atheistic god

[Unveiled Artist]

Scientists have pretty much rejected God out of hand. He's the last thing they want to find.

That does not make sense. Many scientist are christian. Science goal is not to disprove god. How do you disprove something that does not exist? (How do you disprove something-anything-non-existant?)

Scientist have better things to do like cure diseases and find better medical treatments with lesser side affects. If science focused on religion, neurologist would still think people with seizures are tricked by the devil.

 

[DavidFirth]

That does not make sense. Many scientist are christian. Science goal is not to disprove god. How do you disprove something that does not exist.

Scientist have better things to do like cure diseases and find better medical treatments with lesser side affects. If science focused on religion, neurologist would still think people with seizures are tricked by the devil.

People are tricked by the devil on an hourly basis.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People are tricked by the devil on an hourly basis.

You get my point though?

If science (not scientists. Science doesnt make one an atheist), if it didnt "reject" god and satan as the cause of cures and illnesses, Id be put in a pysch ward right now because people thought seizures were linked to devil possession. Now. 2017! People believe we have the holy spirit. First hand experience.

I never heard of scientist rejecting god. They just dont use religion as a component to cure things and find out the physical not spiritual workings of the univese.

How does your comment make sense in this time period?

In Mozarts day, yeah, people will believe you.

 

[Polymath257]

People are tricked by the devil on an hourly basis.

People are tricked by religious foolishness much more often.

 

[crossfire]

i wonder, what kind of qualities should a god have, so that atheists would start believing in that god?

Sentience (having a subjective mind,) by its very nature is subject to delusion (mistaking the subjective for the objective.) Admitting to this would be a step in the right direction, imo.

 

[DavidFirth]

People are tricked by religious foolishness much more often.

See? You just made my point.

 

[Polymath257]

See? You just made my point.

And you, mine.

 

[Altfish]

Scientists have pretty much rejected God out of hand. He's the last thing they want to find.

Rubbish!! it isn't.
If a scientist proved the existence of god there would be a Nobel prize and fame and fortune. Your name will be iterated in years to come with the same awe as Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

 

[Altfish]

OK then, an atheist god...

They should be...

A Leader
A wise person
Tolerant
A good listener
Not requiring praise/prayer/worship
Any books written by god should be clear, not open to interpretation, and constantly revised.
The god should make weekly TV presentations, warning us of impending earthquakes, eruptions, floods, etc.
Sort out famines
Sort out childhood cancer

etc, etc

 

[Jesster]

Is existence a quality?

This. Enough said.

 

[Deathbydefault]

i wonder, what kind of qualities should a god have, so that atheists would start believing in that god?

Believe or follow?
A god only needs to exist for me to believe in it.
Though I do have doubts that any god that could possibly exist would have the necessary qualities for me to willingly follow it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Scientists have pretty much rejected God out of hand. He's the last thing they want to find.

Unmerited generalization. I've personally known several scientists who are not atheists, and depending on the field, studies have shown, theists may be in the majority.

The methods that are science, however, require that to find evidence of something, some measurable effect must be identified. To date, no theistic or atheistic scientist has proposed any falsifiably measurable trait by which to identify God. The omnimax universal creator deity is inherently untestable--because if we propose some test, and we detect nothing, the theist can still fall back on, "Well, maybe God didn't want to be found."

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Of course, the deity would have to exist; an would have to interact with mankind in a way that formed a predictable model of reality. In the world of Dungeons and Dragons, for example, each time a Priest weaves a spell, the spell happens. In the real world, I've yet to see a confirmed case of miraculous healing; and when prayers aren't answered, some reason is made up as to why it wasn't answered (Didn't have enough faith, God's will, etc etc), and credit for answered prayers are taken that could (or should) be attributed to something other than the prayers itself. I'll take medicine over prayer any day ... because medicine has a pretty darned good track record and prayer doesn't.

So: those are the two criteria for believing in the deity ... (1) extant and (2) demonstrable by forming a predictive model of reality.

To "worship" that deity, however, would demand other qualities; but that's beyond the scope of your questinon.

 

[siti]

i wonder, what kind of qualities should a god have, so that atheists would start believing in that god?

Necessity.

 

[Fool]

i wonder, what kind of qualities should a god have, so that atheists would start believing in that god?

observable

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Why do atheists need to believe in a god, again? If a god is, then it is, belief or no.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Why do atheists need to believe in a god, again? If a god is, then it is, belief or no.

Well, if it exists, and you don't believe in it, and don't worship it, it might get offended...and that would be a Bad Thing...

 

[SalixIncendium]

i wonder, what kind of qualities should a god have, so that atheists would start believing in that god?

Showing some evidence of his/her/its existence would certainly be a start.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Well, if it exists, and you don't believe in it, and don't worship it, it might get offended...and that would be a Bad Thing...

Not necessarily. If that were such a high-priority to such a god's ego, one would think they'd be much more forthcoming with convincing evidence.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Not necessarily. If that were such a high-priority to such a god's ego, one would think they'd be much more forthcoming with convincing evidence.

Who knows? My guess is that people who question and ask for evidence don't taste as good as the people who are accepting and ask questions...

Edit: don't ask questions...accepting and don't ask questions...