Would you ever believe.

Genghiz Cohen

I'd consider myself agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god and I don't believe in one.

I'm not sure I could ever believe in a god. No matter what happens, Jesus himself walks across a pond and hands me a slice of toast with "Yes I am real" written on it and all I can think is that it is far more likely that I am hallucinating than a god exists. If more than one person is involved then it's the same, I could be imagining them experiencing it or it could be some form of mass hallucination.

It just seems more likely.

What say ye?

joseph brand

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'd consider myself agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god and I don't believe in one.

I'm not sure I could ever believe in a god. No matter what happens, Jesus himself walks across a pond and hands me a slice of toast with "Yes I am real" written on it and all I can think is that it is far more likely that I am hallucinating than a god exists. If more than one person is involved then it's the same, I could be imagining them experiencing it or it could be some form of mass hallucination.

It just seems more likely.

What say ye?

Obviously we can't prove there isn't a 'god' who exists outside space and time. It's a cunningly thought-out CONcept.
Homer says it best: "Ooh, how convenient."

The idea of a personal faith in a god is harmless enough, but organised religion and those who 'spread the message' irk me. Doing their utmost to get you into their place of business, telling you how to live your life and selling 'redemption'. Snake oil salesmen. I find the clergy contemptible, especially in light of the child rape and their belligerent attitude to victims. :mad:

Turtwig

I'm open to belief in anything that I'm equally encouraged to doubt. So that's most religions excluded but not all.

fitz0

Even if the Christian god turned out to exist, it would not change my attitude towards it. I would not worship, I wouldn't bow down in submission or awe. I would, however, demand a few answers.

I'd like to think this is what I'd do anyway but there's no way to know unless it did happen and that is less likely than Emma Watson showing up on my doorstep in 15 minutes looking for love.

coffee_cake

I can't believe it's not butter

coffee_cake

Believing maybe worshiping no, and definitely neither to the christian god

General Relativity

bluewolf wrote: »

I can't believe it's not butter

Did you ever taste that shite? I, for one, can certainly belive it's not butter.

Daftendirekt

It occurs to me that even if some super-powerful being descended from the sky, claiming to have created the universe and sent its son to die a gruesome to save us from Hell, we'd have no way of distinguishing between the genuine article and some kind of omnipotent imposter.

Sulla Felix

It boils down to the same old argument about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
Even if the entity presenting itself as Jesus has the patience to allow you to question and enquire to your hearts content I don't think you can reach a point that the being is irrefutably Jesus. I'm reminded of an Asimov quote, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If the entity walks on water, exhibits profound understanding of the human condition, is able to give examples of knowledge that no one else could possibly know etc, well, at the end of the day it could be something other than Jesus anyway.
The only think that could be proven is that the entity is powerful beyond our reckoning, it would still end up being a personal choice to believe it's the Biblical Jesus or some kind of hypertechnologically advanced being or even another supernatural "God". Why not Loki masquerading as Jesus?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

bluewolf wrote: »

I can't believe it's not butter

I can't believe it's not Buddha.

seamus

Any being capable of being "God" would have the power to convince me that they are who they say they are. Outside of that it would be impossible to convince me that any phenomenon wasn't a manifestation of natural universal laws in a way that I just don't understand yet.

Sufficiently advanced technology === magic

etc.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

seamus wrote: »

Any being capable of being "God" would have the power to convince me that they are who they say they are.

And, lo! the clouds did part and a mighty voice spake from on high

"Seamus, you're breaking my balls. How about I convince you by cutting you a new asshole, to cope with all the demonic action you're going to get when I damn you for all eternity? I mean, feck it, there's exercising free will and then there's just pissing me off, and guess which you've just gone and done."

pauldla

fitz0 wrote: »

Even if the Christian god turned out to exist, it would not change my attitude towards it. I would not worship, I wouldn't bow down in submission or awe. I would, however, demand a few answers.

I'd like to think this is what I'd do anyway but there's no way to know unless it did happen and that is less likely than Emma Watson showing up on my doorstep in 15 minutes looking for love.

Did she turn up....? If the universe is infinite and there are an infinite number of earths where Emma Watson does turn up at your doorstep looking for love, maybe your turn is drawing near...!

nozzferrahhtoo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'm not sure I could ever believe in a god. No matter what happens, What say ye?

I would and could believe anything, no matter how barmy, if there was evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to substantiate the claim. I am perfectly open and willing to subscribe to the idea there is a god if this simple criteria were met.

The problem for me however is that while the theists are waddling around declaring that we are being unfair asking them to provide "conclusive proof" there is a god... I have never asked for any such thing.

What I DO ask for is evidence, argument, data or reasoning that even begins to lend a modicum of credence to the claim that a non human intelligence exists and is responsible for the creation and / or subsequent maintenance of our universe.

"A modicum of credence" should, you would imagine, be much easier to achieve than the "conclusive proof" theists often moan about.... yet even that is not forthcoming from them. As such I am not about to subscribe to the god concept any time soon.

fitz0

pauldla wrote: »

Did she turn up....? If the universe is infinite and there are an infinite number of earths where Emma Watson does turn up at your doorstep looking for love, maybe your turn is drawing near...!

I live in hope.

If there are an infinite number of universes where every probability is played out does that mean there is one where a god is real? But if this good is real then it exists outside time and space so should affect all the universes. In that case, this isn't the main branch of reality.

Then again, this could mean that either this is the only universe or the possibility of the existence of a god is nil.

Its too early for this sh*t.

MagicMarker

I'd believe in a god if I had any good reason to, so far none are forthcoming.

Wereghost

Here's where I stand at present:

Non-interventionist god: Maybe true. But it's a notion and not even a hypothesis.

Interventionist god: As above, but the null hypothesis in this case is far stronger (and some might say that, like a scientific law, no evidence opposing the null hypothesis has been found).

Popular deities: As popularly presented, all of the major ones are disproven hypotheses as far as I'm concerned.

Immortality of the psyche: Another notion. Evidence is pretty weak, if not non-existent.

So I guess I'm an agnostic deist/adeist, somewhat agnostic atheist, gnostic heathen and very marginally agnostic thanatist.

pauldla

fitz0 wrote: »

I live in hope.

If there are an infinite number of universes where every probability is played out does that mean there is one where a god is real? But if this good is real then it exists outside time and space so should affect all the universes. In that case, this isn't the main branch of reality.

Then again, this could mean that either this is the only universe or the possibility of the existence of a god is nil.

Its too early for this sh*t.

I'm not in the least interested in the god dimension to all this, I want to explore the Emma Watson hypothesis. Or hear about others exploring the Emma Watson hypothesis.

Ellis Dee

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'd consider myself agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god and I don't believe in one.

I'm not sure I could ever believe in a god. No matter what happens, Jesus himself walks across a pond and hands me a slice of toast with "Yes I am real" written on it and all I can think is that it is far more likely that I am hallucinating than a god exists.

I suppose I'd just cut back on the weed for a while and if the hallucination did not repeat itself, I'd still be the same atheist I have been since I reached the age of reason.:)

But I'd be more careful about using intoxicants in future.

Genghiz Cohen

Some have said that if shown evidence then they could believe. What I'm getting at is that if I saw evidence of a deity, then I think it is far more likely that I am imagining it than a deity existing. Since there being a deity implies so much more than my brain not working right.

kylith

I don't think I'd believe, even if Yaweh himself turned up at my front door; and the reason is this. If Yaweh turned up at my front door and did a few miracles for me and my friends to prove he was real then I'd probably accept that he was real. There is no need to believe in things that exist - I don't believe in tables, the moon, or my dad; there is no need to believe in them because they're real, and a deity would be the same.

Even if I accepted that Yaweh existed I still wouldn't worship him; he's a fickle, cruel, greedy, misogynistic mass murderer. I see nothing to laud about him.

Beruthiel

seamus wrote: »

Any being capable of being "God" would have the power to convince me that they are who they say they are. Outside of that it would be impossible to convince me that any phenomenon wasn't a manifestation of natural universal laws in a way that I just don't understand yet.

Sufficiently advanced technology === magic

This.
I believe we have had this conversation before and I used Q as my example.
Just because someone appears omnipotent and omnipresent to me, doesn't make them a god.
It just means they are far advanced compared to us humans and can do things beyond our realms of understanding.
Much the same way we would appear as a god if we went back in time to a caveman.

Genghiz Cohen

kylith wrote: »

There is no need to believe in things that exist - I don't believe in tables, the moon, or my dad; there is no need to believe in them because they're real, and a deity would be the same.

I would call that having faith rather than believing. I believe my dad is real, but I don't need faith to believe that, I have evidence (I AM evidence).

kylith

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I would call that having faith rather than believing. I believe my dad is real, but I don't need faith to believe that, I have evidence (I AM evidence).

I'd see it the other way round, really. I have faith in my dad, that he'll do what's best for me, for example. I don't believe in him though, I don't need to because I know he exists.

Perhaps the problem is that both 'faith' and 'belief' have more than one meaning and some of them appear interchangeable..

donspeekinglesh

Beruthiel wrote: »

This.
I believe we have had this conversation before and I used Q as my example.
Just because someone appears omnipotent and omnipresent to me, doesn't make them a god.
It just means they are far advanced compared to us humans and can do things beyond our realms of understanding.
Much the same way we would appear as a god if we went back in time to a caveman.

This Star Trek: TNG episode is a good example too.

vibe666

who needs gods when you've got star trek!