Challenge for Atheists: Define God

Well then call me a theist, because not only do I believe pizza and beer exist, but I think they're the only objective good in the world. Well, okay, only if it's good beer. I'd say the same about pizza but there is just no such thing as a bad pizza.

 

So you're not asking for OUR definition of "God", you're asking for YOUR definition of "God" - the definition that is being disputed... Thanks for making that clear... said no one, ever.

Here you go, the generic monotheistic approach:
God: a benevolent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal entity responsible for the creation of all that exists. "God" has a vested interest in the actions of humans, and has provided - through commnication with various mortals in ancient times - guidance for how to behave in a manner consistent with His wishes. Those who fail to adhere to God's expectations are condemned to eternal punishment after death, while those who live properly are elevated to eternal reward upon death.

Happy now?

 

We already have a word for that, it's called "universe". Trying to also label it "god" only degrades the terms.

 

You live in the Promised Land as far as good beer is concerned, you lucky devil you. I recall there was decent pizza to be had as well.

 

Beer and pizza? Yuck. False god. Repent.

 

There's good beer here, yeah. Augustinerbrau Edelstoff is mass-produced liquid ambrosia, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't like the pizza here as much as in the states. I'm more into the New York-style pizza than the italian-style pizza (which is what we get here most of the time). Still good... Just not as good. But hey, it's pizza. Even when it's bad, it's still pretty good.

BURN THE HERETIC!!!1

 

but in biblical times, that word and the comprehension of that trinity, was undefined.

Still is to people like you. Do you know the transition of mass/energy/time?

i didnt think so

I wasnt asking for an opinion on what 'god' is, I was telling you!

 

God (capitalised) is a name in the English langauge given to a supposed being from the mythos of Hebrew culture (and ultimately from the proto cultures of the region.

Beleivers in this being suppose that this being created the entire universe and is omnipotent and is the source of morality.

I have not seen sufficient evidence to warrant the existence of this being and consider it so highly improbable as to be a practising atheist.

 

Do you worship the universe? Does it literally speak to anyone? Does it have power to change its own reality? Does it have a persona?

Why call it god?

Also, this thread is about defining god. Telling other people not to give their opinions on it is counterproductive.

 

I believe any god is a being more supreme than ourselves.

 

I'm seeing a lot of posts here without definitions from ATHEISTS........

ATHEISTS, define God. You claim that He does not exist. But, how can He not exist if He is undefined to you???

Does pomme not exist, just because you've never heard this word before???

Does pomme not exist, just because you don't believe a Frenchie telling you it's an apple???

If the Frenchie shows you an apple, and tells you it's a Pomme, then aren't you going to disagree with him and tell him it's not a "Pomme"???

Yes, but is this truly your answer as an atheist?

 

Why is God not a fact and only a belief?

You are defining God as a belief, why not as a fact?

- - - Updated - - -

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG

Atheists claim "there is no God". How can you know, if you don't even know what God means????

What doesn't exist???? Tell me, I want to know what doesn't exist to you atheists. I want to understand your religion better.

 

This thread is for ATHEISTS, not heretics.

 

No god of any kind has done anything godly since man first created it. Belief in gods is nothing but superstition.

 

Yep, and a lot of posts WITH definitions, too. Funny how works, almost as if each post was created by a different person, and/or at a different time, containing different content, as the discussion advances.

 

Wholly unnecessary. Atheism isn't necessarily a disbelief in a specifically defined God, but a lack of belief in gods more generally, however they may be defined or personified.

An atheist has no burden to define God - that burden belongs solely to the believer in that God.

 

If your argument is that God is a fact and not a belief, then it is your burden to bring forth the facts that support this conclusion.

The more pertinent question is why should anyone consider the existence of a God to be a fact, and not a matter of someone's beliefs? It is those beliefs that define the word, not an atheist's lack of belief.

Hence my much earlier post, which you completely ignored. We don't know what the word "God" means until someone supplies a coherent definition. If we don't know what the word means, then what is there for us to know or believe about it? Atheism appears to be a pre-emptive strike against what has yet to be defined.

 

worship is for morons. Worship does not define a 'god'. it is a ritual for idiots to perform to show others their submission to 'god'

never has. Well, unless a life speaks, it is of the universe. intent is how to identify the good from the bad.

man kind believe(s)(d) many a god and did many a imposition to existence (itself) based on what (it) people believed of what others wrote about the diety.

people are persona's of nature. We can see every facet of nature by observing natures actions. mankind can cause as much hate, love, empathy and murder as any diety, either side, of any divide, claimed...good-bad.

then all the 'other' gods are then easy to identify as manmade, just as they are.

i find it best to put both feet flat on the ground and just ask yourself, "is nature my everything?' and it's easy from there forth.

when you do either good/bad, you impose it to 'it' and yourself, other and all. So now personal responsibility is easier to comprehend when it is as if to 'do unto others as your have done unto yourself'.

so i did ..(define god)

there is only one 'everything'..

nothing to debate

sending people on a wrong path is far worse.

 

"Pomme" is not an apple. "Apple" is not an apple. "Pomme" and "Apple" are not facts. They are words. Words are symbols. As such, they can represent things, actions, ideas, etc. - and the things they represent may or may not have a factual existence. In this case, both words represent a specific fruit - one that has a factual existence.

So I don't see that you have any point to make here. If the word "pomme" is unfamiliar to someone, then they will regard it as meaningless until that word is defined for them in terms that they understand.

Would we have any reason to be skeptical of someone explaining that the French word "pomme" is equivalent to the English word "apple"?

And now we come to the root of the matter.

If you encounter someone whose native language has no word for gods because that culture has no belief in gods, would you ask them to define "God" for you?

Back in the real world, my native language contains the word God, but there is no coherent definition of that word. So I consider it meaningless until such time as someone makes use of it in a context that lends it a believable meaning, explaining what the definition is and how they apply it.

Asking non-believers to define God is pointless. They're at best skeptical that the meaning they've been supplied has any factual basis. More to the point, atheists don't give the word 'God' meaning - believers do. To ask an atheist to define what hasn't been defined is ridiculous, since as non-believers they have no basis for supplying the definition of something that relies on belief.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, this thread is an exercise in futility, as pointless as trying to obtain a coherent definition of the word "God" when there is such variance among the believers who give the word meaning, and nothing factual on which to rely.

Why do you want atheists to define God for you? Come to the point already.

 

Because there are no proofs of god. God is just faith. A fact is something that has been proven with falsable proofs. God is no falsable and neither proven, so god is only a faith, nothing real.

Atheists don't have any religion.

Atheists just take the definitions and explanations given by the religious people, and say prove it, and how there are no proves they take the logic stance of considering it as inexistent. There is no religion. Leave to say that atheists have some religion, because atheism is the lack of religion.

 

Definition of God: Man made tyrant with a big ego that pouts when things do not go his way. (2). Justifies murder and baby killing of his own creation (supposedly) (3). Does not have the gonads to speak for himself. (4). Cannot even write his own book (5). In general a MONSTER created in the imagination of men to control by fear with threats of eternal torment. (6). His motto is "Turn or Burn." (7). Portrays himself as loving but is exactly the opposite if he don't get his way.

Yep man made. All the traits of a human.

 

If a theist can define God, I'm all ears.

 

Shouldn't any god be a being more supreme than ourselves?

 

[MENTION=55014]Heretic[/MENTION]:
Actually, you asked me to define what it is I do NOT believe in... So it is my interpretation of your belief system. Not sure whether that makes it "my answer as an atheist" or "my understanding of your answer"...
Either way, I'll "lock it in". Now what?

 

You cannot define what does not exist.