What sort of god(s) would an atheist believe in?

[AV1611VET]

Chris, I don't understand your OP.

First you ask:

What sort of god(s) would an atheist believe in?

But then you say:

If you were to suddenly become theist,

I came here to answer thusly:

Atheists believe in green gods.

1 Timothy 6:10a For the love of money is the root of all evil:

... I see you've switched the premise, and now you're talking about theists.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Islam was spread by the sword. In most Islamic countries, ther is no religious freedom. In fact, for many the penalty for conversion to other faiths is death. In this sort of environment, Islam is all they have known

Christianity wasn't?

 

[The Paul]

What sort of god would I believe in.

Well, I'd believe in a god that:

1) exists.
2) is detectable to human senses or science
3) is not willing or not able to hide effectively

Alternatively, it might be possible to convince me to believe in a god that has a very carefully constructed conspiracy dedicated to making it appear to exist, regardless of other qualifiers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I'd believe in a god that:

1) exists.
2) is detectable to human senses or science
3) is not willing or not able to hide effectively

Mother Nature fits all three of these categories, yet I'm sure you wouldn't consider Mother Nature your god; even though she is responsible for you being here.

I have a feeling you're not telling us the whole story.

Wouldn't she have to jump when you say 'jump,' and bow when you say 'bow'?

 

[chris4243]

What sort of god would I believe in.

Well, I'd believe in a god that:

1) exists.
2) is detectable to human senses or science
3) is not willing or not able to hide effectively

Alternatively, it might be possible to convince me to believe in a god that has a very carefully constructed conspiracy dedicated to making it appear to exist, regardless of other qualifiers.

Ah, someone who isn't light-years off topic! So you'd require evidence to believe in a god, therefore an important attribute of any god you'd believe in is that it somehow show itself. Fair enough. [edit: presumably, given your icon, you don't believe a god that might actually exist does have the "showing himself" attribute] But any other attributes you would expect such a god to have, or not have?

For example, how about "causes volcanic eruptions by hammering on his forge" like for the god Vulcan? Would you say that if you believed in a god it would not have this attribute? Or similarly if a god was supposed to have that attribute you'd have a much harder time believing in it?

 

[Upisoft]

You do realize the new testament was written by those who were witnesses of the miracles they recorded, don't you. Are you suggesting all the writers of the new testament plotted together to carry off this major hoax and then most were martyred for a lie? There were many witnesses to the events of the bible who could have discredited the accounts if they were not true. Do you honestly think there would have been so much growth in the church, and the extensive manuscript evidence for a hoax?

None of the disciples have written a gospel themselves. The earliest gospel is Mark and it is dated c. 68-73. This is why the titles of the books say: "The Gospel according to Mark" and so on.

Given the fact that first gospel is 40 years older than the events it describes, no many eyewitnesses were still alive who could discredit it. Also only Jews would benefit in it, and at this time there was war between Jews and Romans (FYI Mark uses latinisms), so do you think that Jews from the other side of the war will come to discredit the document? I doubt they knew about it until much later.

 

[mathclub]

Mother Nature fits all three of these categories, yet I'm sure you wouldn't consider Mother Nature your god; even though she is responsible for you being here.

I have a feeling you're not telling us the whole story.

Wouldn't she have to jump when you say 'jump,' and bow when you say 'bow'?

what evidence to you have that this 'mother nature' exists?

seriously, you get worse every day...

 

[AV1611VET]

what evidence to you have that this 'mother nature' exists?

seriously, you get worse every day...

Mother Nature -- you know what I mean -- (I hope).

70s Mother Nature *Chiffon* Margarine Commercial - YouTube

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Christianity wasn't?

Depends on what you look at. Once it stopped being a grassroots movement however ... You know what they say about power and corruption?

 

[AV1611VET]

You know what they say about power and corruption?

"You're 'go' for throttle-up"?

 

[Grizzly]

Does tea help the Boston tea party story?

I guess? But they could have dumped anything into that harbor. But we are getting far a field.

the point is that God turned himself into man (or God came through man) to sacrifice Himself to Himself. That makes no sense. Assuming you believe Jesus was fully God - and if you don't, my apologies. Most people here believe in the Jesus fully God fully man doctrine.

 

[AV1611VET]

the point is that God turned himself into man (or God came through man) to sacrifice Himself to Himself.

Yup --

Romans 3:26b ... that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

 

[Greg1234]

I guess? But they could have dumped anything into that harbor. But we are getting far a field.

the point is that God turned himself into man (or God came through man) to sacrifice Himself to Himself.

Gal 4:4-5 (http://niv.scripturetext.com/galatians/4-4.htm) and Heb 9:15 (http://bible.cc/hebrews/9-15.htm) give reasons for coming.

 

[someguy14]

All mankind serve's either God or god(s).
Admitting it takes wisdom though.

 

[mzungu]

If you were to suddenly become theist, what attributes would the god or gods you might believe in have, so as to be consistent with science? What attributes do you think that if a god had you could never believe in them?

Yes, this is in the "physical and life sciences" section because I'm assuming your answers would be based on science, except for the hypothetical premise.

Well First of all he would have to be an entity that belongs to the physical world; ie: Made up of energy or some measurable substance. This would relegate him to the scientifically "Falsifiable" area. Now whether I would worship him or not is another matter altogether, but I will accept that he exists.

 

[The Paul]

Mother Nature fits all three of these categories, yet I'm sure you wouldn't consider Mother Nature your god; even though she is responsible for you being here.

I have a feeling you're not telling us the whole story.

Wouldn't she have to jump when you say 'jump,' and bow when you say 'bow'?

"Mother Nature" as an apersonal collection of forces and processes isn't a god. It's a collection of forces and processes.

"Mother Nature" as a literal, conscious being who controls those forces fails at least one of my qualifiers.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Mother Nature" as a literal, conscious being who controls those forces fails at least one of my qualifiers.

From Wikipedia:

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.

SOURCE

 

[ianb321red]

Well First of all he would have to be an entity that belongs to the physical world; ie: Made up of energy or some measurable substance. This would relegate him to the scientifically "Falsifiable" area. Now whether I would worship him or not is another matter altogether, but I will accept that he exists.

Which is what happened with the incarnation.

God became fully human and chose to be born in to this world.
The Bible records the events surrounding Jesus as historical facts.
The Bible is well supported by both Christian and non-Christian evidence. A number non-Christian scholars (in various fields) accept the evidence for the historical Jesus.
This evidence for Jesus is objective and therefore falsifiable...
In simple terms, this is the evidence for the existence of God.

If you say that you would "accept that he exists", by default you would be forced to embrace Theism.....presumably..??

Essentially, in a discussion like this (on existence of God/gods) from a Christian point-of-view it always ends up hinging of the evidence to support the events/ historical facts for Jesus, and the claims + proof of deity..
And this normally hinges on 2 creative acts of God that bookend the life of Jesus:
1) The virgin conception
2) The bodily resurrection (Jesus resurrected in to a new body)

Both of these things are totally unique, and if you want to attack Christianity and the concept of Jesus Christ as God, then this is normally what it hinges on.

People can debate the existence of God rationally and philosophically, but IMO the evidence comes from The Bible and the historical facts supporting the claims of Jesus, and the evidence of the creative acts that made him absolutely unique.....

 

[Woden84]

Islam was spread by the sword. In most Islamic countries, ther is no religious freedom. In fact, for many the penalty for conversion to other faiths is death. In this sort of environment, Islam is all they have known

You mean exactly how Christianity operated for ~1500 years?

 

[mathclub]

All mankind serve's either God or god(s).
Admitting it takes wisdom though.

no one in mankind actually believes in a specific god and all of the stuff that goes with it. even the ones that claim they do, they actually don't, they know deep down that it's not real.

You can tell this by how they act.