[ul]
[li]Faith is defined as “belief in things not based in fact”. God is omniscient, hence he can’t have faith.[/li][li]God doesn’t “believe in a higher power”, since he is the highest power.[/li][/ul]
Hence, God could conceivably be called an atheist.
And if atheism is good enough for God, shouldn’t it be good enough for us too?
Personal faith really can’t be debated.
As for what God “believes” and “has faith in”, I don’t see God as any kind of a human-like entity. Thus, I don’t endow God with human-like reactions to anything it may encounter or perceive.
God does not need faith because he can clearly observe that He is who He is. We do not clearly know or understand God, so we still need faith to believe that He is who He is. But I must say, good logic trick with “God is an atheist” the one problem is that one does not necessarily need faith to know that something exists.
God does not need faith because he can clearly observe that He is who He is. We do not clearly know or understand God, so we still need faith to believe that He is who He is. But I must say, good logic trick with “God is an atheist” the one problem is that one does not necessarily need faith to know that something exists.
Before the beginning (biblically speaking) God looked around and said I AM and then He became afraid because He was all alone.
Where did you find that odd definition?
[list]
[1] a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
[2] (1) fidelity to one’s promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
[3] a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
[4] : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Seems the afore mentioned is a made up definition.
I got my definition from Webster’s:
Which, I think, is the usual definition of “faith” in a religious context. Religion isn’t about accepting unequivocal proof; it’s about accepting things you have no proof about, because you feel it has to be right.
Yes, it’s just a silly rethorical trick, but there is a serious point: Whatever else God is, he’s not a religious being - in fact, he must by necessity have a worldview quite different from that of his followers. It follows that:
[ul]
[li]God does not have to be “good” just because he expects his followers to. It’s as absurd as following the same rules as the rules you have set up for your dog or cat.[/li][li]You can’t just ask yourself, as some have suggested, “what would Jesus have done?”, since Jesus is not a Christian but a part of the Godhead. Clearly God does not expect Christians to get themselves crucified, even though he did this himself.[/li][/ul]
You seem to say that if there is a God, then we may as well all be atheists.
But that is daft, as if there is a God, then atheists would all be wrong.
You’re right, of course - the last sentence of the OP is a joke. Of course you can’t assume the existence of God as a starting point, and turn it into an argument as to why we shouldn’t believe in God (although I have seen the opposite conclusion reached, as in this famous reductio ad absurdum).
That does not change the fact that God has to be an atheist, not a Christian, and that we cannot therefore presume to judge him by Christian standards (the Old Testament is full of examples of this).
This
is not the same as this
Belief that A is A fits the former, but not the latter.
An atheist is someone who “one who denies the existence of God” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary), so I don’t think God could be an atheist. Come to think of it, if God denied his existence, wouldn’t he just kind of cease to be? In fact, perhaps he got pissed of ages ago and did just that.
I see what you mean about how he could not be considered to be a Christian, though. Like you say, assuming that God would follow the rules Christians are given is like assuming that we should take a dump in the garden, just like our pets. On the other hand, if a God has set some rules and we break them, I guess he would be inclined to rub our noses in the mess we make, so to speak.
I guess what I am getting to is that if you are going to be a Christian, you are probably best off being a tub-thumping fundamentalist Old Testament type, 'coz that would be closer to the mind of the Christian God. Anything less won’t do. Is this where you are coming from?
Now I think about it, it seems like the OT and the NT seem to be coming from two different Gods. Do you reckon there was some kind of management reorganisation?
Please ignore my appalling use of the English language in my first sentence of the above post…
Well, some people have argued that the “God” of the OT was actually the “Devil” of the NT. Me, I suppose the change just reflects how much the values of the Jewish people had changed from the time of Moses to the time of Christ, from a nomadic pastoralist society to a largely Hellenized, settled one.
That’s gotta be the mother of all conspiracy theories! 
So does that mean that God’s name is really Sybil?
I think atheism is the state of not having faith in God, but that absence of faith stems from the fact of not believing in his existence.
So I would say God can only be an Atheist if he doesn’t believe in his own existence.
Besides, isn’t it a bit absurd and oxymoronic to be saying “I’m an atheist because God is too” ?
Are you saying God doesn’t believe in Himself?
Maybe He just needs to read one of those self-help books.
Or maybe we could just wait until Anthony Robbins dies.
First definition out of the OED: Atheism: “One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God”
There were a slew of definitons of “Faith” in the OED as well and not one mentions “belief in something not based in fact.” The closet it comes is “to believe implicitly” or “That which should be believed.” None of the definitions include the lack of facts in them.
If you use those definitions it renders the whole debate moot.