To Atheists: Is the Mormon God a real god or false?

[ndf8th]

I have now talked to atheists on another forum for about 5 months daily
and I fail to get how atheist logic works. it is very odd due to me
thought of myself to be a strong atheists for some 55 years.

But it seems that I've never have been atheist other than formally.

I where most likely a kind of emotional anti-theist and anti-religionist
and atheism being philosophic and me not logical I fail to grasp atheism

The atheists that I have talked to tell me things about gods that I fail to grasp.


the logically important thing about belief in God to these atheists is
that if one have a false god (a god that is God by definition )
then one are by the atheist definition an atheist even if one believe in that God.

while if one believe in a real supernatural God that atheists see as a real God
then one are a theist and a respected believer by these same atheists.

Background.
I am a poor thinker and fail to get logic so ...
this is more social psychology to me but
back to philosophy and theology maybe.

Most Christians would not see Mormonism as a Christians faith.
Most Christians would see Mormon gods as false gods.

What about atheists view on the Mormon Gods.
Are they real or false gods as atheists see them?

A lot of atheist has complained about that my
religious freethinker God is not real God to them.

My God is supernatural by definition in the Bible and as I get it
that is what most Christians would say Mormon gods are too?

Would these atheists see the Mormon God or
gods as real gods? If they do then why the difference?
What is it about Mormon gods that makes them real seen from atheism?

Is it not very obvious to any atheist that the Mormon faith
is a social constructed faith. That their God of gods are gods
by definition based on texts by the founders of LDS?

the atheistic Richard Dawkins has rather recently
complained about Mitt Romney and his gullibility faith in Mormon views.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... faith.html

US election 2012: Richard Dawkins calls Mitt Romney 'gullible fool' over Mormon faith
Richard Dawkins on Sunday accused Mitt Romney of being a "massively gullible fool" as he launched into a furious tirade against the Republican's Mormon faith.

There is a youtube clip on it too. http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=wZFQyj-HzGU

My question is why is it important for atheists
to accept standard Christian faith in God as a real god.
but to see Mormonism as gullible and my faith in God
as so trivially true that it is totally irrelevant and thus false?

Where does the Mormon Gods come in seen from philosophical atheism?
Are they so trivially true that they are irrelevant and Mormonism an atheism
and all Mormons are atheists or are they real believers believing in real gods?

I know some atheists say that all gods are false gods but some other atheists
say that supernatural gods are real gods that one can have lack of belief in
and

the logically important thing to these atheists are their view
that if one have a false god (a god that is God by definition)

then one are by the atheist definition an atheist even if one believe
while if one believe in a real supernatural God
then one are a theist and a respected believer by these atheists.

I know the text is confusing but this is my poor brain I did give it my best.

[McCulloch]

To an atheist, any claim about a god is at best unverifiable and at worst false.

However, we generally do recognize that there is a spectrum of reasonableness with regard to faith. On one end, the Deist faith is very difficult to argue against and it makes very little demands on the believer. While I might not agree with them, I find that their faith is not an example of gross gullibility. On the other end, if I were to tell you that God told me that you should give me all of your tokens, and based on that, you did, then it would be justified to say that you are gullible. Dawkins and others put the Mormon mythology closer to the gullible end of the spectrum than mainstream liberal Christianity. That's all.

[ndf8th]

Interesting there seems to be three kind of atheists
I know each atheist is absolutely unique and none is like other atheists

1. Atheists that only care about real supernatural gods and
they have lack of belief in the existence of such gods
and they see belief in false gods as a kind of atheism.

2. Atheists that see any god as something
they have lack of belief in the existence of such gods
and that makes every believer into a true theist to them.

3. Atheists like you that have a nuanced scale that allow
many kind of interpretations and gray nuances or levels
So the first category atheists have either true or false god dichotomy
and the second have accept all gods as theistic gods
and you say they are on a scale of gullibility?

So where am I on that scale then?
I trust that I describe the true God and that is a God
that is defined to be a supernatural God by definition
that is how the believers act on faith as I get it.

That is my genuine and authentic belief about God.
That God is in the heart of the believer because that is
how the believer open up for to let God into their lives.
Sure there exist intellectual believers that never open their heart
so them maybe are atheists seen from some definition.

I am not into logic so I fail to sort it out.

[Nickman]

ATHEISM is just a lack of belief in gods. We take the default position that everyone is born with. If a person claims god this or god that, we say "show me the evidence and Ill believe". No one has provided substantial evidence (even god himself) so we keep the default position. The same way a court system works. In court a person is innocent until proven guilty. In this case god is the defendant. He/she is up on the stand for his/her existence. His/her existence is not establish yet so therefore he/she is "not guilty" or non-existent.

Mormons are not exempt from this process. Their deity cannot be verified either, so that deity is not guilty of having existence.

[ndf8th]

Thanks Nickman,

maybe my questions is too confusing.

short version of another way to ask same?.

suppose God is supernatural by definition.
and by definition man made gods are false gods.
then how does one know that gods are supernatural?


Longer version of same question
I trust I have to approach this from a totally other angle.

May I ask. Are all atheists agreeing on that gods by definition
are supernatural independent of the believer beings or entities?

If the god is a man made god then it is a false god and that believer
that have a man made God is a 100% atheist?

Which is confusing to me because
how do you know that god is supernatural
other than by definition? which is just an opinion

[help3434]

Thanks Nickman,

maybe my questions is too confusing.

short version of another way to ask same?.

suppose God is supernatural by definition.
and by definition man made gods are false gods.
then how does one know that gods are supernatural?


Longer version of same question
I trust I have to approach this from a totally other angle.

May I ask. Are all atheists agreeing on that gods by definition
are supernatural independent of the believer beings or entities?

If the god is a man made god then it is a false god and that believer
that have a man made God is a 100% atheist?

Which is confusing to me because
how do you know that god is supernatural
other than by definition? which is just an opinion

I guess English is not your first language and that is why we find your wording confusing. What do you mean by man made god? Do you mean worshiping a statue or other man made object? Those who worship idols usually attribute supernatural elements to the idol, or think that the object represents something that is supernatural. What non-supernatural god are you talking about?

[ndf8th]

Thanks for caring about my bad English and crazy question.

Not sure how to explain my thinking. I've been a proud atheist
all my life so being past 65 years old I am surprised to get aware of
that maybe I have never have understood what it is to be an atheist.

I lack the logical talent for to reason the way some atheists do.

To start with a known public figure atheist. Richard Dawkins.
Almost 100% atheist. He is on a 6 on a 7 level scale of atheism.
One of his many books has this title. "The God Delusion"

Now that is what I talk about. A delusional God is a false god and not real.

sure logically you could have delusions even about real gods but
then the God itself is at least real but misunderstood?

So what the the title of his book imply are that all gods are delusional.
He writes that children are gullible and tend to trust the grown up too much.


so he is critical to that Christians indoctrinate their children to become believers.

Okay a God delusion does not have to be man made in the sense of
being socially constructed and engineered to be believable but
it is reasonable that some atheist see all gods as man made.

So hope that explains my way of reasoning?
I would not ask if all this was clear cut to me.

I thought it was clear cut as a proud atheist
but now when I am something in between
neither a standard believer nor a standard disbeliever
so I don't know what to think about gods.

Example from a not so famous Swedish atheist working for our Television.

The atheist and TV reporter Erik Sandstrom says
in Swedish but roughly translated to English by me

"The more I understand the Holy Mother's disciples in India
the more convinced I become that they actually experience
what they describe, Not that their Master has divine powers

but because those disciples decide that's the truth about her,
and all religions seem to work the same way for as soon as the
believers put their doubt aside (then) religion begins to work for them

just like they said. But since it works equally well regardless of
what religion one chooses to believe this should not be dependent on
them meeting with a specific god but ( to be a general phenomena.) "

(Free translation so not word for word correct but as close as I managed. )

so if I get what he talks about is that him as atheist wanted to get
how religion works and he took a camera with him and interviewed
believers all over the planet traveling a whole year and now he
have come to this conclusion.

" Jag har fått tänka om, det måste jag erkänna.
Jag har kommit fram till att religion fungerar, undantagslöst! "

I have to admit that I had to rethink religion
I have come to the conclusion that religion works
without exception.

Myy poor English but
as close to the original I could master.

So he seems to say this.

The believers make a leap of faith and let go of doubt
and start to believe that God exists and when they take
that leap of faith then the delusion just works as they say.

My interpretation of what he did say and my apology if
I have misunderstood.

So to me that support that all gods are interpretations
and acted upon by a leap of faith. and that is how
the God delusion works.

[help3434]

An atheist is someone who does not believe in deity or deities. There are categories of atheists such as strong atheists, weak atheists, anti-theists, ect. Believing Mormons are definitely not atheists, so I am very confused about what you were trying to say in your original post.

[ndf8th]

I totally agree on that it is confusing.
And it could be me misunderstanding
but I spent some 4 hours daily for 5 month
to find out if I had misunderstood them or not.

So after 5 month of daily assurance I had to give up
on these atheist so either their logic are so way above
my grasp so I do misunderstand them but that is how
I read them to tell me.

As I get it them mean that
only if you are not aware of that the Mormon gods
are make believe gods and not real are you a theist.

If you are aware of that the Joseph Smith made it all up
from his own imagination then by definition you are atheist
due to you consciously aware of that the gods are false.

Kind of odd to me and I can not be 100% sure them really said it
due to my lack of talent for to get logical thinking.

[ndf8th]

to explain myself better. Take the conclusion that
Erik Sandstrom arrived at after some 12 month of
traveling around the world making interviews for
to make a TV series that explain what it is to be religious.
Or "What are religions? " UR.se a kind of Edu/Science TV company

because those disciples decide
that's the truth about her,
and all religions seem to work the same way
for as soon as the believers put their doubt aside
(then) religion begins to work for them

to me this sounds very true and if I get it
then it means that one can be very open
about such things instead of hiding this truth.

so I want to support and open religion that admit
that they believe in man made gods that exists
only as social constructs inside the religious tradition
and that one have a bit of control in that if the faith
has too many bad consequences then one can change it
to a better interpretation with less bad effects.

I feel for to belong to a reasonable religion that one can rely on.
By being totally open about that it is a social construct that would
make it less manipulative and less a lie compared to standard religions.