God and gods

[historia]

I contend 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.

Questions for debate: Is this quote accurate? Is the difference between the concept of God and the concept of gods simply a difference in number (one vs. many)? When atheists and skeptics combine the two into the short-hand "God(s)," are they making a category error?

[dio9]

I don't think I believe in the gods you atheists don't believe in either.

[Tcg]

I don't think I believe in the gods you atheists don't believe in either.

If that were true, you'd lack belief in all gods. The word "gods" is all inclusive. There is/are no god/gods that get/s a special exemption.




Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by dio9]

I don't think I believe in the gods you atheists don't believe in either.

I think I get the gist of what you say here. You understand non-theist ideas of GOD to be shallow and worthless misrepresentations of Theist ideas of GOD.

If that is the meaning behind your words, I get you and generally agree with your sentiment.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 21 by dio9]

I don't think I believe in the gods you atheists don't believe in either.

I think I get the gist of what you say here. You understand non-theist ideas of GOD to be shallow and worthless misrepresentations of Theist ideas of GOD.

If that is the meaning behind your words, I get you and generally agree with your sentiment.

I've never met an idea of gods, god, God, G_d, gOD, GoD, goD, or GOD that I didn't understand. If the ideas presented by theists about their gods, god, God, G_d, gOD, GoD, goD, or GOD are shallow and worthless, it is a result of the shallow and worthless ideas of gods, god, God, G_d, gOD, GoD, goD, or GOD being presented.




Tcg

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by Tcg]

Given that you have told the reader that you do not even read what I have written this complex subject, I personally don't see it as reasonable to believe you know as much about the subject as you are claiming.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 24 by Tcg]

Given that you have told the reader that you do not even read what I have written this complex subject, I personally don't see it as reasonable to believe you know as much about the subject as you are claiming.

I didn't tell "the reader" that I didn't read what you have written on this simplistic subject. I told you I didn't read ONE of your posts related to a subject you have posted about many times.


Misrepresenting what I said adds nothing to your argument. In fact is causes one to wonder why this misrepresentation would be needed if you have a valid point.




Tcg

[historia]

The ‘God’ of Abrahamic Religions is imagined by adherents to ‘transcend the created order’

Sounds right. Except 'God' as a concept exists in ancient pagan philosophy and some forms of Hinduism as well.

The ‘gods’ of other religions are imagined (by Apologists) to not ‘transcend nature’

I'm not sure what "Apologists" have to do with any of this. We know from Greek and Hindu mythology, for example, that the gods emerged from the created world. So that much sounds right, too.

Therefore, ‘My god is better / bigger than your god’

No, this is irrelevant. My argument is simply that the concept of God and the concept of the gods are different. That argument makes no value judgement as to one concept being better than the other. That appears to be a judgement you've simply projected onto the above facts.

Neither have been shown / demonstrated to be anything other than creations of human imagination.

This is also irrelevant. My point, again, is that the concept of God and the concept of the gods are different and have different epistemic support. Whether either or both is true or not has no bearing on that point.

How is 'inside vs. outside the cosmos' argument different from saying, 'My imagination is better than your / their imagination'?

Based on your clarification above, I would say these two arguments are quite different, as the latter entails two points that are completely irrelevant to the former.

[Zzyzx]

.

We know from Greek and Hindu mythology, for example, that the gods emerged from the created world.

What about the other two thousand or so proposed 'gods'?

Can anyone legitimately claim the following without knowledge of the competing gods?

The "gods," by contrast, do not transcend nature, but rather are thought to have emerged from it. They are conceived of as just higher or more powerful beings within the created order.

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by Zzyzx]

Can anyone legitimately claim the following without knowledge of the competing gods?

The "gods," by contrast, do not transcend nature, but rather are thought to have emerged from it. They are conceived of as just higher or more powerful beings within the created order.

I am under the impression that historia was not arguing for or against "competing gods", but rather arguing that not all ideas of GODs are as beings which existed outside and before the existence of the universe, but rather some gods are regarded as being products of the universe, after the existence of the universe.

In relation to some ideas, as per mythologies, some ideas of GODs were indeed in competition with each other, but as I wrote, I didn't see historia as arguing for or against that.

[PinSeeker]

You know, Tcg, every word of every post you make is saturated and just drips with utter disdain, bitterness, and hatefulness. Questioning the beliefs of others is fine, but the communication of that disdain and hate really communicates more about the speaker than anything or anyone else. Just a word of exhortation to you, man. But hey, leave the legacy you want to leave, by all means. Peace.