No, the OP goes far beyond that. The OP states that this is good reason to disbelieve **both ** of them. Such a claim has no logical justification.
Which makes him an atheist.
Atheist still works just fine. Why wouldn’t it?
Exactly my point. A Christian simply disbelieves in one less god than I do. Hardly a remarkable position.
A close reading of the OP reveals no such thing to me. Will you point out to me where you see it?
You could make the case that OP is claiming (in question form) that there is no particular reason to believe on over the other, and therefore just as much reason to disbelieve one as the other. Your statement, IMO, is unsupported.
Czarcasm in a way I can see your point, why would mutually exclusive religions gang up on atheists. Besides the point that I think it’s the other way, atheists ganging up on theists, it seems like a odd choice. In my personal view some people unknowingly worship the enemy of my God - why would I want to team up with such a person?
I think it goes to a basic level of understanding that there has to be a ‘god’ and there is a supernatural/spiritual ‘realm’ of some sorts, and that can be felt by us. It’s a common trait of theists, something that unites us.
Nearly half of the OP is dedicated to that argument. To wit:
So maybe I can ask it here, and see what the dopers have to say. Here it is:
"I note that you have a Muslim, a Catholic and a Protestant on our panel. I would like each of them to answer the following questions in one word: yes or no.
"Do you believe Jesus Christ was the only-begotten Son of God?
"Do you believe Mohammed was the final prophet of God, and that the Koran is God’s revelation?
"Do you believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth and infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
“And finally, since you three “experts on God” obviously cannot agree on some pretty basic facts about your deity, how do you expect an atheist like me to be converted to believing in his existence?”
I think the “logic” is perfectly clear. The implication is that because these three people hold mutually exclusive theological views, the atheist in question feels that none of them are right – that there is no reason to even believe in his existence. Such a conclusion is by no means warranted – not even remotely.
I see nothing in your post that refers to a disagreement about God. I only see a bunch of disagreements about supposed Messengers.
I’m not going to dispute that interpretation. The point remains, however. According to the OP, these mutually exclusive nature of these views (whether regarding God or his messengers) somehow implies that none of them are worth believing.
And as I’ve said before, that conclusion is completely unwarranted.
A deceptive, partial and temporary unity at best, which last only until the atheists are no longer perceived as the major threat.
Well the OP was about different interpretations of God, not interpretations of Law or Scripture. I see a remarkable amount of agreement about certain aspects of God. No one here is addressing questions like whether or not God is Immanent or Transcendent, or whether God can change reality on a whim or whether there is a Covenant that he keeps the laws comprehensible because he loves us. The only things being addressed are he said she said issues regarding prophets. Whether or not you should eat Pork isn’t a property of God, it is a matter of scriptural law.
I guess the verdict really is that we are participating in a patently ridiculous Pit Rant as though it’s a real GD thread, because the OP has a ridiculous standard for cohesion amongst people.
I still am not convinced that the show is more unfair to Atheists by pitting Dawkins against a bunch of Characatures even if he is outnumbered.
Oh, believe me, I agree with you on those points, mswas. In fact, I said much the same thing in several earlier posts.
The OP is patently ridiculous, and the attempts to defend it – or even to minimize its inherent foolishness – are misguided, to say the least.
I think you elevate the importance of atheists to people’s everyday considerations a little too much. I think most people consider Islamic terrorists a greater threat than atheism.
I don’t understand what you mean by ‘deceptive, partial and temporary unity at best’. No one is claiming that there is some kind of social cohesion that unites theists, only that they all believe in God and the Supernatural. What exactly do you think kanicbird meant by ‘unity’?
Amen. 
Well, you’ve gone from a “claim” and a “statement” to an “implication.” Very different kettles of fish. The conclusion is your own, and is by no means a necessary result of the text you quoted. At most, you could argue that he is saying that there is no particular reason to favor one of the stated gods above any other of the stated gods, and therefore belief in a particular one is problematic. Nowhere does he state that mutually exclusive gods necessarily rule out each other; only that the case for one is no stronger than the case for the other, and thusly belief in one over the other is difficult to support.
Which God do they all believe in?
They are monotheists, they believe in the only God.
That’s a non answer. You might as well say that Democrats and Republicans are the same because they all support the Party.
“Only one God” is a nonsense descriptor if “God” has contradictory, mutually exclusive characteristics.
It’s not a non-answer, it’s not the presupplied answer you wanted. There’s a difference. Democrats and Republicans agree there is more than one Party, Monotheists agree that there is only one God.
Thus far no one has made a reasonable case for ‘contradictory, mutually exclusive characteristics’ as they haven’t addressed characteristics of God, they’ve only addressed characteristics of Holy Men.
And his name is Allah? How does this sit with Jewish monotheists, or Christian monotheists?
The OP notes that Christians believe that Jesus is God, while Muslims believe that Jesus is Not God. The very definition of a contradiction.
Posit: A
Posit: Not A.
A contradiction defined. Are you using some other definition?
Easy, Allah is the Arabic word for “God”. Worshipping a particular symbol for God as the true symbol for God is known as Idolatry.
Not all Christians believe Jesus is God.
So let me ask you a question. Does there need to be a total agreement for theists to get on television and babble at Dawkins? Does there need to be majority agreement? What if some people from multiple religions can agree on the definition while others from those same religions disagree?
I mean what level of cohesion is expected here?
Under your definition of atheism. Not under mine. No matter how many times you assert this, it’s simply going to do you no good unless you convince me your definition is better. And yet all you’ve done is explain what your definition is, not why it is a good one. I might as well say that in fact someone who doesn’t believe in a god is actually a penguin.
Because under your definition, everyone is an atheist. It’s a totally redundant term. If I say “I am an atheist”, under your definition you have learnt nothing about me. I could be a monotheist, polythiest - I could believe in every single god that’s not contradictory.
Oh, I see. This is the point you’ve been trying to get to. The old “Religious people just believe in one less god than me!” argument. I’ve never believed that’s all that good a one; after all, atheists just have negative belief in all gods. Religious people have positive belief in a god/gods that (usually) claims to be the one true faith, or contradicts the existence of other gods. Being a religious person provides significant reason not to believe in any other gods, more so than being an atheist.
Anyway, your problem remains. I believe in no gods. JThunder believes in a god. Under your system, we are both atheists. Differentiate his and my beliefs. What am I that he is not?
Shag,
Sometime ago I posted the opinion “Atheists aren’t quite sure there isn’t a god, and agnostics aren’t quite sure there is one.” Um… I didn’t get a very positive response at the time. BTW, I am an atheist, but I believe there is a possibility I am wrong. You apparently believe pretty strongly that there is or was a creator, but by your acceptance of the term ‘agnostic’ you must have a toe out to the no creator possibility. Or do you have some other definition that I’m not getting.
That puts us on different sides of the question of what constitutes evidence, which is a serious one I’ll admit. But your assertion seems to boil down to “It’s self-evident.” Well, I don’t think so. And I’d like to know if you can conceive any way to test and prove or disprove that idea.
I must admit stealing this challenge from Flock of Dodos, but this challenge to religion may be also be a challenge to some fields in science.
This might be a valid criticism of String Theory. Not that I’m a scientist, but I have heard several physicists claiming there is not even a concept for an experiment to validate or invalidate the idea. Of course, my information might be out of date, as I’m sure there have been people working on it. But if this remains the case, it’s argueable that physicists pursuing string theory may be more practicing a faith than science.