Atheists -- Which concept of God do you reject?

Question

Atheist : Reject the existence of God.
Agnostic : Do not accept the existence of any God, but do not reject it either. A neutral position.

Both atheists and agnostics are non theists. Most non theists are atheists, not agnostic They implicitly have taken the position that no God exists. They might not do it explicitly, but in a discussion they tend to reply as if God did not exist. This is perhaps because the neutral position is not comfortable. If you act as if God does not exist, it is more comfortable to reject its existence in your way to think as well.

The question is what is a valid concept of God to reject? If I say that my God are the laws of physics, are you rejecting that God too? I am sure you don't, but it is an example that illustrate that you need to define what you reject when you reject God.

Would you reject a concept of God that is not against science? Have you decided that necessarily the existence of any God is against science?

jamustrip: Your answer is so funny. Do you want me to believe that you are an expert and know all concepts of God?

Pisces: Most theist do, but that doesn't answer the question.

B.Hound: You are taking the position of an agnostic. As I said, I am not sure that you really are.

I didn't say what was my concept of God. There was a "If" in "If I say that the laws of physics are my God". As I wrote, it was just to illustrate that one needs to specify what one rejects. The laws of physics are changing. Physicists will most likely continue to find more accurate and general laws. This is not my concept of God.

jamustrip: Now you proved that you don't know much about the different concepts of God. God is not an imaginary friend for every one.

Answer 1

any concept of god that cannot stand up to logic or science is a god that i reject.

if you said your god is "physics," i will not reject your god. i will, however, find your definition of god peculiar.

Answer 2

I reject the concept of a supernatural being that cares about the actions of human beings. A God without desires or "revealed truth" needs no investigation except as a philosophical exercise.

If you say God is exactly coterminous with the laws of physics, then I believe in your God, but I don't expect reward or punishment in the afterlife from such a being.

Answer 3

Will accept God which is person without supernatural powers scientist creates with science, reject God who from historical evidence an biblical kills when others do not believe in God. would accept God more if was elected before having power. Would strip divine God of power through use of biblical rules and try that one for war crimes which ultimately ends in rejection of divine God. Baltic Crusades,English Crusades, Abisgensian Crusade, Islam Wars, Slavery, all reasons why.

Answer 4

but the laws of physics have been proved, and god is just an invisible man that no one has ever seen.

i would still reject the concept of god that is not against science because i still wouldnt believe that he is there, i have to see things with my own eyes.

And another reason i reject the exisitance of god is that there isnt any point in worshiping someone that isnt there and doesnt communicate back to me. there isnt any point in spending 2 hours on a sunday in a big room falling asleep when i could be out and about helping those who need help from a person they can acctually see.

i dont think there is any point to your question really.

good day.

Answer 5

I generally consider myself an agnostic on philosophical grounds for exactly the reason you mention: it depends on one's definition of the term. I think it is possible that there is something out there in a higher dimension (What's all this about 11 dimensions?) which is sufficiently all-encompassing to get the name God. But it's a very abstract, esoteric sort of definition. When I say I am an atheist, I am generally responding to someone who has provided an idea of what he means by the term.

Answer 6

I reject the concept of God I see on those tel-evangelist morning programs. Ernest Angley...give me your money and I will heal you...Buy a green handkerchief for Jesus and you will be rich. Kill all the homosexuals and eat lots of chocolate, because Jesus said you deserve it. Watch me fly off on my private jet to the bahama..err..I mean Africa.

I think the concept of God that promotes individual greed and self righteousness is the one to watch out for, Christianity or otherwise. Remember the golden rule...the common thread...do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Whatever force created this universe he/she/it deserves respect and the laws of nature are apparent to everyone. Some people try to us the power of religion so they may feel like the rules don't apply to them.

Answer 7

Excellent question ! It all depends on what is meant by "God".
Personally I see the traditional image of God, as some humanlike invisible creature with emotions sitting outside of the Universe (Everything that exists,) as rather immature and simplistic.
For me the idea of God is expressed through the underlying unity of nature, the relatively simple principles from which beautiful and complex ramifications flow.
If I were to define God, I would say "The Universe understood in all of its depths", or "The only reality of existence".
It seems to me that your concept of God is very similar with mine. I don't divide the reality into "Nature" and "God", I see it rather as "One".

The reason I call it God is because I see it as a "trancentential" entity.
Think about it his way: space and time are both "aspects" of the Universe, they can only have meaning within the context of the Universe, so the Universe itself stands as the background beyond time and place. There is no way for us to wrap our minds around its "nature", since there is no context we could put the Universe into, and because we are a part of it ourselves, that would be like trying to imagine the infinity. For instance, we cannot say whether it is "conscious" or "inanimate", because there is no context, therefore it would be something that is "beyond" these notions. So as such I regard it to be "trancendential" and beyond human understanding. I see this trancendence in every atom of it. That's the reason I call it God.
Physicists call it the grand unification (The unification of 4 fundamental forces in one equation, they decoupled from ONE FORCE). You can find this unification pattern everywhere in the world around you. Even in models involving many universes, there's always a relation of causality among them.
So for me, the idea of "omniscience" of God is expressed as the mathematical laws of nature, its "omnipresence" as space-time, and its "unity" or "oneness" as the unification pattern. I don't say religion is wrong, I do believe however that our "traditional" understandings of them are inadaquate.
That's the only objective way I can think of it.

Answer 8

The concept of believing an imaginary creature created by man to control the mass population?

Answer 9

The term 'god' is subjective. One mans god might be another mans demon. Everybody has their own concept of what god is and this is how it should be. Organized religion however, seeks to make as many people as it can under the influence of the god that they describe.

Answer 10

I reject all concepts of god as their is NO EVIDENCE to support any of them.

*Edit*
One doesnt need to understand the concept of everybodies imaginary friend in order to reject it either... I reject the very concept of god, therefore I reject all concepts of god. Not so hard to understand for most.