is God a subset of god?

[ignoramus]

A recent thread stated the majority of us are (or at least should be) agnostic atheists.

Are we still agnostic about the origins of said God?
The bible.

Do any of us atheists think that the bible "may" be divinely inspired?
I'd say not. Therefore we are not agnostic about any mainstream religious Gods, are we?
Since we cannot discount a "god" as a possible explanation of "things", we are agnostic.


Would it be arrogant of me to say I am a gnostic atheist with respect  religious Gods but not the other possible gods?

I can see the religios asking: what other bloody gods are there?  Hehe
How the fuck do we even start to explain that to them? More importanly, WHY should we even bother.

[AFTT47]

I think that's the majority of us. It's definitely me.

I have a hard time seeing how anyone can justify denying the possibility of some type of god but it's pretty obvious that all the specific gods and Gods of man's religions are human inventions.

[robvalue]

For the God of the bible to exist, it can't be as described in the bible, because it's not internally consistent. In other words, Christians have no idea what they are really worshipping, if anything.

The idea that any of these story books just happen to contain genuine information about God is not worthy of any serious consideration in my opinion. It could only be the result of some bizarre cosmic coincidence, or a god seriously fucking with us and deliberately making his "evidence" look like shit.

[ignoramus]

So Rob, you a 100% gnostic atheist as far as all the well known Gods are "as described".

So do we need a disclaimer when talking to theists about God?
Do we say up front: sorry but your God is 100% bullshit! but we're not sure about the ones you haven't heard of! hehe

It feels silly saying things like this, doesn't it? Even though that's how the majority of us may feel.

[robvalue]

The language does become extremely silly.

Yeah, for any inconsistent claim, I'm happy to say that character can't exist as described. That covers most if not all of the popular gods I should think.

I have no problems saying there might have been a creator of some sort, the most likely scenario being simulation. It's the piling on of ridiculous stories that can't possibly be known that makes the whole thing laughable. The definition of God people give comes off more like a job description, ironically best fitting the simulation hypothesis actually.

I mean, for all I know, I could be a God. A simulation I have run before may have manifested somehow and have little AI creatures still living in it, all attempting to worship me and coming up with stories about me. I see people's attempts to "learn" about our God as the same level of stupidity as this.

People can't just leave it at "maybe there is a creator", they have to stick a wig and false glasses on it and call it their personal buddy.

[Brian37]

Is Superstition a subset of superstion? Spiting hairs. There is no difference between claims of vampires and god claims other than the power over politics. Both God and god claims still amount to human imagination.

[ignoramus]

So ABBA Man, is it safe to say that you are 100% gnostic atheist? (not the normal 99.999999999999999% that the rest of us are?)

[Longhorn]

I'd say I'm a gnostic atheist towards theistic deities and an agnostic atheist towards a deistic god, but also an apatheist, because the existence or inexistence of a deistic god have exactly the same influence on humans: none. Towards Abrahamic gods, I'm a vicious anti-theist.

[ignoramus]

Vic, that's quite the detailed list! I don't think I've ever put that much thought into the breakdown of my beliefs!
(It reminds me of the "Price is Right", but this time you arrange things from most probable to the least probable)

[Brian37]

It is safe to say that humans love self absorbed narcissism that end up in god claims, but can't or refuse to accept that it is all in their heads