[lrs_17]

Now this is just how I feel about it, I'm not trying to say I'm right, and am very open to debate

I believe entirely in Science, and therefore find the possibility of a "God" or "Gods" highly unlikely (especially that of an intervening "God"), and I can only assume almost all other atheists do not believe in "God/s" because of scientific reason. But therefore, if there was proven to be a creator "God" I would quite happily (though I'd be rather embarrassed!) accept this as fact, as there would be no point in denying the obvious truth, as would almost all atheists.

From a religious perspective, the whole point of religion is that it is based on faith and not fact, hence, once it becomes fact, it can therefore no longer be religion. Sure, people could still "worship" this creator, whichever form they/it be in, but it would be a bit like worshipping a wall. Therefore, atheism would become the undeniable default.

This scenario is based upon the discovery simply of a creator though, and not an intervening "God", in this case, I still feel religion would become obsolete though. Again, many people may "worship" this God, but again, due to faith no longer being necessary, why is it religion?
It is just like asking someone for a favour (if s/he/it answers prayer) etc.
Therefore, atheism would again become the default.

Any thoughts?
Sorry if this isn't very well written, I don't know why I'm doing it at 4:30am

[Imayormaynotexist]

(Original post by lrs_17)
Therefore, atheism would again become the default.

I don't think so... yes, religion would change but if the proof was there, atheism (defined as disbelief in the existence of God or Gods) would not be the default- just because I don't worship tables doesn't mean I don't believe in them. Life would certainly be a bit odd though, should it be proven that a deity existed. .

[lrs_17]

(Original post by Imayormaynotexist)
I don't think so... yes, religion would change but if the proof was there, atheism (defined as disbelief in the existence of God or Gods) would not be the default- just because I don't worship tables doesn't mean I don't believe in them. Life would certainly be a bit odd though, should it be proven that a deity existed. .

I see your point of view, but when is a God a God?
Atheism and religion would definitely start to blur at the edges
I think the main point I was trying to make is, who would be religious and who would be atheist? Would everyone become one and the same?

[Imayormaynotexist]

(Original post by lrs_17)
I see your point of view, but when is a God a God?
Atheism and religion would definitely start to blur at the edges
I think the main point I was trying to make is, who would be religious and who would be atheist? Would everyone become one and the same?

I guess. I have a deep suspicion that science will never prove or disprove a God but it would be an interesting day should it ever happen.

I always assumed that should (the Christian) God ever be proved to exist people would not be suddenly converting to atheism! However, in you definition of atheism (which appears to be more of non-acknowledgement rather than disbelief), I suppose it could happen... I'm not really sure, but I definitely think that (within a few generations) after the proof of a God, everyone would have fallen into the same religion.

But would it really be that different than communities that haven't been exposed to more than one religion? I assume it would just be like a sort of medieval like community where faith was just a part of daily life.

Although I did say faith... and I suppose that's the point of your debate, that it wouldn't be faith anymore.

Sorry, I'm rambling and tired so I'll shut up now.

[Above.The.Empyrean]

God is/are nominated as unfathomable. The specific epoch in human history we can envisage his/her/its/their disposition, they are no longer God.

[chickenonsteroids]

Not really.

If God was proven conclusively then the correct position would not be, not believing in him. It would be believing in him because the evidence is there. It's on par with people who deny evolution because they don't want it to be true. Truth is truth regardless of whether you believe in it or not. You can be a theist and irreligious at the same time.

(Original post by anitawee)
I don't get how people can think that when they die that will be the end of them forever..... Its a bit stupid.

lol.

[EonBlueApocalypse]

Of course atheism is the natural position, babies aren't born religious they are indoctrinated during childhood.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by lrs_17)
Now this is just how I feel about it, I'm not trying to say I'm right, and am very open to debate

I believe entirely in Science, and therefore find the possibility of a "God" or "Gods" highly unlikely (especially that of an intervening "God"), and I can only assume almost all other atheists do not believe in "God/s" because of scientific reason. But therefore, if there was proven to be a creator "God" I would quite happily (though I'd be rather embarrassed!) accept this as fact, as there would be no point in denying the obvious truth, as would almost all atheists.

From a religious perspective, the whole point of religion is that it is based on faith and not fact, hence, once it becomes fact, it can therefore no longer be religion. Sure, people could still "worship" this creator, whichever form they/it be in, but it would be a bit like worshipping a wall. Therefore, atheism would become the undeniable default.

This scenario is based upon the discovery simply of a creator though, and not an intervening "God", in this case, I still feel religion would become obsolete though. Again, many people may "worship" this God, but again, due to faith no longer being necessary, why is it religion?
It is just like asking someone for a favour (if s/he/it answers prayer) etc.
Therefore, atheism would again become the default.

Any thoughts?
Sorry if this isn't very well written, I don't know why I'm doing it at 4:30am

By that argument is agnosticism not the default stance then? I myself am agnostic. Due to science etc I doubt the actual existence of a deity but I don't think that I cannot so strongly reject the notion that there is a deity, as atheists do. We have been wrong before, and until I see hard evidence that there is no god, I will still entertain the idea that there could be a god without actually worshipping one.

[Mdawg]

(Original post by anitawee)
I don't get how people can think that when they die that will be the end of them forever..... Its a bit stupid.

We can probably think that because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise so far. You're confusing what you want to be true with what is likely to be true.

(Original post by fudgesundae)
By that argument is agnosticism not the default stance then? I myself am agnostic. Due to science etc I doubt the actual existence of a deity but I don't think that I cannot so strongly reject the notion that there is a deity, as atheists do. We have been wrong before, and until I see hard evidence that there is no god, I will still entertain the idea that there could be a god without actually worshipping one.

Atheists don't take the position that there can not be a god, it's just that we are given no reason to believe that there is a god. If anyone claims it's impossible then they're claiming knowledge that no human could possibly possess. You're never going to get hard evidence that there is no god because it's pretty much an unfalsifiable theory. Fortunately, just like somebody claiming the existence of unicorns, the burden of proof is on those who claim the existence of their god.

[Xotol]

(Original post by aqquaintance_sport)
Only Christanity is the way. Everything in thisbworldcould jot jar come into existence by accident. Something eternal always existed - which created everything from Time, Matter & Space.

Your argument does not follow. You do realise that that argument can be applied to just about every supernatural being there is? There must be a reason you chose Christianity out of the infinite others (if you weren't indoctrinated with it). I choose Quetzalcoatl, and, from this incredibly vague argument, it seems like my guess is as good as yours.

Alternatively, it might be sensible not to guess and admit that we simply do not know.

(Original post by anitawee)
I don't get how people can think that when they die that will be the end of them forever..... Its a bit stupid.

As opposed to living forever in some magical beautiful place or unfathomable ravaging flames with an unimaginable magical being.

(Original post by fudgesundae)
By that argument is agnosticism not the default stance then? I myself am agnostic. Due to science etc I doubt the actual existence of a deity but I don't think that I cannot so strongly reject the notion that there is a deity, as atheists do. We have been wrong before, and until I see hard evidence that there is no god, I will still entertain the idea that there could be a god without actually worshipping one.

That isn't atheism. You have to described positive/strong/gnostic atheism, which very few people subscribe too.

Simply being an 'agnostic' says nothing about your belief. The fact that you do not worship one means that you do not believe in any God, so you are an atheists. The fact that you accept the possibility that one exists means that you are an agnostic.

Put those two together and you are an agnostic atheist! (Which is what the vast majority of atheists are.)

[Like a BAWS]

If the Christian God does exist, I'm pretty certain he would have constructed the universe so that it would be absolutely impossible to find out if he exists or not, no matter how advanced we became.

This is because the whole point of it is that God wants us to have faith in him. He wants us to make that leap of faith. Atheists have this mentality of "God exists? Prove it." But in the bible, its clear that Jesus only performed miracles for people AFTER they believed in him.

Therefore in my opinion, the correct position is to be an agnostic theist. By categorising yourself as an atheist, you are immediately stopping yourself from being able to have a relationship with God if he does exist. You may call organised religion an evil man-made construction, and believe me I'd agree with you, but there are many mystics and people who don't conform to a single religion who have incredible experiences of the divine. Always keep your mind open, human beings are so big-headed thinking we know everything about everything, but the truth is we know barely anything. And even though there's a physical world that science knows veryy much about, I believe there's a whole spiritual dimension we know barely anything about, but that ancient civilisations were able to master in a way we don't understand today.

[Akbar2k7]

(Original post by Drunk Punx)
Nihilism ftw.

I cant help but be nihilist sometimes. lol.

[Hylean]

(Original post by lrs_17)
Now this is just how I feel about it, I'm not trying to say I'm right, and am very open to debate

I believe entirely in Science, and therefore find the possibility of a "God" or "Gods" highly unlikely (especially that of an intervening "God"), and I can only assume almost all other atheists do not believe in "God/s" because of scientific reason. But therefore, if there was proven to be a creator "God" I would quite happily (though I'd be rather embarrassed!) accept this as fact, as there would be no point in denying the obvious truth, as would almost all atheists.

From a religious perspective, the whole point of religion is that it is based on faith and not fact, hence, once it becomes fact, it can therefore no longer be religion. Sure, people could still "worship" this creator, whichever form they/it be in, but it would be a bit like worshipping a wall. Therefore, atheism would become the undeniable default.

This scenario is based upon the discovery simply of a creator though, and not an intervening "God", in this case, I still feel religion would become obsolete though. Again, many people may "worship" this God, but again, due to faith no longer being necessary, why is it religion?
It is just like asking someone for a favour (if s/he/it answers prayer) etc.
Therefore, atheism would again become the default.

Any thoughts?
Sorry if this isn't very well written, I don't know why I'm doing it at 4:30am

No, because a religion does not stop being a religion once it becomes a fact. Faith is not based on lack of knowledge and is based on facts as well. This definition of "faith" is so utterly misleading and false that it's almost insulting that people still try to use it. So, if a religion was proven to be true, then atheism would not be the default position, as most people would become theists or deists, depending on the deity discovered.

Atheism's default definition is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God", but on TSR and elsewhere, they like to present atheism as "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." Both definitions are equally valid, but in no way do they make your argument workable.

(Original post by Mdawg)
Atheists don't take the position that there can not be a god, it's just that we are given no reason to believe that there is a god. If anyone claims it's impossible then they're claiming knowledge that no human could possibly possess. You're never going to get hard evidence that there is no god because it's pretty much an unfalsifiable theory. Fortunately, just like somebody claiming the existence of unicorns, the burden of proof is on those who claim the existence of their god.

And yet, somehow not only is the bold the dominant meaning of atheism within the English speaking population, it is also a common statement found on TSR. You can also look in the Definitional Thread to see it is also an accepted version of atheism.

(Original post by Xotol)
That isn't atheism. You have to described positive/strong/gnostic atheism, which very few people subscribe too.

Then they must all be on TSR, because there are quite a number of those on here, and it's still atheism. "Atheism" isn't actually shorthand for "weak atheism".

[Xotol]

(Original post by Hylean)
Then they must all be on TSR, because there are quite a number of those on here, and it's still atheism. "Atheism" isn't actually shorthand for "weak atheism".

Atheism is simply the disbelief in a God. That is it. It's a vague position and doesn't really say that much without an added claim of knowledge.

On its own, it is neither 'there is definitely no God' or 'I think there is no God, but I accept the possibility that one exists'. Both are stances that relate to atheism as well (a)gnosticism.

The vast majority of atheists on TSR will accept the possibility that God exists, which automatically means they are not strong/positive/gnostic atheists (so, by default, they are weak/negative/agnostic). I don't know if that is representative around the world, but I imagine it is.

[Tycho]

Science cannot disprove the existence of God to those who believe in him. Their belief is based on faith, not evidence, and hence it's nearly impossible to conclusively disprove. For level-headed, intelligent individuals it's obvious that God doesn't exist though.

I do not think the OP argument is sound. The existence of God would not remove the need for faith. It's perfectly normal to have faith in someone or something, even if their existence isn't in question. I don't necessarily think that the faith within religion is just for the existence of God, but more for the favour of God. If anything, the proven existence of God would throw science out of the window and more people would follow religion.

[hellomoto170]

OP actually makes a very interesting point that I've never seen nor considered before (which is rare given the sheer volume of threads on this topic!)
As stated quite rightly, if one day a God is ''discovered'' or ''proven'', the belief in it would no longer be faith based, the wall example is a good one, it would become merely worship of something that is accepted as actually existing. Therefore yes, this would add to the validity of atheism.
Thumbs up from me, I like this reasoning and it's the first I've heard of it!

[py0alb]

(Original post by Like a BAWS)
IThis is because the whole point of it is that God wants us to have faith in him. He wants us to make that leap of faith.

What kind of dumbass god would only want to recruit gullible retards as followers?

What a moron, lol. Obviously omniscience doesn't extend to effective marketing strategies.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Tycho)
Science cannot disprove the existence of God to those who believe in him. Their belief is based on faith, not evidence, and hence it's nearly impossible to conclusively disprove.

Indeed. The only known effective cure for blind faith is a daily treatment of electroconvulsive therapy.

[Barden]

What if there proved to be an entity/force which satisfied both atheist and theist views?

There are many aspects of physics/cosmology/etc which we currently have to accept as transcendental in order for our understanding of physics to make sense. (Wave-particle duality, for instance... It's alleged existence without a 'prime mover'... etc). Surely the cosmos' inherent transcendentalism means that the universe itself is 'god', and that really, we should all stop arguing?

[py0alb]

(Original post by Barden)
What if there proved to be an entity/force which satisfied both atheist and theist views?

There are many aspects of physics/cosmology/etc which we currently have to accept as transcendental in order for our understanding of physics to make sense. (Wave-particle duality, for instance... It's alleged existence without a 'prime mover'... etc). Surely the cosmos' inherent transcendentalism means that the universe itself is 'god', and that really, we should all stop arguing?

What on earth is transcendental about wave particle duality?