"I Simply Believe in One Less God Than You"

[No_Comment]

Stephen F. Roberts said "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This argument has become popular with non- Theists.

Is it valid?

I would argue that is is not, since it fails to recognize that "god" is an analogical, even an equivocal, word.

"God" in the sense that it is used to describe Pagan or other Polytheistic deities such as Aphrodite or Baldr is different than "God" in the sense that is is used to describe the Abrahamic deities YHWH and Allah.

Polytheistic deities:
-Exist within the universe
-Are subject to shortcomings and imperfections
-Have limited, physical, humanoid bodies

On the other hand,

Abrahamic deities:
-Exist outside of the universe, separate from it
-Are, by nature, perfect beings
-Are spiritual beings, meaning that they have no extrinsic boundaries, whose substances are immaterial in a similar sense to how Platonic forms are immaterial

Abrahamic deities, in addition, differ from all else in that they are by nature absolutely simple, meaning that they contain no intrinsic boundaries and their beings themselves are one and the same with their natures, or qualities/ attributes.

YHWH, then, is something profoundly different from Pluto. He is a totally different type of being, more different from Pluto than a human is from a bacteria. The phrase "comparing apples to oranges" hardly does justice in describing a comparison between a Polytheistic god and an Abrahamic god.

For an Atheist to say "I simply believe in one less God than you, Christian," then, is to make an absurd statement, for, since the word "god" has two meanings, to use it as if it has only one meaning, conflating the two concepts represented by the word "god" and thereby misrepresenting both of these concepts, is to sever it from the concepts it represents, making it ambiguous, stripping it and the statement of any meaning.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

...
Atheism, when contemplated away from emotionalism, is quite easy to reject. It's antithesis when the same method is applied isn't.
...

Surely I misunderstand, but...

I notice that nigh on every religion I hear tell of, well they just go on and on about how their god loves him this, or he abhors him that.

Barring confirmation of such religious folks' claims here, if that ain't emotionalism, I don't know what is.

[ttruscott]

...

Yahweh was originally a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods along with, but not limited to, his consort Asherah.

This opinion is from non-believing bible expositors competing to make names for themselves in the academic world...showing off as it were, the power of their imagination.

I conclude this from the fact that they invariable contend against the original or believing exegesis of scripture and with each other. I'd maybe speak more pertinently to this if I knew your source.

Peace, Ted

[1213]

Stephen F. Roberts said "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This argument has become popular with non- Theists.

Is it valid?

I think that is not valid, because in my opinion it is possible that other gods exist or have existed, I just wouldn’t keep them as my God.

It would be more reasonable to make list of gods that Roberts would keep as his God. And after that think how many gods he reject.

[Joab]

Stephen F. Roberts said "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This argument has become popular with non- Theists.

Is it valid?

I think that is not valid, because in my opinion it is possible that other gods exist or have existed, I just wouldn’t keep them as my God.

It would be more reasonable to make list of gods that Roberts would keep as his God. And after that think how many gods he reject.

Which gods do you think exist and why?

[ttruscott]

Stephen F. Roberts said "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This argument has become popular with non- Theists.

Is it valid?

Very good. As I consider that all non-Christian gods are in fact real as spirits who thought that YHWH had a good gig going when HE claimed to be our creator GOD offering heaven or banishment from HIS reality.

These people copied HIS claims with their own spin, of course, their own attributes and promises and definitions of reality for people to choose if they weren't impressed by YHWH's schtik. Their followers live out their faith in this person (and his explanations of reality and how to succeed) here on earth filling up the religions (in contrast to the religion of YHWH) as we know them today.

Then there are those who rejected any version of reality that contained gods or a supreme GOD, rejecting them all by faith, believing them all to be false gods, liars trying to raise themselves over the rest of us, and went their own way without loyalty to anyone, trusting in themselves only and their bonds with their friends.

But whatever, I am not interested much in why someone rejects YHWH as their GOD but rather, my reasons for why I do and what are the necessary responses from me for that belief.

Peace, Ted

[Joab]

Stephen F. Roberts said "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This argument has become popular with non- Theists.

Is it valid?

Very good. As I consider that all non-Christian gods are in fact real as spirits who thought that YHWH had a good gig going when HE claimed to be our creator GOD offering heaven or banishment from HIS reality.

These people copied HIS claims with their own spin, of course, their own attributes and promises and definitions of reality for people to choose if they weren't impressed by YHWH's schtik. Their followers live out their faith in this person (and his explanations of reality and how to succeed) here on earth filling up the religions (in contrast to the religion of YHWH) as we know them today.

Then there are those who rejected any version of reality that contained gods or a supreme GOD, rejecting them all by faith, believing them all to be false gods, liars trying to raise themselves over the rest of us, and went their own way without loyalty to anyone, trusting in themselves only and their bonds with their friends.

But whatever, I am not interested much in why someone rejects YHWH as their GOD but rather, my reasons for why I do and what are the necessary responses from me for that belief.

Peace, Ted

Are you claiming that not all christian gods are actually christian gods?

[Zzyzx]

.

But, as I explained in my original post, God is not physical. God is necessarily not a concept either, since something that is merely a concept cannot create or cause things.

If that which is conceptual or imaginary cannot create, evidence that something has been created by a "god" would indicate that it was more than conceptual or imaginary.

"Gods" have been credited (by humans) with creating things, including the universe. However, the creation claims are only conceptual or conjectural. Evidence linking a "god" to a creation is lacking (beyond concept or conjecture).

Is it not just as likely that "gods" are created by human imagination which further proposes that the gods created humans?

Round and round it goes -- and can't get past "Believe on faith" (because doing so will make you feel good and think you will be rewarded after you die).

[1213]

Which gods do you think exist and why?

For example material things that are kept as god’s, like sun. I think it exists; I just wouldn’t keep it as my God.

[lao tzu]

Yahweh was originally a member of the Canaanite pantheon of gods along with, but not limited to, his consort Asherah.

This opinion is from non-believing bible expositors competing to make names for themselves in the academic world...showing off as it were, the power of their imagination.

I conclude this from the fact that they invariable contend against the original or believing exegesis of scripture and with each other. I'd maybe speak more pertinently to this if I knew your source.

Peace, Ted

The Early History of God / Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel

[center]For my father,
Donald Eugene Smith,
with love

Everything God has made beautiful in its own time;
also eternity God has given into their heart.

(cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11)[/center]

The above is my principal source for the Canaanite origins of Yahweh, and the centered text is its dedication page. The author is, to the best of my knowledge, Jewish, and the work was supported largely by an Albright scholarship, but also with the cooperation and support of various religious institutions.


Hello Ted,

Beginning with a faulty premise, it's understandable that one might arrive at a faulty conclusion, as I believe has occurred here. Yahweh's Canaanite origins are not merely an opinion, are not supported only by non-believers, and do not principally arise from ego and imagination, but rather from diligent, painstaking study.

The actual evidence for a Canaanite origin of Yahweh, and biblical monotheism more generally, is primarily linguistic and archaeological. Much of the evidence is indeed included in the Bible, but much more comes from archaeological finds, including both texts and artifacts uncovered at sites ranging from ancient Ugarit on the Mediterranean coast in Syria to Mari to various locations inside the borders of ancient Israel.

As ever, Jesse

[FarWanderer]

And I dunno what you mean by a "serious" theologian, but God being a person is fundamental to nearly ever form of theology I've ever encountered.

What kind of theology have you encountered? That seems odd to me, because God not being a person is fundamental to nearly every form of theology I've encountered.

Person doesn't necessarily mean human. To call God a person means God cares about stuff. He likes things and wants things and has goals and communicates with us and such.

What gives a physical thing its identity is its shape. If it had no boundries, it would have an indefinite shape and therefore no identity.

The same goes for concepts. If the number 9, for example, wasn't bound by it's place as the 9th ordinal number, it would lose it's "shape". What in heck would it be?

But, as I explained in my original post, God is not physical. God is necessarily not a concept either, since something that is merely a concept cannot create or cause things.

God is not a this, God is not a that. So God is bounded outside of those categories.

And outside those categories, God remains still completely nondescript.