Decided to make this it's own thread. Question for theists. Would you even be willing to consider the possibility that there was no God out there, and all the things you attribute to God just stem from your own imagination/ignorance? If not then why wouldn't you?
For those who would, what (if anything) do you think would change in your life if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a being didn't exist? How would your behavior change? Would you strive to do more in the here and now? Where would you seek answers to your questions?
Just to be fair, atheists. Same question but reversed, would you be willing to consider that there was a God out there, and you just never recognized the signs? Again, if not then why?
The above part could be any deity, but for this part I will use the Abrahamic God for the hypothetical. How would things change for you if such a being was proven to exist, if anything? Would you behave any differently then you already do? How would it effect you emotionally? Would you be fearful and try and get back on his good side, or would you rebel against him even if it did likely mean eternal suffering?
If a god (any god) came along and gave me a great epiphany then I would probably start to see things a lil different. I would still question everything, just cant help it. If it was the abrahamic god then I would be reeeel pissed at it. But I think if there IS a deity, it wouldnt want our worship and prolly laughs at the way he gets used to excuse some crazy stuff (not all bad mind you). If there is a god/gods, it or they are nothing like the texts we have written.
I've been both a Christian and an agnostic so yes I'd be willing to change my beliefs based on new evidence or changing feelings of the existence of God. However I would like to say that if I stopped believing in God I wouldn't really change the way I live; I would continue to strive to serve and live the best moral life possible only in the name of humanity not of God.
It's just beyond any point of coherence for me.
As it is for everyone else; the belief in God comes with the acceptance that you don't know everything and you cannot hope to comprehend everything.
Question for theists. Would you even be willing to consider the possibility that there was no God out there, and all the things you attribute to God just stem from your own imagination/ignorance? If not then why wouldn't you?
Fascinating. Utterly fascinating. Truly, I cannot abide those who blindly follow their faith, and I would prefer a good atheist for company over them any day. Intelligent, cognitive thought on one's faith reveals a lot about someone. I was, originally, scared to consider it. When I did, of course, I immediately became an atheist. But then, when I did some deep thought on atheism, I switched again, but I was different. Unless you've been touched by God or something, I doubt you can really "know" God without really questioning your beliefs. Mage, you're 100% right, a lot of theists won't come out of their shell.
Read all the posts so far, agree with some points, don't really have anything to reply to. So straight to the Qs in the OP because they seem interesting.
Just to be fair, atheists.
I'm agnostic, but I'll sort me under here as I do not believe in a defined, sentient entity such as the gods most religions present.
Same question but reversed, would you be willing to consider that there was a God out there, and you just never recognized the signs?
Yes. This very point is why I'm not atheist - I'm aware of the fact that my awareness has limits. Beyond them, I don't know what exists.
How would things change for you if such a being was proven to exist, if anything?
I'd have to drop my "it's your religion, not mine" argument against religious people - even if I didn't want to conform to the religion, the god(s) would still be around. Oh, and yeah, I'd maybe have to rethink everything else I think about religion and my reasons for thinking such about them. If the Abrahamic(word?) God just suddenly decided to show himself I'd possibly just be plain out pissed off, though.
Would you behave any differently then you already do?
If the god started taking direct actions based on humans' behaviour, maybe. Otherwise, nah.
How would it effect you emotionally?
It would cause confusion. And again with the PO'ing if it was a certain kind of god. I can't really imagine it, though, particularly not with the god you want to use as an example.
Would you be fearful and try and get back on his good side, or would you rebel against him even if it did likely mean eternal suffering?
Would depend entirely of the sort of god and its morals. The biblical god would probably need to clarify quite a few things so we could stop always discussing if X is immoral or not. I would rebel against certain moral standpoints and not genuinely care about the consequences.
I think my answers turned out suckier than I thought they would. Too darn hot to think properly in this weather...
When people ask me if I believe in God I usually answer that I really don't know and do not feel qualified to answer such a question at this time.
Then you are an atheist. Agnostics can be of any faith. Agnosticism is the concept that gods or lack thereof is not knowable. Atheism is the concept that you don't assert that there is a god, whether you think that god is knowable or not.
Just to be fair, atheists. Same question but reversed, would you be willing to consider that there was a God out there, and you just never recognized the signs? Again, if not then why?
I am absolutely willing to consider that there is a god or gods. I don't know about recognizing signs per se as I qualify a sign being tangible, observable, testable data with no other possible explanation, and those I have not yet seen.
Honestly I would love nothing more than to believe that there is someone out there watching over me who loves me unconditionally. I just cannot believe something without evidence, hence my stance as an atheist.
Would depend entirely of the sort of god and its morals. The biblical god would probably need to clarify quite a few things so we could stop always discussing if X is immoral or not. I would rebel against certain moral standpoints and not genuinely care about the consequences.
Ow wow aren't you cool. Certainly an answer like that reveals the natural atheist; someone who just wants to disagree with something. If there is an omnipotent, all powerful God out there, think of the "consequences". You would be screaming for mercy if God was evil.
The thing is, if the only religions in the world were the Muslim/Catholic/Christian/etc ones... That specific branch of religions... Then I would be an atheist.
If there is an omnipotent, all powerful God out there, think of the "consequences"
Which, specifically?
You would be screaming for mercy if God was evil.
The biblical God is more murderous than Satan. Does that equal evil? Not necessarily, but since I don't know what the point you were trying to make is, I thought I'd just toss that out.
I'll spell the point I was trying to make out a bit more clearly... I would not change my moral standards because a strange entity told me to. If it's so omnipotent, it could darn well MAKE me change. If it just wants me to follow some obscure rule(*) because it created the world, what do I care. Yes, this would result in me screaming for mercy if it was an evil god that punished anyone who doesn't comply. Life wouldn't be worth living like that anyway.
*: Might help if I clarify that I'm referring to the "homosexuality is WRONG according to the bible" argument. If whatever god showed up and threatened to send me to a hell for loving who I want to love, it could damn straight send me to hell.
If it wanted me to run around the block once pr. day to show my respect for it, I could comply. If it wanted me to eat meat in a celebratory ritual, I'd probably tick off another box on the "reasons to send me to hell" sheet. I would not follow a god's every whim just because it is a god. If it wants to punish me for such, it can go right ahead and do so.
Certainly an answer like that reveals the natural atheist; someone who just wants to disagree with something.
That is truly a comment born of ignorance. Atheism is not a disagreement with anything. It is simply a lack of assertion about something which no one can prove. In fact atheism is the default religious position for EVERYONE from birth until they decide to adhere to a specific religion. In fact there are some religions out there that are atheists as well. Atheism is simply stating that we don't know if there is a god. That's it. I am sick of people trying to adhere principles and ideals to atheism which are not there.
Maybe I should try to clear some things up by example:
I wouldn't give credit to somebody who adhered to a religion because they thought any alternative doesn't work for other people. I would only give credit if they acknowledged they followed that belief because it worked for them.
Likewise, I could consider the possibility that there's something I'm missing, but I suspect that I find it hard to relate to the notion of God because I'm not good with abstract concepts (such as electromagnetism), and everything I think about must relate to something directly observable, yet the common principles of God don't appear to follow this. Because I consider this possibility, I have not made any commitment, therefore I cannot call myself an Atheist.
Consider the possibility that there is no God, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that there is no God since there was never any proof of its existance in the first place. I would have to say that all religion believe in God/s through faith and/or personal experience which might not be regarded as an act of God by others and therefore does not qualify as scientific evidence.
Theists might say, "well I will believe in God until he is disproved". Well you cannot disprove the existence of something that had no proof of existence in the first place (the bible isn't evidence)
Atheists might say, "well I will believe that God doesn't exist until he is proven to exist." Well since there has been many pnenomenon throughout history that were unknown for some time which have been regarded as acts of an omnipotent being by theists and were eventually explained by naturalistic events, you cannot prove that God exists by simply saying, "I don't know how this happened, therefore God did it". To prove God's existence, he would have to come down or send angels (in public to rule out insanity as a counter argument).
So what I'm saying is, there is no real evidence for the existence of God. Agnostics are undecided because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, which is understandable.
I think that there is a possibility of a God, but because it seems to have no direct impact on my life at all, I will believe that God doesn't exist.
Imagine a teacup orbiting the earth, and we havent send anything out to space yet. Theists might believe that there is a teacup orbiting the earth until its existence has been disproven. agnostics might say there might be a teacup orbiting the earth, we dont know. Atheists would say, there is no evidence for the existence of such a teacup so it doesn't exist.
I would go with option 3, while it is possible that there is a teacup there, the idea that some teacup would magically form and orbit the earth is illogical and besides, it has no impact on my life.
But let's not get carried away with "invisible pink elephant" arguments here!
To prove God's existence, he would have to come down or send angels
You do realise that a hardline atheist would employ a reductionist theory to assert that either this is not a reproducible, verifiable event, or that it is explainable via some other phenomenon, thus it cannot constitute a proof either?
You do realise that a hardline atheist would employ a reductionist theory to assert that either this is not a reproducible, verifiable event, or that it is explainable via some other phenomenon, thus it cannot constitute a proof either?
Well, if God came down or sent angels in public, it happened so it happened. Any atheists who say that it isn't reproducible or verifiable(mass eye-witness + CCTV) is retarded. Until there is evidence that some sort of holographic lightshow or other pnenomenon could created those images, they should believe that those images are for real (by sticking to the logic they so have used in order to land at atheism).
Any atheist who would turn their logic on its head when it suits them are just as bad as any loony creationists who can't don't understand basic principles.
Well, if God came down or sent angels in public, it happened so it happened. Any atheists who say that it isn't reproducible or verifiable(mass eye-witness + CCTV) is retarded
You are basing your judgements of the hypothetical atheist rationalisations on your own metaphysics and value system. Ergo there is still no objective proof. The broader point here is that properly speaking, atheism is no different from subscribing to a religious belief.
Being an atheist doesn't require any kind of commitment.
Yes it does. An atheist believes that there is no god. This is a negative ontological commitment.
In this arena, only Agnostics can possibly not have made any commitment.
