If God existed, would there be any atheists?

[MonkeyFire]

Well stop screwing up the language to suite your sensibilities.

If faith were based on fact or reality it would not be faith but evidenced knowledge

Knowledge is science, but faith is the truth.

 

[Thief]

Knowledge is science, but faith is the truth.

and you KNOW someone will post to the contrary

 

[ChristineM]

Knowledge is science, but faith is the truth.

And that is an example of where the friction comes between people who consider fact, and reality to contain truth and those who say its truth because the my faith says so.

Again

Truth :that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

And in addition
Faith :complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Note the lack of fact or reality in faith. Faith s belief, not truth

 

[Nimos]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.

If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.

If you answer no, please explain why there would be no more atheists if God existed.

Thanks, Trailblazer

If it was proven that God existed, then there wouldn't be any. There might be people that would prefer to go against God depending on which one we are talking about obviously.

To me atheism is in regard to the existence of God. So if it was proven that he did exist, then there would be no need for the term atheism, as it would be sort of like denying that day changes to night or something like that.

 

[Trailblazer]

That sounds very circular. I can claim that I have an invisible dragon perched on my shoulder and come up with excuses like that to explain why the dragon is undetectable. Still gonna need more than being able to explain away a lack of evidence to show that God is there.

That is not a circular argument. For one thing, God does not have logical arguments or make claims, only people have arguments and make claims. For another thing, God does not need excuses for NOT being detectable, as an infallible God does not need any excuses for anything. It is fallible humans who need excuses and they make plenty of them.

And yet he has interacted with it and that interaction also leaves no traces.

No traces that you can recognize.

Yeah, I pointed out how you were cherry picking and you disregarded that, claiming that they all count towards YOUR God, and not any others.

There is only one God, not MY God and YOUR God.

Doesn't matter. God still created a system where Humans could mess it up.

And how is that God’s fault when they mess up? I never saw God on trial in a court of law. That is because all rational people know that humans are fully responsible for their actions, unless they have brain damage or disease, or they are mentally ill or mentally challenged.

Except you don't believe that.

You think all messengers for God are evidence for YOUR God.

Te truth is that if Messenger for God A is evidence for God A, then Messenger for God B is evidence for God B and Messenger for God C is evidence for God C.

There is only one true God, the rest are imaginary gods.
True Messengers represent the one true God, false messengers represent imaginary gods.

Cool story, shame you can't support those claims.

I can support them but I cannot prove them.
God claims can never be proven except to oneself.

 

[MonkeyFire]

And that is an example of where the friction comes between people who consider fact, and reality to contain truth and those who say its truth because the my faith says so.

Again

Truth :that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

And in addition
Faith :complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Note the lack of fact or reality in faith. Faith s belief, not truth

Belief identifies and validates the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

The ability for evidence to be investigated and refuted if the evidence does not meet its claims. I.e. to be able to demonstrate the claim is false.

The evidence for Messengers of God can be investigated and refuted if the evidence does not meet its claims.

The claim "god exists" cannot be falsified, it is a claim, there is no evidence.

There is evidence but there is no proof.

Logical : reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Making sense to you does not make something logical, it just makes it your opinion.

The same applies to you.

Actually evidence is paramount, without it, what you have is opinion.

I have evidence, but I am not going around that block again.

Lets play with you what if. Suppose the man didn't commit murder and there were no evidence, yet people spoke and accused, said i i believe he committed murder despite the lack of evidence.

Does that mean the man committed murder?

No, but what I said before also applies. If the man committed the murder and you could not find any evidence that does not mean he did not commit the murder.

The upshot is that just because you cannot find the evidence that does not mean he did not commit the murder.

It also does not mean there is no evidence for God just because atheists cannot find the evidence or do not recognize it when it is staring them in the face. This is what all atheists miss.

But it is a total waste of time to argue about what is evidence for God. Atheists are looking for something that does not exist and can never exist. Since God is the one who provides the evidence, the only evidence that exists is what God provides and we either accept that evidence or not. It is no skin off God's nose if atheists do not accept the evidence He provides. God is not going to offer some special kind of evidence just for atheists because God does not need their belief. God does not run a catering service.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it was proven that God existed, then there wouldn't be any. There might be people that would prefer to go against God depending on which one we are talking about obviously.

To me atheism is in regard to the existence of God. So if it was proven that he did exist, then there would be no need for the term atheism, as it would be sort of like denying that day changes to night or something like that.

Thanks for your input on that but that did not answer my question.

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.
If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.
If you answer no, please explain why there would be no more atheists if God existed.

The reason I asked the question here on RF is because I know an atheist on another forum who says there would be no atheists if God existed. I am not going to tell you why he said that, yet. I will let you try to figure it out first.

 

[Nimos]

Thanks for your input on that but that did not answer my question.

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.
If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.
If you answer no, please explain why there would be no more atheists if God existed.

The reason I asked the question here on RF is because I know an atheist on another forum who says there would be no atheists if God existed. I am not going to tell you why he said that, yet. I will let you try to figure it out first.

And the answer would be no

The explanation is the same as the above

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't tell me that you are about to play a semantics game to broaden the meaning of the word "know", just so that you can include faith based beliefs as "knowledge"....

It certainly smells like it.

Knowledge is verifiable.
"You don't know it, if you can't show it."

I do not have to broaden it. The dictionary does that. All knowledge is not factual.

knowledge;
1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
knowledge means - Google Search

Belief isn't knowledge simply because you believe it.

I never claimed that belief is knowledge.

That's just your religious belief. Other believers of competing religions believe other things.
I was talking about reasonable expectations based on evidence. Not about "prophecy" or other such faith-based claims about future events.

There is no way to know what the future holds, but I did give you some projections about atheism and that is not coming from a religion or prophecy.

Empires, nations, governments, political ideologies,... rise and fall all the time.
To predict it will happen, is like predicting rain will follow sunshine.

Also, some of the major changes in the balance of power and the shifts in political ideology we see today, aren't exactly heading in a nice direction like you seem to believe... protectionism, racism, nationalism and extreme right wing ideologies are on the rise. This is not a good thing.

It will get much worse before it gets better, as the darkest hour is just before the dawn.

This is misleading.
First, because I didn't say that I consider it likely that religion would disappear. In fact, I explicitly called it unlikely. I merely said that that was MORE LIKELY then ALL HUMANS becoming followers of ONE religion.

All humans will not become followers of one religion for a very long time, bit it will happen eventually because it was ordained by God:

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith.” The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91

Secondly, the numbers you show are also misleading. The growth rates posted here are not freewill conversions to those religions. The high growth rate of Islam for example, is by far mostly due to high birth rates among muslim families, who raise their kids to be muslim.

Third, branding a communist country where religion is surpressed as "atheist" is equally dishonest since those to are forced numbers.

And last but not least: I don't need to defend claims I didn't make and frankly the actual growth rate of each of these is of little consequence or importance to me. As it is not relevant to the point, nor is it an indication of which belief is correct.

It does not matter why atheism is on the decline but you cannot escape the fact that atheism is on the decline because statistics are statistics.

I was not trying to prove which belief is correct.

Your data doesn't in any way show that all humans in the future will follow just one religion.
In fact, your data shows a trend to the opposite: even more division.

No it doesn’t show that and that is not why I presented it. I presented it to show that atheism is on the decline.

 

[Trailblazer]

And the answer would be no

The explanation is the same as the above

But why wouldn't there be any atheists if God existed?

You are the first person who has answered no.

P.S. I am not asking if there would be any atheists if God existed and proved He existed. I am only asking if God existed would there be any atheists?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If God existed, would there be any atheists?

This is a yes or no question, so please answer yes or no.

If you answer yes, please explain why there would still be atheists if God existed.

If you answer no, please explain why there would be no more atheists if God existed.

Thanks, Trailblazer

So, if God existed in my everyday life, and was apparent, etc. would I continue to lack belief in Him/Her/It? I'm not sure how that would make sense, or how my disbelief could continue when literally faced with the target of said disbelief.

It would be like me saying I don't believe in my mother - even though she can stand there in front of me, and I can give her a hug (or not), hear her words, etc. What would I be accomplishing by disbelieving in something that so clearly exists? However - we all know that God does not so clearly exist. Does not.

However, I can't speak for anyone else. Perhaps they feel they have every reason to disbelieve in something, even if it presents itself in front of them (like a creationist presented with something like the evidence for endogenous retroviral DNA/RNA components present in both human and other great ape genomes). So this really can't be a yes/no response. Would there be any atheists if God were present and account for? I don't know. Maybe?

 

[Nimos]

But why wouldn't there be any atheists if God existed?

You are the first person who has answered no.

P.S. I am not asking if there would be any atheists if God existed and proved He existed. I am only asking if God existed would there be any atheists?

Ahh ok I see, then the answer is yes, because being an atheist is closely related to not accepting the "assumed" evidence for God. A person doesn't just say that they want to be an atheist, just because

 

[ChristineM]

The evidence for Messengers of God can be investigated and refuted if the evidence does not meet its claims.

The claim "messenger of god" you have proof or even falsifiable evidence that a god was involved?

There is evidence but there is no proof.

Falsifiable evidence. Opinion is not evidence

The same applies to you.

Nope, i use words as defined, not as they suit what i want them to mean so it sounds good.

I have evidence, but I am not going around that block again.

You have opinion, no matter how often you go round the block. If you had falsifiable evidence then you don't need faith.

No, but what I said before also applies. If the man committed the murder and you could not find any evidence that does not mean he did not commit the murder.

No, it simply means you cannot prove murder. Are you going to sibject my take on your strawman in the same logical way!

The upshot is that just because you cannot find the evidence that does not mean he did not commit the murder.

Something of a difference between a physical murder, (no matter who committed it) and claims of a god. With the murder there is a body. With a god there is nothing but belief

 

[Trailblazer]

No, it is NOT AT ALL "illogical" to apply the same standard of evidence to claims.
What is illogical, is to believe claims to which the standard of evidence does not apply....

If no standard of evidence applies to a claim, then by definition you can never be rationally justified in believing said claim, because rational justification consists of supporting evidence...

There needs to be standards of evidence but there are different standards of evidence for scientific vs. religious claims.

Why do you think that? What is so special about the behaviour of any of the people who claimed ot have received a message from god that you think can only be "explained" by the magical interference of an undetectable being?

(I use quotes around "explained", because the undetectable isn't capable of explaining anything in reality....)

If there was no special behavior, then there would be no reason to believe anyone was a Messenger of God. Of course there is special behavior.

There are literally millions of example of humans being wrong and delusional about all kinds of things - including believing that they receive messages from gods / angels / demons / aliens / CIA mind controlling devices.

There is ZERO evidence of ANY supernatural message ever reaching a real human. Ever.

There is evidence but there is no proof. Evidence is not the same as proof unless it is verifiable evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

So yes, there is MUCH evidence in support of the assumption that they were delusional, lying or honestly mistaken.

There is ZERO evidence that the "message" actually came about through magic.

If there was evidence that they were delusional, lying or honestly mistaken then you should be able to present that evidence. Just because nobody can prove that the Messengers got messages from God that does not mean they didn’t.

If evidence isn't independently verifiable, then it isn't evidence.
Verifiable evidence is not a "kind" of evidence. It's what evidence is.

You are wrong. There are many different kinds if evidence and they are not all verifiable.

20 Types of Evidence You May Encounter as a Paralegal

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

An eyewitness testimony by itself, is NOT evidence. That's a CLAIM, in need of evidence.
Such testimony can become evidence, when it is corroborated with other independent lines of evidence.

But there HAS to be a verifiable factor here. Without that verifiable factor, it's just claims - not evidence.

You are wrong. All evidence is not verifiable. Verifiable evidence is proof.

This is not just the case for "me" or "other atheists". This is the case for everyone. It's what evidence is all about.

That is what verifiable evidence is all about.

If a thing exists that can't be detected in any way, if it has no detectable manifestation whatsoever, then it is indistinguishable from a thing that does not exist.

Things that don't exist have no detectable manifestation either.
So a thing that exists without detectable manifestation, looks exactly like a thing that doesn't exist.

If you think there is a way to detect the undetectable, go right ahead and make your case.
I won't be holding my breath though.

God is detectable through His Messengers which are also called Manifestations of God.

Trailblazer said: An immaterial God cannot be verified independently so unless you accept Messengers of God as evidence of God you are dead in the water.

Read that sentence again.
What you really said there is: "if you don't accept the claims as being evidence of themselves, you are dead in the water".

You are saying that one should "just believe" the claims and that somehow is a rational thing to do.
No. Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

I meant that you have to accept that Messengers of God are the only evidence God provides or you are dead in the water.

I never said you should “just believe” that an alleged Messenger who claims to speak for God is genuine. Claims require evidence and a true Messenger of God has evidence to back His claims.

Why would I believe something which can never be shown to be real, accurate, correct,.. which isn't testable or verifiable in any manner?

Wouldn't it be irrational to believe such things?

God can be shown to be real, but only by the Messengers He sends.

So far, it looks as if your "standards of evidence" amount to not having any standards of evidence whatsoever, and instead "just believe" the claims, no questions asked.

I never said to “just believe” with no questions asked. Many questions should eb asked and answered before anyone should be willing to believe.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

And that will be a rational position, if god is never defined in testable ways.
You and me both, use this standard for every other aspect of our lives.

I do not use this standard for every aspect of my life as I cannot test everything before I believe it. Case in point: I had to hire a septic company to determine what was going on with my septic tank which had not been operational for 15 months. I had good references for this company from several coworkers but I could not prove that they were going to do a good job for a reasonable price, so I just had to take a chance. We have to trust people all the time in our everyday life. For example, I have to trust that the veterinarian will be competent when I take my cats in. I cannot give her a test before I will trust her.

Otherwise, you'ld just believe me if I told you that last night, Jennifer Anniston crawled out of the TV screen during an episode of friends, made love to me and then returned to the TV to finish the scene.

Or you'ld just believe me if I told you that the ghost that never lies just told me that an undetectable dragon is about to eat your undetectable soul, dooming you for eternity, unless you immediatly wrap yourself in tin foil - I bet you won't be wrapping yourself in tin foil.

I am not suggesting that you just believe things without checking them out but there is only so much we can do. We should do what we can, conduct a thorough investigation before we are willing to believe.

You don't believe these claims, because in every other area of your life, you DO apply a standard of evidence to claims being presented to you.

I do require evidence but it is a different kind of evidence depending upon what I am considering.

You just engage in special pleading for your god / religion. This religion, is exempt from your standard of evidence.

I don't see the need for such an exception.

God is exempt from the standards of evidence atheists require because God is not subject to these kinds of evidence.

Then why are we then even talking about this?
In that case, it doesn't matter anyway.

Just because it does not matter to God that does not mean it won’t matter to you.
God has no needs, humans are the ones who have needs.

You have just spend this entire post claiming the opposite... that they aren't supportable and demonstrable.......................................

I never said that. I only ever said that nobody can prove that Baha’u’llah got messages from God, butvthere is evidence that indicates that was the case.

I know New York and Manhattan exist, and very likely a Peter Parker lives there. But that doesn't warrant belief in Spiderman.

Obviously, I had to do a thorough investigation of Baha’u’llah before I was willing to believe in the claims of Baha’u’llah to speak for God, but once I came to believe He was a Messenger of God, I believed God exists.

Those are claims.

No they are not claims. They are scriptures. Again, once I came to believed that Baha’u’llah was speaking for God, I believed everything He wrote about God, the soul and the afterlife. That is the logical progression.

And how could you know which does and which doesn't, if not through evidence?

Evidence is how you know.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, if God existed in my everyday life, and was apparent, etc. would I continue to lack belief in Him/Her/It? I'm not sure how that would make sense, or how my disbelief could continue when literally faced with the target of said disbelief.

It would be like me saying I don't believe in my mother - even though she can stand there in front of me, and I can give her a hug (or not), hear her words, etc. What would I be accomplishing by disbelieving in something that so clearly exists? However - we all know that God does not so clearly exist. Does not.

However, I can't speak for anyone else. Perhaps they feel they have every reason to disbelieve in something, even if it presents itself in front of them (like a creationist presented with something like the evidence for endogenous retroviral DNA/RNA components present in both human and other great ape genomes). So this really can't be a yes/no response. Would there be any atheists if God were present and account for? I don't know. Maybe?

I think you misunderstood my question.

I asked: If God existed, would there be any atheists?
I was not asking: If everyone knew that God existed, would there be any atheists?

There would not be any atheists if God existed and everyone knew God existed, but what if God existed and everyone did not know, then would there be any atheists, yes or no?

 

[Trailblazer]

Ahh ok I see, then the answer is yes, because being an atheist is closely related to not accepting the "assumed" evidence for God. A person doesn't just say that they want to be an atheist, just because

But of course the answer is yes, because unless everyone knew that God existed there would be atheists...

Okay, now I will tell you why the atheist on the other forum said that there would be no atheists if God existed. He believes that if God existed, God would prove to everyone that He exists, so there would be no atheists.

This is complete blarney, such blarney that it propelled me to start this thread.
It is also completely illogical, because if God does exist we all know that God has never proven He exists to everyone, so that means if God exists God does not prove he exists to everyone.

 

[Trailblazer]

The claim "messenger of god" you have proof or even falsifiable evidence that a god was involved?

No, there is no proof, only evidence.

You have opinion, no matter how often you go round the block. If you had falsifiable evidence then you don't need faith.

I have evidence because evidence is what indicates (not proves) that God exists.

So whatever indicates to me that God exists is evidence to me.

I do have to have faith in my evidence. I also have to have faith that I will live another day, because I cannot prove that.

No, it simply means you cannot prove murder. Are you going to subject my take on your strawman in the same logical way!

If you cannot prove murder then there is no conviction.

If you don’t prove God exists then there are atheists, but that is no proof that God does not exist since proof is not what makes God exist.

With the murder there is a body. With a god there is nothing but belief.

That’s true, but I believe in all kinds of things I cannot prove, so God is no different.

 

[Trailblazer]

So far, it seems like the more gullible one is, the easier it is to "find" god.

No, the more open-minded one is, and the more one is willing to seek God, the easier it is to find God.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

No. Those are the claims that are in need for evidence.
The claims aren't evidence of themselves. That's called circular reasoning.

That is true, the Messengers are the evidence that God exists but their claims are not the evidence because that would be circular. The evidence that indicates that they are Messengers is what we need to look at, not their claims.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think you misunderstood my question.

I asked: If God existed, would there be any atheists?
I was not asking: If everyone knew that God existed, would there be any atheists?

There would not be any atheists if God existed and everyone knew God existed, but what if God existed and everyone did not know, then would there be any atheists, yes or no?

Yes. As is evidenced by our present state of affairs. If you're right, and God exists, then here we atheists all are as proof that this is possible. But there's the real question at hand then. Does God exist? Try fitting THAT into an unequivocal "yes/no" answer.