Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Taz]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Given empirical proof, I would follow the party line, as it were. But the chances of a god being the one from the bible? 0.000000000000000 % chance. About the same chance as Casper the ghost being god. Mainly because the bible doesn't make any sense scientifically, for one.

Really? So you would be okay worshipping the God that is presented in the Christian Bible? Presuming that your atheism was proven incorrect, I mean? I don't think I could. I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.

 

[Czernobog]

I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

What if you could be shown that the image of the nature of God according to a literal interpretation conceals the nature of a living being with a nature not unlike yourself according to a deeper more thoughtful interpretation of the words used,not to mention more accurate translations as in the whole i am a jealous god thing...?

I am not asking if you would worship him but if you would conform to his teaching, which would amount to asking you if you would follow your own advice...

It couldn't. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. There is simply no way to interpret that as anything less that the God of Christianity commanding genocide. That alone, makes the God of Christians unworthy of worship to me.

Ahem, that was not the God of the NT....

Nope. You don't get to do that. You do not get to separate the two. The God of the new Testament is the God of the old Testament. that is the reason that Christians included the Old testament in the Bible. Christians themselves tell us that the Old Testament is there to reveal the nature of the God they worship. You don't get to pretend that isn't the case, every time the old Testament reveals some element of that nature that you find uncomfortable.

 

[hobelim]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Given empirical proof, I would follow the party line, as it were. But the chances of a god being the one from the bible? 0.000000000000000 % chance. About the same chance as Casper the ghost being god. Mainly because the bible doesn't make any sense scientifically, for one.

Really? So you would be okay worshipping the God that is presented in the Christian Bible? Presuming that your atheism was proven incorrect, I mean? I don't think I could. I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.

Of course. Then there would be no need for religion.

Everyone will live peacefully under the shade of their own fig tree.

 

[sakinago]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Kind of a silly hypo, but if there was proof of Christian god...and you chose not to follow, you’d be accepting terrible eternal damnation to hell, lake of fire type torture never ending. I doubt that you’d accept that because of a bunch of people you don’t even know who got flooded out thousands of years ago, that’s quite the “moral” stance. You also are personifying something that can’t be personified, it’s an all powerful being that created space, time, and matter to fill up space time...not bound by its own creation. Who also created morality, to which you’d probably have to admit that something that created a universe we can’t even fathom probably knows a bit more about the morality it created vs its own creation...that does a lot of clearly immoral things over its very short history. Your thinking of god as a leader, a president, playing with chess pieces, when if you can’t even fathom the creation itself, how could you fathom the creator. We humans personify stuff that really can’t be personified at all, like our dogs, other animals, mother earth, etc. We find human faces in the bark on trees, the moon, toast, etc just because that’s the way we are wired. How many times have you heard someone get angry/disgusted with lions because when a new male takes over he eats all the young. Or were grossed out when our dogs eat their own poo. Or we say our dog is giving us kisses when they lick us. That’s us interpreting human action through non human beings.

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Given empirical proof, I would follow the party line, as it were. But the chances of a god being the one from the bible? 0.000000000000000 % chance. About the same chance as Casper the ghost being god. Mainly because the bible doesn't make any sense scientifically, for one.

Really? So you would be okay worshipping the God that is presented in the Christian Bible? Presuming that your atheism was proven incorrect, I mean? I don't think I could. I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.

Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.

 

[Taz]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Given empirical proof, I would follow the party line, as it were. But the chances of a god being the one from the bible? 0.000000000000000 % chance. About the same chance as Casper the ghost being god. Mainly because the bible doesn't make any sense scientifically, for one.

Really? So you would be okay worshipping the God that is presented in the Christian Bible? Presuming that your atheism was proven incorrect, I mean? I don't think I could. I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.

Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.

If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Kind of a silly hypo, but if there was proof of Christian god...and you chose not to follow, you’d be accepting terrible eternal damnation to hell, lake of fire type torture never ending. I doubt that you’d accept that because of a bunch of people you don’t even know who got flooded out thousands of years ago, that’s quite the “moral” stance. You also are personifying something that can’t be personified, it’s an all powerful being that created space, time, and matter to fill up space time...not bound by its own creation. Who also created morality, to which you’d probably have to admit that something that created a universe we can’t even fathom probably knows a bit more about the morality it created vs its own creation...that does a lot of clearly immoral things over its very short history. Your thinking of god as a leader, a president, playing with chess pieces, when if you can’t even fathom the creation itself, how could you fathom the creator. We humans personify stuff that really can’t be personified at all, like our dogs, other animals, mother earth, etc. We find human faces in the bark on trees, the moon, toast, etc just because that’s the way we are wired. How many times have you heard someone get angry/disgusted with lions because when a new male takes over he eats all the young. Or were grossed out when our dogs eat their own poo. Or we say our dog is giving us kisses when they lick us. That’s us interpreting human action through non human beings.

Two problems. First, one's moral principles are utterly useless, if they abandon them the moment it becomes uncomfortable, or even dangerous, to not do so. As someone once said, "Someone who will not stand for something, will stand for anything," We either have moral principles, or we don't. Jim's Rules #4: The only thing I have that is truly mine is my integrity. No one can take that from me; I can only choose to give it away. A corollary to that rule is that once given away, it is extremely difficult to get back. So, yeah. Even under threat of Hell, I would stand by my principles.

Second, The defence you are giving God is the Nixon defence: "When I do it, that makes it okay,"; "....not bound by its own creation...". See, I have a problem with that. If you are not bound by your own rules, then why the **** should I be? After all, the Bible presents God as a leader. Shepard, "lead us not...", over, and over, he is presented as a leader to be respected, and admired. Sorry. Not if he is a leader who thinks he is above the very morals to which he will hold me accountable.

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Given empirical proof, I would follow the party line, as it were. But the chances of a god being the one from the bible? 0.000000000000000 % chance. About the same chance as Casper the ghost being god. Mainly because the bible doesn't make any sense scientifically, for one.

Really? So you would be okay worshipping the God that is presented in the Christian Bible? Presuming that your atheism was proven incorrect, I mean? I don't think I could. I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.

Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.

If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.

It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.

 

[westwall]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.

So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?

 

[westwall]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.

So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?

Not off topic at all. You claimed atheism is falsifiable in your OP and I addressed that inaccuracy, that is all I addressed. There is no proof or evidence either for, or against a God. Period. It is an unknowable question. That's how the concept of faith originated.

 

[sakinago]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Kind of a silly hypo, but if there was proof of Christian god...and you chose not to follow, you’d be accepting terrible eternal damnation to hell, lake of fire type torture never ending. I doubt that you’d accept that because of a bunch of people you don’t even know who got flooded out thousands of years ago, that’s quite the “moral” stance. You also are personifying something that can’t be personified, it’s an all powerful being that created space, time, and matter to fill up space time...not bound by its own creation. Who also created morality, to which you’d probably have to admit that something that created a universe we can’t even fathom probably knows a bit more about the morality it created vs its own creation...that does a lot of clearly immoral things over its very short history. Your thinking of god as a leader, a president, playing with chess pieces, when if you can’t even fathom the creation itself, how could you fathom the creator. We humans personify stuff that really can’t be personified at all, like our dogs, other animals, mother earth, etc. We find human faces in the bark on trees, the moon, toast, etc just because that’s the way we are wired. How many times have you heard someone get angry/disgusted with lions because when a new male takes over he eats all the young. Or were grossed out when our dogs eat their own poo. Or we say our dog is giving us kisses when they lick us. That’s us interpreting human action through non human beings.

Two problems. First, one's moral principles are utterly useless, if they abandon them the moment it becomes uncomfortable, or even dangerous, to not do so. As someone once said, "Someone who will not stand for something, will stand for anything," We either have moral principles, or we don't. Jim's Rules #4: The only thing I have that is truly mine is my integrity. No one can take that from me; I can only choose to give it away. A corollary to that rule is that once given away, it is extremely difficult to get back. So, yeah. Even under threat of Hell, I would stand by my principles.

Second, The defence you are giving God is the Nixon defence: "When I do it, that makes it okay,"; "....not bound by its own creation...". See, I have a problem with that. If you are not bound by your own rules, then why the **** should I be? After all, the Bible presents God as a leader. Shepard, "lead us not...", over, and over, he is presented as a leader to be respected, and admired. Sorry. Not if he is a leader who thinks he is above the very morals to which he will hold me accountable.

No you misinterpret my point there (with your second point). Considering how much you do not know compared to an all powerful creator. How would you know that the decision he made was wrong (remember time does not exist in that realm), so I couldn’t even venture to suppose that a god flooded the earth, and it was for a good reason that we cannot fathom...but that’d be the best reason I could give you. I could go with the farmer and the pigeon scenario, where there are pigeons who are hanging around a farmhouse for the little bit of warmth it provides, a farmer sees them and knows that they’ll freeze to death when the temp drops crazy low at night, so he opens the door to his barn for them, for them to stay and survive the night. They don’t go in BC they can’t put 2 and 2 together. He then tries to leave food by the barn door to bait them, they don’t go, BC they want to stay by the little bit of warmth that’s been keeping them alive thus far. So he tries to chase and herd them into the barn, they fly away and scatter, he throws stuff at them, but nothing he does can make the pigeons understand that he’s trying to help them and save their lives inside the barn. So wouldn’t it seem pretty silly of the pigeons to claim their morality is superior to that of the farmers, and characterize this farmer as a dickhead chasing them away from the warmth (or as pigeons would think, predator we need to escape from). Which is kind of what you are doing in this hypo, even if the Christian god was proven, that god is loving, and fatherly, and sees and knows all, and knows what’s best for us, even though we are clueless to know what that means...according to the Christian bible.

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.

So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?

Not off topic at all. You claimed atheism is falsifiable in your OP and I addressed that inaccuracy, that is all I addressed. There is no proof or evidence either for, or against a God. Period. It is an unknowable question. That's how the concept of faith originated.

"There is no proof" is not synonymous with "There is no proof possible". The former is only a statement of current finding, and allows for the possibility of such proof being discovered at a later date, and therefore allows for the falsification of the negative assertion, "There is no God". The latter, however, implies that the question has already been settled, as no evidence will ever be possible to discover to falsify the negative premise, and a negative premise that cannot be falsified is accepted as accurate. So. Is it your position that no such evidence will ever be possible?

 

[westwall]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.

So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?

Not off topic at all. You claimed atheism is falsifiable in your OP and I addressed that inaccuracy, that is all I addressed. There is no proof or evidence either for, or against a God. Period. It is an unknowable question. That's how the concept of faith originated.

"There is no proof" is not synonymous with "There is no proof possible". The former is only a statement of current finding, and allows for the possibility of such proof being discovered at a later date, and therefore allows for the falsification of the negative assertion, "There is no God". The latter, however, implies that the question has already been settled, as no evidence will ever be possible to discover to falsify the negative premise, and a negative premise that cannot be falsified is accepted as accurate. So. Is it your position that no such evidence will ever be possible?

How do you prove the existence of a being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all seeing, when that entity decides it doesn't want you to be able to see it?

Get real.

 

[hobelim]

I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

What if you could be shown that the image of the nature of God according to a literal interpretation conceals the nature of a living being with a nature not unlike yourself according to a deeper more thoughtful interpretation of the words used,not to mention more accurate translations as in the whole i am a jealous god thing...?

I am not asking if you would worship him but if you would conform to his teaching, which would amount to asking you if you would follow your own advice...

It couldn't. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. There is simply no way to interpret that as anything less that the God of Christianity commanding genocide. That alone, makes the God of Christians unworthy of worship to me.

Ahem, that was not the God of the NT....

Nope. You don't get to do that. You do not get to separate the two. The God of the new Testament is the God of the old Testament. that is the reason that Christians included the Old testament in the Bible. Christians themselves tell us that the Old Testament is there to reveal the nature of the God they worship. You don't get to pretend that isn't the case, every time the old Testament reveals some element of that nature that you find uncomfortable.

You are wrong. There is a stark contrast between God as described in the OT according to the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation possible and God as described by Jesus who only had the OT to read. In the OT Jesus found a hidden God not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

If you don't look and look and keep on looking you will never find him.


"The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..."

 

[irosie91]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.

So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?

Not off topic at all. You claimed atheism is falsifiable in your OP and I addressed that inaccuracy, that is all I addressed. There is no proof or evidence either for, or against a God. Period. It is an unknowable question. That's how the concept of faith originated.

"There is no proof" is not synonymous with "There is no proof possible". The former is only a statement of current finding, and allows for the possibility of such proof being discovered at a later date, and therefore allows for the falsification of the negative assertion, "There is no God". The latter, however, implies that the question has already been settled, as no evidence will ever be possible to discover to falsify the negative premise, and a negative premise that cannot be falsified is accepted as accurate. So. Is it your position that no such evidence will ever be possible?

How do you prove the existence of a being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all seeing, when that entity decides it doesn't want you to be able to see it?

Get real.

an elderly lawyer, long ago when I asked "how do you find
out where a person is and what he is doing (it was before the
era of computer everywhere)-----he said THERE IS ALWAYS
A MONEY TRAIL....FOLLOW THE MONEY.

 

[Czernobog]

So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.

Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.

See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.

I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.

I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.

So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?

Kind of a silly hypo, but if there was proof of Christian god...and you chose not to follow, you’d be accepting terrible eternal damnation to hell, lake of fire type torture never ending. I doubt that you’d accept that because of a bunch of people you don’t even know who got flooded out thousands of years ago, that’s quite the “moral” stance. You also are personifying something that can’t be personified, it’s an all powerful being that created space, time, and matter to fill up space time...not bound by its own creation. Who also created morality, to which you’d probably have to admit that something that created a universe we can’t even fathom probably knows a bit more about the morality it created vs its own creation...that does a lot of clearly immoral things over its very short history. Your thinking of god as a leader, a president, playing with chess pieces, when if you can’t even fathom the creation itself, how could you fathom the creator. We humans personify stuff that really can’t be personified at all, like our dogs, other animals, mother earth, etc. We find human faces in the bark on trees, the moon, toast, etc just because that’s the way we are wired. How many times have you heard someone get angry/disgusted with lions because when a new male takes over he eats all the young. Or were grossed out when our dogs eat their own poo. Or we say our dog is giving us kisses when they lick us. That’s us interpreting human action through non human beings.

Two problems. First, one's moral principles are utterly useless, if they abandon them the moment it becomes uncomfortable, or even dangerous, to not do so. As someone once said, "Someone who will not stand for something, will stand for anything," We either have moral principles, or we don't. Jim's Rules #4: The only thing I have that is truly mine is my integrity. No one can take that from me; I can only choose to give it away. A corollary to that rule is that once given away, it is extremely difficult to get back. So, yeah. Even under threat of Hell, I would stand by my principles.

Second, The defence you are giving God is the Nixon defence: "When I do it, that makes it okay,"; "....not bound by its own creation...". See, I have a problem with that. If you are not bound by your own rules, then why the **** should I be? After all, the Bible presents God as a leader. Shepard, "lead us not...", over, and over, he is presented as a leader to be respected, and admired. Sorry. Not if he is a leader who thinks he is above the very morals to which he will hold me accountable.

No you misinterpret my point there (with your second point). Considering how much you do not know compared to an all powerful creator. How would you know that the decision he made was wrong (remember time does not exist in that realm), so I couldn’t even venture to suppose that a god flooded the earth, and it was for a good reason that we cannot fathom...but that’d be the best reason I could give you. I could go with the farmer and the pigeon scenario, where there are pigeons who are hanging around a farmhouse for the little bit of warmth it provides, a farmer sees them and knows that they’ll freeze to death when the temp drops crazy low at night, so he opens the door to his barn for them, for them to stay and survive the night. They don’t go in BC they can’t put 2 and 2 together. He then tries to leave food by the barn door to bait them, they don’t go, BC they want to stay by the little bit of warmth that’s been keeping them alive thus far. So he tries to chase and herd them into the barn, they fly away and scatter, he throws stuff at them, but nothing he does can make the pigeons understand that he’s trying to help them and save their lives inside the barn. So wouldn’t it seem pretty silly of the pigeons to claim their morality is superior to that of the farmers, and characterize this farmer as a dickhead chasing them away from the warmth (or as pigeons would think, predator we need to escape from). Which is kind of what you are doing in this hypo, even if the Christian god was proven, that god is loving, and fatherly, and sees and knows all, and knows what’s best for us, even though we are clueless to know what that means...according to the Christian bible.

Okay. Now you're presenting the "God works in mysterious ways" defence. That isn't sufficient. That is just claiming that the means justify the ends; they don't. Ever. Once you claim they do, then you can justify any of a number of atrocities in the name of "the greater good". And your justification for God even goes a step further. It is, "I know something you don't". Yes, I snapped your baby's neck. But you can't be angry with me, or demand that I justify my actions, because "I know something you don't", and I am not under any obligation to tell you what that something is.

That's absurd.

 

[westwall]

How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.

This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.

So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?

Not off topic at all. You claimed atheism is falsifiable in your OP and I addressed that inaccuracy, that is all I addressed. There is no proof or evidence either for, or against a God. Period. It is an unknowable question. That's how the concept of faith originated.

"There is no proof" is not synonymous with "There is no proof possible". The former is only a statement of current finding, and allows for the possibility of such proof being discovered at a later date, and therefore allows for the falsification of the negative assertion, "There is no God". The latter, however, implies that the question has already been settled, as no evidence will ever be possible to discover to falsify the negative premise, and a negative premise that cannot be falsified is accepted as accurate. So. Is it your position that no such evidence will ever be possible?

How do you prove the existence of a being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all seeing, when that entity decides it doesn't want you to be able to see it?

Get real.

an elderly lawyer, long ago when I asked "how do you find
out where a person is and what he is doing (it was before the
era of computer everywhere)-----he said THERE IS ALWAYS
A MONEY TRAIL....FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Which addresses my statement how?

 

[Czernobog]

I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

What if you could be shown that the image of the nature of God according to a literal interpretation conceals the nature of a living being with a nature not unlike yourself according to a deeper more thoughtful interpretation of the words used,not to mention more accurate translations as in the whole i am a jealous god thing...?

I am not asking if you would worship him but if you would conform to his teaching, which would amount to asking you if you would follow your own advice...

It couldn't. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. There is simply no way to interpret that as anything less that the God of Christianity commanding genocide. That alone, makes the God of Christians unworthy of worship to me.

Ahem, that was not the God of the NT....

Nope. You don't get to do that. You do not get to separate the two. The God of the new Testament is the God of the old Testament. that is the reason that Christians included the Old testament in the Bible. Christians themselves tell us that the Old Testament is there to reveal the nature of the God they worship. You don't get to pretend that isn't the case, every time the old Testament reveals some element of that nature that you find uncomfortable.

You are wrong. There is a stark contrast between God as described in the OT according to the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation possible and God as described by Jesus who only had the OT to read. In the OT Jesus found a hidden God not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

If you don't look and look and keep on looking you will never find him.


"The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..."

Then you negate half of the Christian Bible. What purpose is there for the Old Testament? Why should we feel obligated to any of it, ass it is completely unrelated to the new Testament?

 

[Taz]

Given empirical proof, I would follow the party line, as it were. But the chances of a god being the one from the bible? 0.000000000000000 % chance. About the same chance as Casper the ghost being god. Mainly because the bible doesn't make any sense scientifically, for one.

Really? So you would be okay worshipping the God that is presented in the Christian Bible? Presuming that your atheism was proven incorrect, I mean? I don't think I could. I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.

If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.

Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.

If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.

It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.

We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.