What is the definition of God?  What are the divine attributes, whereby if we see them in an entity then we know that that entity is divine?

Please I would like you suggestions/opinions/pontifications.

Meanwhile, here is what I found on wikipedia on the subject:

[size=14pt]Divinity as entity[/size]
Main article: Deity

In monotheistic faiths, the word divinity is often used to refer to the single, supreme being central to that faith. Often the word takes the definite article and is capitalized — "the Divinity" — as though it were a proper name or definitive honorific. Thus Yahweh, and Jehovah are sometimes referred to as "the Divinities" of their particular faiths. Divine — capitalized — may be used as an adjective to refer to the manifestations of such a Divinity or its powers: e.g. "basking in the Divine presence, "
The terms divinity and divine — uncapitalized, and lacking the definite article — are sometimes used as to denote 'god(s)[1] or certain other beings and entities which fall short of godhood but lie outside the human realm. These include (by no means an exhaustive list):
The multiple gods of pan- and polytheistic faiths (as in the ancient Greek and Roman)
Elementals such as the dragons of traditional Chinese religion and sylphs and salamanders from Alchemical traditions
Anthropomorphized aspects of nature, like the tree and river spirits of Roman mythology
Animal beings, many of which populate the stories of Native Americans and Indigenous Australians
Conceptual beings like the Muses and Fates of ancient Greek belief
In certain instances, individual humans are elevated to divine status without becoming actual gods: the eight immortals of taoism, for instance. Compare with the section on divinity and mortals given below.
[edit]

[size=14pt]Divine force or power
[/size]As previously noted, divinities are closely related to the transcendent force(s) or power(s) credited to them,[2] so much so that in some cases the powers or forces may themselves be invoked independently. This leads to the second usage of the word divine (and a less common usage of divinity): to refer to the operation of transcendent power in the world.
In its most direct form, the operation of transcendent power implies some form of divine intervention. For pan- and polytheistic faiths this usually implies the direct action of one god or another on the course of human events. In Greek legend, for instance, it was Poseidon (god of the sea) who raised the storms which blew Odysseus' craft off course on his return journey, and Japanese tradition holds that a god-sent wind saved them from Mongol invasion. Prayers or propitiations are often offered to specific gods of pantheisms to garner favorable interventions in particular enterprises: e.g. safe journeys, success in war, or a season of bountiful crops. Many faiths around the world — from Japanese Shinto and Chinese traditional religion, to certain African practices and the faiths derived from those in the Caribbean, to Native American beliefs — hold that ancestral or household spirits offer daily protection and blessings. In monotheistic religions, divine intervention may take very direct forms: miracles, visions, or intercessions by blessed figures.
Transcendent force or power may also operate through more subtle and indirect paths. Monotheistic faiths generally support some version of divine providence, which acknowledges that the divinity of the faith has a profound but unknowable plan always unfolding in the world. Unforeseeable, overwhelming, or seemingly unjust events are often thrown on 'the will of the Divine', in deferences like the Muslim inshallah ('as God wills it') and Christian 'God works in mysterious ways'. Often such faiths hold out the possibility of divine retribution as well, where the divinity will unexpectedly bring evil-doers to justice through the conventional workings of the world; from the subtle redressing of minor personal wrongs, to such large-scale havoc as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or the biblical Great Flood. Other faiths are even more subtle: the doctrine of karma shared by Buddhism and Hinduism is a divine law similar to divine retribution but without the connotation of punishment: our acts, good or bad, intentional or unintentional, reflect back on us as part of the natural working of the universe. Philosophical Taoism also proposes a transcendent operant principle — transliterated in English as tao or dao, meaning 'the way' — which is neither an entity or a being per se, but reflects the natural ongoing process of the world. Modern western mysticism and new age philosophy often use the term 'the Divine' as a noun in this latter sense: a non-specific principle and/or being that gives rise to the world, and acts as the source or wellspring of life. In these latter cases the faiths do not promote deference, as happens in monotheisms; rather each suggests a path of action that will bring the practitioner into conformance with the divine law: ahimsa — 'no harm' — for Buddhist and Hindu faiths; de or te — 'virtuous action' — in daoism; and any of numerous practices of peace and love in new age thinking.
[edit]


[size=14pt]Divinity applied to mortals
[/size]Main article: apotheosis
In the third usage, extensions of divinity and divine power are credited to living, mortal individuals. Political leaders are known to have claimed actual divinity in certain early societies — the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs being the premier case — taking a role as objects of worship and being credited with superhuman status and powers. More commonly, and more pertinent to recent history, leaders merely claim some form of divine mandate, suggesting that their rule is in accordance with the will of God. The doctrine of the divine right of kings was introduced as late as the 17th century, proposing that kings rule by divine decree; Japanese Emperors ruled by divine mandate until the inception of the Japanese constitution after World War II; to this day Catholics are supposed to consider the Pope to be the spokesperson for God on earth.
Less politically, most faiths have any number of people that are believed to have been touched by divine forces: saints, prophets, heroes, oracles, martyrs, and enlightened beings, among others. Saint Francis of Assisi, in Catholicism, is said to have received instruction directly from God and it is believed that he grants plenary indulgence to all who confess their sins and visit his chapel on the appropriate day. In Greek mythology, Achilles' mother bathed him in the river Styx to give him immortality, and Hercules — as the son of Zeus — inherited near-godlike powers. In religious Taoism, Lao Tsu is venerated as a saint with his own powers. Various individuals in the Buddhist faith, beginning with Siddhartha, are considered to be enlightened, and in religious forms of Buddhism they are credited with divine powers. Mohamed and Christ, in their respective traditions, are each said to have performed divine miracles.
In general, mortals with divine qualities are carefully distinguished from the deity or deities in their religion's main pantheon.[3] Even the Christian faith, which holds Christ to be identical to God, distinguishes between God the father and Christ the begotten son.[4] There are, however, certain esoteric and mystical schools of thought, present in many faiths — Sufis in Islam, Gnostics in Christianity, Advaitan Hindus, Zen Buddhists, as well as several non-specific perspectives developed in new age philosophy — which hold that all humans are in essence divine, or unified with the Divine in a non-trivial way. Such divinity, in these faiths, would express itself naturally if it were not obscured by the social and physical worlds we live in; it needs to be brought to the fore through appropriate spiritual practices.[5] According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, such spiritual practices are, in and of themselves, inspired by promptings from the light of Christ or the Holy Spirit that are communications with an individual's divine essence or spirit that is linked directly to God through pre-existence as his offspring.
[edit]

[size=14pt]Belief in the divine potential of humankind
[/size]Belief in a divine potential of humankind is taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). The LDS teaches that there is a pre-mortal stage of human existence, known as pre-existence, during which pre-mortal human spirits, called spirit children, are able to make choices that influence their upcoming fully mortal existence as a direct result of the individual spirit's choices regarding truth, love and faith. Spirit children come into existence out of "intelligences". "Intelligences" are eternal forms of energy or matter existing in a less progressed form than God. (See Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse.)
According to the LDS church, Christ's unwavering ability to obey truth, perceive light, and act in perfect love and faith, distinguishes his pre-mortal existence from the pre-mortal existence of the other spirit beings who were in the presence of the Eternal Father. Christ's behaviour during his "spirit child" phase serves to explain why he is considered to be God-like. The God-like quality ascribed to Jesus explains why he had a greater capacity to suffer more than mortal man could suffer; thus he could endure the anguish and incomprehensible pain of the atonement.
The LDS belief is that Christ's divinity qualified him to return to the presence of God after his death and resurrection. By means of the atonement and his offering of divine grace to humankind, Christ provided access to divinity for humankind. A divine being is filled with perfect love, and desires to share these qualities because of the joy they bring to each individual soul.
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

Definition (n):
1. A statement expressing exactly what something means or is used to mean in this context
2. Clarity of outline

Thus it is impossible to define God. God's persona is a SINGLETON. There is nothing by which you would be able to define or evaluate God. Nothing to compare or appreciate God against.

There are thus no attributes you can find that will enable you to tell if an object or entity is divine, because an object or entity cannot be divine.

In summary, there are no divine attributes. There only is God.

God is.

^^^ Which is in staggering contradistinction to your summation that God entered creation as a man.

How enjoyable YOU FELLAS ARE.

InesQor:

God's persona is a SINGLETON.

Chuffed. When did you wake up and realize this? Over breakfast?

Because you have laboured so hard to argue against the simple thesis that God is ONE and INFINITE.

Conversely you have labelled God a Trinity.

So how does an ineffable singleton split up into parts? O, I forgot, hypostasis!

In summary, there are no divine attributes.

Chuffed again. I thought you stated that God's personality is a singleton. Now you state that there are no divine attributes.

Make up your mind.

InesQor:


There are thus no attributes you can find that will enable you to tell if an object or entity is divine, because an object or entity cannot be divine.

OOOOOOOOO LA LA LA. . . . _{and yet the jewish entity called Jesus is God? I laugh.}

Deep Sight:

^^^ Which is in staggering contradistinction to your summation that God entered creation as a man.

How enjoyable YOU FELLAS ARE.

Your point is moot, Deep Sight.

If it was a human being turning into a cow, it would be a matter of concern because we KNOW that human beings don't turn to cows usually. And why is that? BECAUSE we see other human beings, by which then we define our subject human being; and as such we conclude that it is not meant to be so.

But now, we have a Singleton, God, who owes none of you any explanation and would not be defined besides this simple phrase: I am all that I am and I will be that which I will be, come in the flesh as man. You cannot tell us that HE CAN'T manifest as a man because you have no standards by which to make that judgment call.

I hope you see my point. But then, knowing you, I guess you don't. So I hope the OP sees my point

Deep Sight:

Chuffed. When did you wake up and realize this? Over breakfast?

Chuffed again. I thought you stated that God's personality is a singleton. Now you state that there are no divine attributes.

Make up your mind.

If you intend to go about this the way you usually tout about NL, then I will leave you to your peace, or not.

God's personality is a singleton. THAT is why there are no such thing as divine attributes. If there were, He wouldn't be a singleton because the attributes are DEFINED with respect to him, and the entity under comparison. There is simply no comparison. God is who He is. His attributes are a part of him. Using the term "divine attributes" attempts to hackney His persona.

You don't need to have a PhD to see my point in the above. #Thanksbye.

InesQor:

Definition (n):
1. A statement expressing exactly what something means or is used to mean in this context
2. Clarity of outline

Thus it is impossible to define God. God's persona is a SINGLETON. There is nothing by which you would be able to define or evaluate God. Nothing to compare or appreciate God against.

There are thus no attributes you can find that will enable you to tell if an object or entity is divine, because an object or entity cannot be divine.

In summary, there are no divine attributes. There only is God.

God is.

First, I didn't ask you to define God, whatever that notion or word means to you, but rather I asked you to define what a God is.  In other words, what is a divine being?  What are the divine attributes?  If that is undefinable then how can you say what is or is not a god?  

Secondly, to say that definition is a) a statement of what something means and God cannot be defined and b) a clarity of outline and again God cannot be defined . . .

would suggest that you refer to God meaninglessly and without any clear notion of what you are talking about.  

InesQor:
. God's persona is a SINGLETON.

Would you say that the above statement is definitive or not?  

InesQor:
because an object or entity cannot be divine.

So God is not an entity to you.  Neither is 'he' an object.

What do you mean by object?  Like if you said he was the object of your devotion, or object of worship would that be false because he is not an object?  

If there are no divine attributes then how can we say that someone or something is not divine?

Oh there you go, Pastor AIO.

I am NOT defining God, I am answering the question "What is a God" and to answer that, it needs be made clear IMHO that the question in itself is faulty. You asked for my opinion and there it is. Where's yours? #Okbye.

^^^ Frank fact is that it is meaningless to talk about God if there aren't some pointers as to what is referred to.

Inesqor makes a strange case of stating that God has no attributes and cannot be defined  - and yet proceeds to define God's personality as a singleton.

Bizzarre.

I am informed Gods are whatever is/are worshiped (by anything) and have dominion (over anything).

The question then, would not not be regards God but what exactly the terms "worship" and "dominion" mean and by what standards?

I'm soliciting opinions here, not providing opinions of my own.  

May I ask what is the distinction between 'entities' such as Baal, Zeus, Sango, Indra and entities such as Obafemi Awolowo, James Brown, Barack Obama, and Indira Gandhi?

If Gods cannot be defined then by what process of reasoning do we arrive at the conclusion that my dog bingo is not a deity?

Zeus, Sango etc have worshipers who pray to them.

Awolowo, James Brown etc have FOLLOWERS who respect them. I am not aware anyone prays to Awolowo!

Your dog has someone who cares for it.

nuclearboy:

I am informed Gods are whatever is/are worshiped (by anything) and have dominion (over anything).

The question then, would not not be regards God but what exactly the terms "worship" and "dominion" mean and by what standards?

Thank you.  I very much appreciate that.  I too am keen to know just what is meant by the term worship.  According to the dictionary the etymology comes from giving something it's worth.  
The question in my mind is . . . when I go to court and I incline my head at an angle suggesting humility and address the judge in correspondingly reverent tones, am I worshipping him.  

When I want something from someone with authority over that thing and I adjust my body language and voice accordingly in order to coax that thing out of him, am I worshipping him.  

And then as regards dominion.  Everyone and everything has dominion over something or the other.  As Fela very aptly put it in V.I.P
Omolange pusher him get him power over him omolange (anytiiiiiimeeeeeeeeeeeee) Fa raaaaaaaaa (horns)
Molue driver, him get him power over bus and conductor (anytiiiiiiiimeeeeeeee) Fa raaaaaaaaaa (horns)
Kalakuta president, him get him power over Kalakuta empire (anytiiiiiiimmmeeeee) Fa raaaaaaaa (horns again)

The question that I'm left asking is whether or not it is the scale of dominion that makes one a god or not.  Why is Oshun a Great goddess in yoruba land and the stream flowing through my backyard isn't?  Is it not because of size and importance to the community?  

Why did Goddesses like Obba and Yemowo decline in influence?  Is it not because the rivers they ruled over declined in importance?

nuclearboy:

Zeus, Sango etc have worshipers who pray to them.

Awolowo, James Brown etc have FOLLOWERS who respect them. I am not aware anyone prays to Awolowo!

Your dog has someone who cares for it.

Pray simply means petition.  Obama gets petitioned everyday.  Awolowo, when he was alive got petitioned.  Perhaps some of his descendants still petition him as an ancestor.  Pray tell sir, have you not prayed to another human in your lifetime, though off course you would not quite use that term because over time it has come to refer only to petitions to deities rather than just petitions full stop.

And as regards my dear bingo, trust me when he gets to gnawing a delicious bone in one corner, he has full dominion over that bone.  If you feel brave (or suicidal) you can try to take the bone from him.  Even approaching too close to him at such sensitive times can have severe repercussions.

Deep Sight, you honestly know there is a difference between defining God & describing his personality, right?

Pastor AIO, i see your point but maybe you dont understand mine. When I see the three letters GOD, for me, only one person owns the name or attribute, even if the banana tree in our backyard is worshipped by some. Those beings you mentioned, existing or not, are impostors, be it of their freewill, or compulsion.

Yes I know Im biased.

I get your point and its well made - petitions are prayers and thus we all have prayed to others (still do). But its not just pray. There's the worship angle (amongst others) where again, you brought up lovely indicators. When my daughter kneels to thank me, is that worship? Men have told us they worship their wives - is that true? When they lose them to divorce or death, does not the illusion eventually dry up? Will the end not bring an end much as dried up rivers eventually lose their goddesses?

And your dog?

Which is why I accepted on the other thread that yes, ALL have "effect", "power", whatever, over something else and thus ALL are "gods". But being transient, limited and graded on a "as is influence" basis, ALL are fake except for the one true God who stands out of creation and its fickleness and IS, rather than "became" and then "could lose" it.

If I get your point Pastor, you're asking what is a God as opposed to what is God. I appreciate this distinction because one normally has to come in contact with something before we can ever define it. Quoting a woman, I forget her name: It's a peculiar habit of God's that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution. . .

In short, it is impossible for us to have a collective definition of what is divine. Recently, I'm come to the conclusion that polytheism (though I don't believe it) is not illogical when compared with monotheism. It is infact a more reasonable position when looked at from some perspective. God or what is divine to me simply ought to be a being who operates under laws which we cannot fathom. In that case, if a suitably advanced alien civilisation were to visit earth, they may be said to be God or divine even if they're not. A definition is just that, a definition and it is relative and not absolute

^^^ Superman is one example of a god.

Joagbaje is a very good e.g of a god. Pastor is Chris is an other e.g of a bigger god

@Vesc:

Aliens too?

5 naira, 15 naira, 200 naira, 1 dollar, a bag of cowries, my bathroom slippers, the breeze blowig right now - all na god then depending on the viewer!

So whats new?

This is why I like quoting Deep Sight whenever I must reply him. It is a pity that Deep Sight still does this slimy stuff, after I have called him out on it a number of times.

We have an NL conversation, then he stealthily returns to modify his post without placing a Caveat Emptor for the reader, or making a brand new post.

DO you do this in a bid to appear like you made a coup de grace that was too much for me to handle? Is it, to you, always ALL about winning and appearing like the perfect quick-witted arguer?

Your quick-editing action above is a sample of what evokes in me, something I call OMOLOLA: [b]O[/b]n [b]M[/b]y [b]O[/b]wn [b]L[/b]aughing [b]O[/b]ut [b]L[/b]oud [b]A[/b]gain. 

I tire for you o, Mr Lawyer. 

Nuclear. All I'm saying is if there was a suitably advanced lifeform, we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from God. What is is what is. I'm afraid our idea of God is getting more and more fantastic as we evolve. A man 3000 years ago would be content to accept a man as God if he induces an neutron bomb to explode. A grenade even. Now our expectations have evolved as well. The only real when to know God, I guess, is when we die. But that will be too late, no?

InesQor, actually I've noticed two people that are fond of modifying their posts. I am unaware what the reason for it is especially as the posts are almost certainly already read by whomsoever they were directed to. It's a truly creepy thing.

There is no God, just beings and entities, living or dead.

God is NO THING. And to commune with Him, we humans have to embrace increasing degrees of nothingness. . .

Quite an interesting conversation.

[center][/center]

In answer to the question, "What is a God?" I would say anything that men worship. And so that would include stones, trees, rivers, mountains, the forces of nature, men and women, anthropomorphic constructs, or non-anthropomorphic constructs, the Force (as in Star Wars). So a God can be anything that men chose it to be. It can even be an Unknown God (Acts 17:23). "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

As simple as that. And yet more complex, for when men talk about God or Gods; they have in their mind, certain expectations of what God is. The God of an Oxford-educated Fellow will have different attributes from that of the Jungle-dwelling Aborigine.

But a dialogue of this sort is often loaded with emotive undertones because instinctively; either by social programming or personal conviction: once the word God is evoked, we reflexly begin to consider a hierarchy or classification of Gods. To the animist; God is the trees, stones etc he worships. To another those trees etc are false Gods, but he considers that his Gods of Thunder etc are the true Gods and so on.
This then leads to other questions: Can all Gods be true? Can all Gods be false?

All Gods can't be true. They're much too jealous and egotistical for us not to have witnessed several showdowns which won't be mexican standoffs, mind. There certainly a possibility that ALL gods are false, as we know them anyway.

imhotep:

God is NO THING. And to commune with Him, we humans have to embrace increasing degrees of nothingness. . .

A certain Guru once said:

Nobody is Greater than God.

I am nobody.

aletheia:


In answer to the question, "What is a God?" I would say anything that men worship.

But what do we mean by worship?

GOD.

Pastor,

It is unfortunate what speaking in different tongues has done to humankind.  It is very unfortunate indeed. Many of what we associate with GOD, deity and worship and the meanings that these terms carry, when reduced to their original tongue and then further reduced to their root words will not equate with their english equivalent at all.  It is for that reason that Muslim scholars discourage reducing ALLAH to GOD in writing because the word GOD, while it offers somewhat a close meaning does not equate to ALLAH.

Akin in yoruba is loosely translated simply as bravery.  Stripped of its connotation for heroism. 

There are self- emitting lights, self-propagating truths, self-directing deities. . . . . these entities, individually, are just that by which they are known.  Nothing more!  However, collectively, they form a matrix and their orbital is what is responsible for order and balance in our cosmos. 

Whoever interest it was in the first place to create order and balance is what GOD is.   

The scientific approach to creation is not at all divergent from the theological approach.  The problem with scientists is they dismiss millenia of human history as uncredible and seek mechanical explanation for physical phenomena.  How would science explain chaos?  . . . . . how would they explain darkness? 

For example, the scientific theory that every action in a given direction will produce a reaction of equal magnitude in the opposite direction led to advancement in rocket propulsion and aerospace exploration.  How is it different from the law of Karma?  Another example says energy is neither created or destroyed but is transformed.  How is that different from the doctrine of cosmic balance?

Any society of people in which there is evidence of GOD-centerdness (regardless of who that GOD is), observe devotional practice of worship.

@Pastor AIO

If that is undefinable then how can you say what is or is not a god?

You hit the nail square on the head although I would go further. It is a contradiction to define something as being undefinable. It is like stating that everything you say is a lie. Ignoring that if a God is undefinable how can you talk about one period. If you do not know what it IS you are talking about how can you say things like

1) It created the Universe
2) It rose from the dead.
3) It answers my prayers.
4) It spoke to me last Tuesday.

Admitting that what you speak of has no definition is an admission of complete ignorance of the subject you are speaking of(I do not mean any offense by this) and the only appropriate response is not to speak of it any further. Anything you say about it will inevitably be mired in ignorance and thus not very meaningful. I started a post a while ago posing this question and got the same if not similar responses as you are now receiving.

1) An assembly of disparate Metaphysical concepts internally incoherent/contradictory such as a being existing outside of time but behaving as if it was within time.
2) An assembly of Vague Metaphysical/Empirical disparate concepts that are not decriptive enough to be meaningful such a being outside of time.
3) An assembly of Empirical claims that could not possibly be true such as creating the Earth 6000 years ago.
4) An assembly of vague Empirical concepts of a mundane process such as the Sun rising everyday.
5) An assembly of concepts which themselves have no definition. (God is Spirit)

I am afraid that these are the kind of responses you are going to receive if you choose to continue with this thread. I would argue that the description of the definitions probably encompasses 99% of humanity. The 1% (such as myself), would be fine admitting that I have no definition of the word beyond the sound used to produce it and the emotional/mental response it incites within segments of the human population. All I have left to say is that you should never enter into a conversation with someone doing # 5). That conversation WILL go no where fast. I am afraid that if someone is defining a word by another word which itself has no definition you pretty much know that they neither understand the question nor want to.

Pastor AIO:

But what do we mean by worship?

^^From Wikipedia:

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed to one or more deities. The word is derived from the Old English worthscipe, meaning worthiness or worth-ship — to give, at its simplest, worth to something, for example, Christian worship[1]

Evelyn Underhill defines worship thus: "The adoring acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God, however they may think of Him or recognize Him, and whether He be realized through religion, through nature, through history, through science, art, or human life and character."[2]

The problem with Underhill's "It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth" is that it is framed in terms that ignore a man that worships a river or a tree: as for example the ancient Greeks who worshipped the river Alpheus; of course the Greek doesn't consider that Alpheus is his creator just that he is one of many gods that he worships.

@Aletheia

This is circular reasoning.

aletheia:


In answer to the question, "What is a God?" I would say anything that men worship.

And in answer to the question what is worship?

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed to one or more deities.

So a deity is defined by the fact that it is worshipped and worship is defined by the fact that it is done to a deity.

that doesn't help me none.

aletheia:
he problem with Underhill's "It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth" is that it is framed in terms that ignore a man that worships a river or a tree: as for example the ancient Greeks who worshipped the river Alpheus; of course the Greek doesn't consider that Alpheus is his creator just that he is one of many gods that he worships.

A bigger problem, I guess for you, with underhill's definition would be that Atheist would be said to be worshipping their creator too. After all atheists are conscious beings too.