If the truth about atheism was revealed. . .

[JohnRM]

Well, I am not an athiest persay, but I do not identify myself as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. etc. etc. However, if information was revealed to be the truth, I would accept it as such and carry on.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Yes, there could be an independent standard of good - but what would that be? And would it have existed prior to God? Wouldn't it be superior to God, since he has to align himself with it?

No, he would freely choose to align himself with the good.

I have got to find that Aquinas quote where he attacks the "divine command" theory of morality...

 

[cgannon64]

And then wouldn't that independent standard of good be more important than God? Wouldn't it be God?

(By the way, what do you mean by the "divine command theory of morality"? And what does he say is the proper theory of morality?)

 

[toh6wy]

I would definitely question my own mental integrety first off, and if no one could find anything abnormal, I would accept that God exists, nothing more (as in, I wouldn't convert to a religion because even in this case I would sincerely doubt any one religion would be 100% accurate)

 

[Keirador]

The absolute truth is that god cannot exist? Laughable. That is like saying the absolute truth is that ghosts cannot exist. No one actually knows that. There is simply no evidence of that assertion. The best you can do is prove that god is completely unnecessary, and completey unsupported by evidence. That is not logically equivalent to saying that the existence of God is impossible. You would have to prove that the existence of god is mutually exclusive to something we do know exists, which has never been done.

It's impossible to prove the non-existance of something.
Can you prove there is no planet with a billion nude hotties screaming for sex with me and Civilization XXXVII already in the shops for $1.00?

No, I cannot prove there is no such planet. Therefore, I will not claim that "the absolute truth is that such a planet cannot exist." It absolutely can exist, it just doesn't seem likely.

 

[Keirador]

There's a bias in the title
Regarding poll options, it means the truth is atheism is wrong. You don't set it as a possibility but as a fact. So I don't answer the poll. Rename it by "what if atheism was proved wrong" and I would vote.

As stated in the OP, it's a direct take-off of CurtSibling's thread, titled "If the truth about your god was revealed. . ."
Besides, when have I ever claimed to be non-biased?

 

[mdwh]

I voted Other.

The problem is, I don't see how there can actually be proof of there being a God, and it not being due to some other phenomenon. We're talking about the fundamental state of the Universe - what was there in the beginning, and how everything came to be. "being visited and spoken to by angels, speaking with a burning bush, miraculous healing, etc" has absolutely nothing to do with any of this - just because there is proof for some of the things which a religion claims, does not mean that the original claim about God is true!

Perhaps some sufficiently advanced civilization may be able to know the true nature of the Universe - but even then, we cannot be sure if there isn't some additional layer of reality behind all of that - perhaps "God" was just some alien who evolved naturally in another Universe.

(I guess this makes me a strong agnostic too as well as an atheist.)

Now, as an atheist, and someone who is generally sceptical of the paranormal, I am open to accepting new things if presented with evidence, but all that means is that there is something we cannot explain.

Eg, if we manage to see ghosts, repeatedly, and we rule out anything such as hallucinations, then this could be proof of "Ghosts", and I would be willing to believe in them. However, it is not proof that Ghosts are souls of dead people. That much would still be conjecture.

It's the same old argument from ignorance: Here is some unexplained behaviour, therefore my long-winded made-up fairy tale about it must be true.

 

[mdwh]

If you saw a leprechaun, would you believe in little people?

Actually this makes me think of another way of putting things, if we rephrase it the other way round:

If I saw a little person, then I would believe that little people existed. I wouldn't believe in leprechauns - whilst I might use such a label for convenience, I wouldn't believe that this proves that the leprechauns of folklore exist, and that therefore these little people must have pots of gold hidden away.

It reminds me of a "maths joke":

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.

"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"

To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

---
What I don't get is people who see the black sheep, and assume that this is the Great Black Sheep who must be worshipped, and invent a load of stories about Him.

 

[mdwh]

I'm amazed that most of the athiests here are unwilling, once admitting that they would follow God if they knew he existed, to choose a religion. If God exists, and has characteristics that you know, why wouldn't you align yourself with the religion that got it most right?

Because religion and belief in God are not the same thing. Even if one religion got it "most right" (which is a rather big assumption - even if a God exists, I doubt any of the religions are correct at all on what they say), that still means they got it wrong in some areas!

Some people are religious, and don't believe in God (eg, Buddhists). Some people believe in God, but aren't religious (eg, Deists).

Can't you see that, if God exists, the moral code you have "worked out for yourself" is either his moral code, or it is crap?

You are assuming that this God is all knowing, all intelligent, all loving to us, and that all moral problems have a unique objective answer.

If the first three are true (which is an assumption about God - eg, he might not give a damn about us), then it would in general be wise to use God as a guide, but even then, the fourth presents a problem for some cases. Is it right to kill ten people to save a different group of one hundred people? Even if you have all the facts, it isn't clear what the answer is.

Even if there is a God, it doesn't mean that any other moral code is "crap" - being creator of something doesn't make you the only being in a position to make judgements about the best way to behave (unless you're one of those people who define "good" to be "what God says", in which case, your argument is circular anyway).

 

[Stapel]

When someone is good, they are following God whether they understand it or not. It is the last step of understanding this, and embracing God, that is necessary to be truly good.

Following something you don't understand is the root of evil.

But you must accept that definition of "good" if, for the sake of argument, you are assuming that God exists and he is all-good.

The Bible is filled with lines that prove that God (if God is the God from the Bible) is an evil looney.

And trust me, there is not just one or two lines popular with atheists. The whole book is filled with filth, dirt and crap. As a matter of fact, the 4 gospels are the few exceptions, together with some great short stories form OT.

 

[Stapel]

No, I cannot prove there is no such planet. Therefore, I will not claim that "the absolute truth is that such a planet cannot exist." It absolutely can exist, it just doesn't seem likely.

It's more likely that this planet exists, than that an almighty deity exists... Let go a deity that is 'behind' the Bible.

Oh man, that idea is so ridiculous.
Go read that book and conclude for yourself:

The surest path to atheism, is a proper reading and understanding of the Bible.

 

[King Alexander]

Obviously a take-off of Curt's thread, but not retaliatory or anything like that, I (unlike most Christians, apparently) found Curt's question interesting. "What would you do if confronted with undeniable proof that your basic beliefs are wrong?" Only I'm applying it to atheists. If you were confronted with a phenomenon that could only be explained by the existence of God or your own insanity (being visited and spoken to by angels, speaking with a burning bush, miraculous healing, etc.), what would you do? Convert (and by convert, I mean recognize and believe in the existence of a higher power, not necessarily "go to church")? Check yourself into a loony bin? Keep in mind that you have never felt saner, and psychiatrists can't find any actual reason you should be committed. . .

If I couldn't study the phenomenon, why should I accept it asap? That would require, the phenomenon happened several times, so I had time to examine it.
I would like to know what was it, maybe, have people to study it and explain it.
FACT means that one can prove it by studing, monitoring, experimenting with something and presenting it to others, beoynd any doubts, otherwise, it's still FAITH.

Only then I'd accept that a divine really existed, otherwise, I'd thought, I'd be a "cookoo", needing medication.

What good would come if such an experience would be observed ONLY by me, anyway? What good would come for society? ZERO. OR... does anyone think that God considers the other humans(beings, that he, himslef created) inferior to me??? If he had GUTS, he should make his presence known to all his "children".

Last but not least, I'd not behave as religionists would expect me to do: I wouldn't worship a God, I'd only admit that he existed and I'd like to study him, but I'd STILL behave as I now do. I have logic, and I can take my own decisions based on what's better for me, thank you.
If God wanted to worship him and live by HIS standards and rules, so, I'd take a place in Heaven, then, I'd reply: "God, go to Hell!".

P.S.: I find this "God is beyond understanding" thing some posters say, total crap!!! Don't underestimate yourselves that much! We can try to understand more and more everytime, and we do so in every aspect, but we shouldn't try to understand or JUDGE a God? Don't make me laugh!

 

[Mise]

For me to ditch atheism God would have to prove himself real through numerous independent experiments by different people under controlled conditions. I don't see that happening, really.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

The question is a bit ambiguous,
If I were faced with "miracolous healing" I would dismiss it thinking that we just don't know how it came about. If I were to "talk to a bush" once I would think I have allucinated
But if I were faced with god/gods him/her/it/themself who gave me undeniable proof of divinity (by scope and duration) then I would convert.
My atheism is based on the etreme unlikeliness of the existance of god/gods, not an absolute certainty. For me the existance of god/gods is like drawing pi in a uniform random drawing in the interval [3, 4] extremely unlikely, not worth bothering, but still possible

 

[DiamanteLouco]

There is a movie here called "god is brazilian" and the story goes by god deciding to take a vacation, so he have to find a new god and asks an atheist to do it, the atheist of course decline because he don´t believe god is offering him a "job", so god goes and make the time stop, transports him to the middle of a lake, creates stuff out of nothing, you know, big god stuff, and the atheist still don´t believe and the message of the movie is like "we give you proof, you don´t accept because you don´t want." and I always tought this movie was bull****, as I am an atheist, but if a man comes and transports me to the desert making it in a huge lake followed by show of complete control of time and space, then heck, I would believe him to be god! (or at least someone very powerful, who probably got nukes, so I wouldn´t disagree with him)

 

[cgannon64]

Because religion and belief in God are not the same thing. Even if one religion got it "most right" (which is a rather big assumption - even if a God exists, I doubt any of the religions are correct at all on what they say), that still means they got it wrong in some areas!

Then you can align yourself with the religion that got it most right, and try to correct it where it went wrong.

If the first three are true (which is an assumption about God - eg, he might not give a damn about us),

Actually, God has to care about us. Why? God created us, which is obviously an act of caring and concern. God, in a sense "creates us eternally", because he is unchanging, and so any idea which he holds when we were first created he must hold for all eternity. Thus, God loves us and wants us to exist, and he does this forever. If he stopped, he would not be eternal; if he did not care for us, we wouldn't exist. But, this is a side-note.

Is it right to kill ten people to save a different group of one hundred people? Even if you have all the facts, it isn't clear what the answer is.

Actually, if you had all the facts - meaning omnipotence and a full understanding of morality - the answer would be clear. It's just that no human can ever fully understand a situation and all its repercussions.

Even if there is a God, it doesn't mean that any other moral code is "crap" - being creator of something doesn't make you the only being in a position to make judgements about the best way to behave

Perhaps not the only, but it would make you the being in the best position to make judgments about the way to behave.

Following something you don't understand is the root of evil.

No that's pride you're thinking of.

And trust me, there is not just one or two lines popular with atheists. The whole book is filled with filth, dirt and crap. As a matter of fact, the 4 gospels are the few exceptions, together with some great short stories form OT.

The Old Testament is more filled with crap than the New, because the Old Testament was written by a people with a rather skewed view of God - that he was their personal servant and supportive of all their actions, really.

 

[mdwh]

Then you can align yourself with the religion that got it most right, and try to correct it where it went wrong.

I guess it depends on what the situation was. If people who didn't worship and follow a million rules got tortured for hell once we died, then I guess I would reluctantly do this. If it turned out that this God said people should say, wear red hats, then I wouldn't necessarily do so, if I couldn't see a good reason for it. Also I wouldn't see a reason to worship such a God (unless not doing so would make him angry, and it'd mean I get sent to hell or whatever).

Actually, God has to care about us. Why? God created us, which is obviously an act of caring and concern.

Just because the act of creation is a "caring act", it does not follow that therefore this God was always acts in our best interest. I assure you when I play "God" with my civilization in Civilization, I don't always act in their best interests Nor do scientists performing experiments on animals tend to act in the best interests for those animals. For all we know, we could be some experiment of some superintelligent being, who does not care about us at all, or has other interests above us.

Actually, if you had all the facts - meaning omnipotence and a full understanding of morality - the answer would be clear. It's just that no human can ever fully understand a situation and all its repercussions.

No - even if you fully understand all the consequences, including seeing into the future, it is still a matter of opinion of whether actively killing one person is right, if it saves two people.

Furthermore, understanding the repercussions only complicates the situation. For example, is it moral to kill someone, if one of their descendants would turn out to be a mass murdering dictator?

Having more facts does not solve these problems.

And you mean omniscience (all knowing), not omnipotence (all powerful). Another problem is that even if God could know everything about the Universe (which is not necessarily true), it is not necessarily true that this God would also know the future.

Talking of being omnipotent though, that still leaves the question of why such moral dilemmas exist in the first place: why should we need to choose between two bad outcomes, if a God could stop them altogether? This brings us to the old point that the idea of a God which is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving simply does not make sense, all the while that suffering exists in the world. The usual response to this is to say that God does not want to intervene in our free will. Well fine, but perhaps he should not intervene at all, which includes letting us decide what is moral. Telling us how to behave, when he has the power to solve everything, just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps not the only, but it would make you the being in the best position to make judgments about the way to behave.

*If* all these things I have said are true. The problem is that even if it is proven that there is a God, it's a lot harder to prove these other things. How could we know that God knows everything, including the future? How could we know he always has our best interests at heart?

 

[Shadylookin]

Then you can align yourself with the religion that got it most right, and try to correct it where it went wrong.

what makes you so sure any of them is remotely correct?

Actually, God has to care about us. Why? God created us, which is obviously an act of caring and concern. God, in a sense "creates us eternally", because he is unchanging, and so any idea which he holds when we were first created he must hold for all eternity. Thus, God loves us and wants us to exist, and he does this forever. If he stopped, he would not be eternal; if he did not care for us, we wouldn't exist. But, this is a side-note.

not necessarily maybe he created us to torment us? I don't really know why you feel you can speak for any deities since you've never communicated directly with any of them. Besides if god is unchanging and had this idea of me since the begining of time when he started it where does he get off complaining about my actions?

Actually, if you had all the facts - meaning omnipotence and a full understanding of morality - the answer would be clear. It's just that no human can ever fully understand a situation and all its repercussions.

since god creates all situations he must take responsibility for all those that are bad.

Perhaps not the only, but it would make you the being in the best position to make judgments about the way to behave.

It is generally considered immoral in western society to kill off social minorities(homosexuals, people of different faiths, etc.) yet in the bible done accepts and embraces these actions. So god really isn't dictating morality on earth

No that's pride you're thinking of.

I agree god was way to proud thinking he could create perfection

The Old Testament is more filled with crap than the New, because the Old Testament was written by a people with a rather skewed view of God - that he was their personal servant and supportive of all their actions, really.

the new testimate is in full support of the old

 

[cgannon64]

what makes you so sure any of them is remotely correct?

I was assuming that he had a revelation from God and knew the truth about him.

not necessarily maybe he created us to torment us? I don't really know why you feel you can speak for any deities since you've never communicated directly with any of them.

I can't have theories?

Besides if god is unchanging and had this idea of me since the begining of time when he started it where does he get off complaining about my actions?

Another problem for another day.

It is generally considered immoral in western society to kill off social minorities(homosexuals, people of different faiths, etc.) yet in the bible done accepts and embraces these actions. So god really isn't dictating morality on earth

Since when have I defended all of the Old Testament?

I agree god was way to proud thinking he could create perfection

Firstly, God didn't create perfection, nor did he intend to. And secondly, if there is one being who can be proud without being sinful, it is God.

the new testimate is in full support of the old

Not really.

 

[Shadylookin]

I was assuming that he had a revelation from God and knew the truth about him.

I can't have theories?

a theory and a wild guess based upon your upbringing are 2 very different things. of course your entitled to believe what you want, but don't expect me to let such things slide when I'm arguing with you.

Another problem for another day.

answering complex philosophical questions by shruging your shoulders and dodging the question?

Since when have I defended all of the Old Testament?

If its not defendable why are you following a religion whose base is in it.

Firstly, God didn't create perfection, nor did he intend to. And secondly, if there is one being who can be proud without being sinful, it is God.

then what was the point of the garden of eden and creating those angels to live in a perfect society, and why does god get special treatment? Does might make right?

Not really.

Jesus seemed in full support of the old testimate