Do you think God is an egoist?

No. Abiogenic.

Yes, of course God is egocentric. As are we. The mystery is, why do we often beat ourselves up over it and feel guilty about it.

No, if there is a creator then chauvinistic theomorphism is understandable given his impeccability.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side.
If "if's" and "and's" were pots and pans,
There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.

Well, judging from the old testament, egoism would be one of his/her/its lesser flaws.

A massively insecure psychopath? An incredibly stupid omniscience?

Basically a text book case of what wrong with fan fiction.

Of what use is it to malign someone/something that doesn't exist?

Because you never know what comment about that non existant thing might make a believer in it ask some questions.

I wonder how history would have been different if characters like abraham, moses and muhammed questioned the voices in their head, and there was mental health available.

Ahhh... so you're an evangelical atheist.

Happy hunting..

This applies to most Americans too, chai. And most westerners.

It's an intellectual exercise - you've never been in a class that reads a novel and explores a character's motivations? Never talked about a movie?

What an odd life you must have Cam.

Mmmmm.

If this is such an important thing, if these intellectual exercises are so central to your own life, why are you such a coward about discussing real life events that you have seen yourself?

Nah. For starters, if there was only ONE creator (as most major religions these days seem to propagate, monotheistic as they are), how could this creator be egocentric? If there is no other being around to give attention to: as a matter of fact, if there is NOTHING AT ALL (since this is the creator, it must have started from scratch), how could it not give all it's attention to oneself? Does that qualify as being egocentric? I don't think so, because it's not a state of mind that is being described: it's the actual state of existence that is being described...

If there are other creators out there, then the act of creation implied some form of cooperation, a division of tasks in regards to the creation process. I don't see where that is exactly egocentric.

However, if there were two or more creators, and yet one of them convinces the sentient beings they created that it was, in fact, the sole creator and should be the only one to receive worship? Yes, that would be egocentric.

For the record, I don't qualify myself as an atheist. I am more of an agnost.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but I look forward to being enlightened.

PS 'central to my life'? you are usually better than straw man arguments Cam.

Absurd question and shows a profound lack of understanding of atheism and as well as philosophy. As an atheist there is a fundamental disbelief in any possibility of the existence of a supreme being. As that is the case, how could there be any attribution to this nonexistent being having a personality of any sort. Furthermore if atheists are wrong and a supreme being exists, why would there be a need to have an ego in the first place? Being a supreme being there would be no need of an ego, much less an inflated one.

Actually ragman , it’s not a disbelief in any possibility. It’s not believing based on lack of current evidence. Just sayin’.

From the OP, I would assume 'ego' is being used in the philosophical sense.


So of course God if he exists would have to be one.
Being egocentric merely means you see the world/universe primarily from your own perspective. You really have no other choice about that. Neither would God.


Yes, in this sense of ego, the evidence supports your contention.
God obviously does not require that you even believe that he exists. In the sense of ego meaning 'conceited', that is about as 'ego free' as you can get.

God only exists to an egoless person since the divine experience is the experience of the whole and the ego is the breaking of the whole into parts.

The ego forms an image of god, but that is always a mistake. It's sort of like the idea of love is not the same thing as love. So, one can say, " I believe in love or I don't believe in love," but neither is actual love, since love is a subjective experience. The Divine is a subjective experience and belief or non-belief has nothing to do with it.

For as Heinrich Zimmer said, "The most important thing can't be talked about, and the second most important things refer to the first, and they are always misunderstood."

Respectfully, I disagree. That would be the definition of agnosticism - not atheism.

But wouldn’t it be closed minded to say there could never be something to prove the existence? I’m not saying it’s at all likely of course. But if at some point verifiable evidence was presented, one would have no choice but to examine it, test it and if it passes all, accept it. To not do so would put someone in the same catagory as someone who uses faith as proof.

I’m down with that.