with absolute certainty that there exists no being superior to himself. He is never troubled by doubt, never re-examines any of his beliefs, and never feels obliged to justify them.

This raises some further questions: Why, if God is himself an atheist, should we suppose that that he disapproves of atheism among his creatures? Is not a benevolent father pleased when his children grow up to be like him? And how can the Christian condemn atheism per se without also condemning their atheistic God? Is not the atheist who strives to be like God more admirable than the Christian who merely believes in him?

Is Satan a Christian?

Satan is not an atheist--that much is clear--for he believes in the God of Christianity. We thus have the intriguing spectacle of a battle between two titans, with God the Atheist on the side of good, and Satan the Theist on the side of evil. And if the Bible is to be believed, the Atheist will ultimately triumph over the Theist.

Is Satan the Theist also a Christian? Apparently so, because a Christian is defined in terms of his beliefs, not his actions. Satan clearly believes in the central tenets of Christianity. He believes, for example, that Jesus, the Son of God, was sacrificed to redeem the sins of mankind--for if Satan does not believe this, why did he tempt Jesus in an effort to sabotage his divine mission? He also believes in the resurrection of Jesus, in the power of God to work miracles, and in the existence of a heaven and a hell he calls home.

Satan, a major player in many biblical events, does not have the least doubt about the veracity of God's word. Indeed, it is impossible to name one belief of the best Christian that Satan does not share. We may therefore conclude that Satan is a Christian, despite his rebellious spirit and competitive zeal. No one is perfect, after all.

[ATLian]

BTW the above is an excerpt from George H. Smith's book "Why Atheism?" published by Prometheus Books.

[TeamManager]

ATLian,

I am now using the computer. I KNOW that I am using the computer. I DON'T need to BELIEVE that I am using a computer.
Similarly, God knows that He is God THEREFORE the need to BELIEVE that He is God does not arise.

PS. Athetist are not neccessarily immoral people, but just like the rest of us, they are sinful and therefore spiritualy DEAD until the meet the risen Lord.

[ATLian]

TM, it's just some food for thought. Here's another one.

Can God have an orgasm?

The mere posing of the question is bound to offend the religious sensibility of many people, and many would refuse even to consider the question from fear that God - who is privy to their every thought - would seriously disapprove of any such blasphemous curiosity. But this question raises a serious problem about the nature of God that dates back to the skeptics of ancient Greece.

If we suppose that God can feel physical sensations of any kind, then we must also suppose that God is a corporal entity, a physical organism with the capacity to experience sensations. And this supposition, aside from conflicting with the notion that God is a purely spiritual being, carries with it the disturbing implication that God is subject to change and so cannot be immutable.

To experience a sensation, after all, is to experience a change from one state to another, so if God is able to feel anything we cannot regard him as immutable, because this means the absence of any change whatsoever.

Moreover, the notion that God can feel sensations and is therefore subject to change is clearly incompatible with the absolute perfection of God. For consider: If we suppose God to be perfect, then any change must necessarily be for the worse, after which he will no longer be perfect. If, on the other hand, we suppose that any change in God is necessarily for the better, then this means that God was less than perfect prior to the change.

These and similar arguments were first proposed by the skeptics of ancient Greece, who showed that the traditional conception of God (or the gods) is self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. The only way out of this conceptual morass is to say that God, who never changes, does not experience sensations or feelings of any kind, as we understand those terms.

But this assumption brings with it a new set of problems. For example, if God is unable to experience pain, then there is at least one thing that we humans (who are quite familiar with this sensation) know that God does not, in which case God cannot be omniscient. For we can never know the meaning of "pain" unless we have experienced this sensation for ourselves. "Pain" must be defined ostensively, i.e., through direct experience, so a being who has never felt pain can never know the meaning of "pain." Thus if God has never felt physical sensations of any kind, then there are many things of which he is necessarily ignorant, things that are known to his creatures but not to their creator.

Most people have experienced an orgasm, but can the same be said of God? If the answer is yes, then we confront the previously discussed conflict between change and immutability, as well as that between change and perfection. If the answer is no, then we might ask why God has never had an orgasm. Is this because he will not or because he cannot have this experience? In the former case, although many things are presently unknown to God, he could acquire this knowledge if he so chose. In the latter case, God is forever barred from knowing many things that we humans know quite well. In either case, however, God cannot be all-knowing, because he must totally ignorant of sensory knowledge.

[patapata]

Lol!!!
Um... ATLian, sorry to detract from the topic, lakini waweza kunifafanulia an issue?
-> What exactly is belief? This is not a cheap attempt at philosophy. I've just been having a hard time understanding what exactly that frame of mind that we call 'belief' is. I would like to hear this from a self-proclaimed atheist, because I've already heard various theists takes on 'belief'. Their answers have proven unsatisfactory.

Somewhere else, in response to you, Team Manager says that by being an atheist you are exercising a form of faith: faith in 'NO GOD'. His statement makes sense if you hold the opinion that 'faith' or 'belief' actually exists. If, however, you wonder whether 'faith'/ 'belief' as described by believers, is actually what they claim it to be, then you would probably not accept his statement.

I would be interested in seeing satjas' response to your question, "Can God have an orgasm". LOL!!!!

[jarabuon]

>ATLian,
>
>I am now using the computer. I KNOW that I am using the
>computer. I DON'T need to BELIEVE that I am using a computer.
>Similarly, God knows that He is God THEREFORE the need to
>BELIEVE that He is God does not arise.
>


DUH!!! the question is "DOES GOD HAVE A GOD". that's the difference between a believer and an atheist. If God does not have a God, then he is not a beleiver in a higher power (def of atheist) therefore he is an atheist.

Its just a play on words, but that kindagarten analogy you just gave is what leaves many christians with unanswered questions leaving them with 2 options... blind faith or seek answers elsewhere.

>PS. Athetist are not neccessarily immoral people,but just
>like the rest of us, they are sinful and therefore spiritualy
>DEAD until the meet the risen Lord.


can you say "condescending"?

[satjas]

Hey ATlian

>Can God have an orgasm?

depending on what an orgasm means to you OFcourse God can experience it!!!!! Whatever you experience God experiences.

The question you probably pose is whether God has similar feelings that we have? The answer is YES!!!! and why not? He created them as well didn't She?? If we can get this aspect into our minds that EVERYTHING we see and cannot see lies between the alpha and the omega and nothing exists outside this then what i say will become more clearer to you.

The other very important thing about God is that God is not a person or being or specific spirit.....God is a process, just as life is a process.

Forget that topic for a moment......lets talk of something else.........so one day the mind decides it wants to have nothing to do with the brain and decides to part company. Suddenly the mind realizes it cannot exist on its own, because its functions only operate within the brain. Meanwhile the brain has no idea what's going on cos....it...umm....doesn't have a method of realizing it even exists.....how will it know it's a brain?? Although the brain doesn't know it, death beckons (that's when we call some brain dead)......But the mind rushes back for if it existed outside the brain it would only be an idea. Now the mind being back in the brain can function better.....in fact even an idea now can become a reality.....they have to work together!!!!!!

the story is about people who claim, and they are entitled to their opinions, that God does not exist. Even for them to think that God does not exist they need that physical aspect, the brain......but they yet keep on saying the mind doesn't exist either.....which they wouldn't do if they didn't have that very mind.....and brain!!!!

Whether one believes in God or not is not important.....that very freedom to choose that opinion came from God Itself, the essence of freedom, the process of life.

Think of your life as a game on a CD-ROM....every move you make or do is already known by the computer, yet you have that free choice to move anywhere within that game.......or even switch it off.....the game still remains.......even when you deny the existence of God, God Is. The only exception i ask you to make in reality is that your life is not a game, God would never play games with your life......but She'd let you play games with your own life...including achieving orgasms!!!!

> And this supposition, aside from conflicting with
>the notion that God is a purely spiritual being, carries with
>it the disturbing implication that God is subject to change
>and so cannot be immutable.

God changes every moment.....everything around you is in motion all the time.......even the rock is in motion, albeit at a very low frequency.

>To experience a sensation, after all, is to experience a
>change from one state to another, so if God is able to feel
>anything we cannot regard him as immutable, because this means
>the absence of any change whatsoever.

Correct....you answered yourself.

>Moreover, the notion that God can feel sensations and is
>therefore subject to change is clearly incompatible with the
>absolute perfection of God. For consider: If we suppose God to
>be perfect, then any change must necessarily be for the worse,
>after which he will no longer be perfect. If, on the other
>hand, we suppose that any change in God is necessarily for the
>better, then this means that God was less than perfect prior
>to the change.

Perfection can perfect itself...evolution is a good example.....it was perfect then but has now improved to a newer perfection. There are only varying degrees of perfection...there are no opposites. Even hot and cold are variants of the same thing, so is love and fear....let me give you an example......when you say ' i love you' to someone, at that very moment you also invite your biggest fear -'will they say it back to me?' 'will i be rejected?' Thus these two variants exist at different 'degrees' at the same time.

> The only way out of this conceptual
>morass is to say that God, who never changes, does not
>experience sensations or feelings of any kind, as we
>understand those terms.

that is again correct.....it suits religions....they use it to fool us.

>But this assumption brings with it a new set of problems. For
>example, if God is unable to experience pain, then there is at
>least one thing that we humans (who are quite familiar with
>this sensation) know that God does not, in which case God
>cannot be omniscient. For we can never know the meaning of
>"pain" unless we have experienced this sensation for
>ourselves. "Pain" must be defined ostensively, i.e., through
>direct experience, so a being who has never felt pain can
>never know the meaning of "pain." Thus if God has never felt
>physical sensations of any kind, then there are many things of
>which he is necessarily ignorant, things that are known to his
>creatures but not to their creator.

Exactly.....an idea in the mind remains just that unless an experience takes place and in the process of that experience the idea becomes reality.....i explained in another post how God wanted to experience Her magnificence and came up with the simplest of ideas of splitting Itself, Godself into identical parts, we can call them energy particles....or souls...thats when the big bang theory took place and Albert Einstein came up with E = MC2.......where energy (thought) = matter( reality) x speed of light ( frequency).....and if you have some mathematical knowledge you will realize if you slowed down your thought process you could create matter.......but that's a different subject matter!!!!!

> In the latter case, God is forever barred from
>knowing many things that we humans know quite well.

In so many ways you've finally managed to answer all religions in this statement. This is what religions would like you to believe. The reality is if you swap the words God and humans.....but they will never want you to experience that freedom of thought.

-the paradigm shifter.......God's friend.

One can only experience The Power when one is out of one's mind literally!!!!

[TeamManager]

>DUH!!! the question is "DOES GOD HAVE A GOD". that's the
>difference between a believer and an atheist. If God does not
>have a God, then he is not a beleiver in a higher power (def
>of atheist) therefore he is an atheist.
>
>Its just a play on words, but that kindagarten analogy you
>just gave is what leaves many christians with unanswered
>questions leaving them with 2 options... blind faith or seek
>answers elsewhere.

kindergarden analogy? Have you considered it that maybe it was a stupid silly question, instead.

Another std one analogy!
Peter has a lot of money therefore he is rich. His money has no money of its own, THEREFORE can I say that His money is POOR?
Ofcourse thats stupid since Money does not need to own its own money. The question would not make any sense.

[Neoblack]

Team Manager,

Most Christians and people of other religions think atheists are proud, conceited, egoistic people because they believe in themselves and not a superior being, creator etc. If this is the case, then what do they think of God who, as Atlian, has pointed out believes he is the MAN or WOMAN or HE-SHE and no one is superior to him and does not pray. Then he must be the most egoistical being (is calling God a being right?) ever and we as his creation are bound to be proud and self-sufficient.

PS.Atlian, check your inbox.

[Neoblack]

Now you are just trying to offend Team Manager and the rest of them. Come on now, give them a little piece of mind.