Would I still be an atheist if I believed this?

[brewer]

Are these creators supernatural? If no, then just more advanced, not gods, you remain atheist.

[Jesster]

... you remain atheist.

... but certainly not a skeptic.

[brewer]

... you remain atheist.

... but certainly not a skeptic.

I was going to suggest gullible atheist but decided not to be mean.

Wait, SHIT!

[Harry Nevis]

It depends. Do these aliens care whether you masturbate and eat seashells?

Just don't masturbate WITH seashells.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

“Are these creators supernatural? If no, then just more advanced, not gods, you remain atheist.”

Out of curiosity, what if these life-forms are beyond human understanding? Would humans be able to accurately classify them? Furthermore, is the human mindset the only way to see and interpret reality?  Suppose there are other life-forms out there who are more advanced than humans.  Then couldn’t a humanistic understanding of reality be considered as primitive to them? Hence, could humanity’s supernatural and divine be the equivalent of another species’ version of little Johnny’s kindergarten project?

[brewer]

“Are these creators supernatural? If no, then just more advanced, not gods, you remain atheist.”

Out of curiosity, what if these life-forms are beyond human understanding? Would humans be able to accurately classify them? Furthermore, is the human mindset the only way to see and interpret reality?  Suppose there are other life-forms out there who are more advanced than humans.  Then couldn’t a humanistic understanding of reality be considered as primitive to them? Hence, could humanity’s supernatural and divine be the equivalent of another species’ version of little Johnny’s kindergarten project?

Only until explained.

[SuperSentient]

There is a scientific hypothesis proposed by James N. Gardner that postulates that there are cycles of cosmic creation within a multiverse in which highly evolved intelligent civilizations (if you could call their society that) have reached a point where they can spawn baby universes. They have enough knowledge in physics that they can tune constants and create a specific "life permitting" universe that allows for specific types of life forms, probably biological structures similar to them. This has already been done long before humans, and our universe is one of those spawned universes. Eventually, we may reach a point where we could spawn baby universes. This means that ET's create universes. This is the selfish biocosm hypothesis.
Now, suppose I accept this hypothesis and start thinking of these natural beings as superior intelligence beings that need to be acknowledged and praised. Could I call them God and then become some sort of theist? I could be a naturalist and accept this, so could it be like a naturalist theist?

I would think the term god wouldn't exactly match this and you would therefore still be an atheist if you are a naturalist.

Ah but then there would the "ultimate necessary" first alien intelligence that started the whole thing many iterations of the universe ago and we call that being god oh and he hates gays.

I could say each ET civilization that spawned baby universes is their own set of Gods.

---

Would these extra-universal aliens have any method of interacting with our Universe (after setting initial conditions) or would they be confined to their own?

They would create it and leave it alone.

---

There is a scientific hypothesis proposed by James N. Gardner that postulates that there are cycles of cosmic creation within a multiverse in which highly evolved intelligent civilizations (if you could call their society that) have reached a point where they can spawn baby universes. They have enough knowledge in physics that they can tune constants and create a specific "life permitting" universe that allows for specific types of life forms, probably biological structures similar to them. This has already been done long before humans, and our universe is one of those spawned universes. Eventually, we may reach a point where we could spawn baby universes. This means that ET's create universes. This is the selfish biocosm hypothesis.
Now, suppose I accept this hypothesis and start thinking of these natural beings as superior intelligence beings that need to be acknowledged and praised. Could I call them God and then become some sort of theist? I could be a naturalist and accept this, so could it be like a naturalist theist?

I would think the term god wouldn't exactly match this and you would therefore still be an atheist if you are a naturalist.

In this illogical dream we got highly intelligent beings that become GODS.
Eh, wait a minute mate.
What about competition?
Why Gods would create competition for themselves?
Doesn't the present going on in this planet explain you that people avoid as hell to create competition for themselves?  

They don't, they just create the necessary conditions for life to exist and civilizations comes much later. The civilizations in the universe they created is independent of them, so, no competition.

[Angrboda]

I'd say that you're simply redefining a commonly used word as something it is not understood to be. It's an equivocation.

[masterofpuppets]

I would still be an atheist. A creator of a Universe is not synonymous with god, even if the creator is a conscious being. A god would have to be a supernatural creator whose power within our Universe is unlimited. Only when the creator is demonstrated to have such characteristics would I become a deist.

[SteveII]

There is a scientific hypothesis proposed by James N. Gardner that postulates that there are cycles of cosmic creation within a multiverse in which highly evolved intelligent civilizations (if you could call their society that) have reached a point where they can spawn baby universes. They have enough knowledge in physics that they can tune constants and create a specific "life permitting" universe that allows for specific types of life forms, probably biological structures similar to them. This has already been done long before humans, and our universe is one of those spawned universes. Eventually, we may reach a point where we could spawn baby universes. This means that ET's create universes. This is the selfish biocosm hypothesis.
Now, suppose I accept this hypothesis and start thinking of these natural beings as superior intelligence beings that need to be acknowledged and praised. Could I call them God and then become some sort of theist? I could be a naturalist and accept this, so could it be like a naturalist theist?

I would think the term god wouldn't exactly match this and you would therefore still be an atheist if you are a naturalist.

Part of the idea of "God" is a necessary being (could not have failed to exist) rather than a contingent being. That is not the case in your scenario, so you would still be an atheist.