what we can do ?

Views: 2313

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

We would have to believe in God. Which is a bit of a depressing thought, because that would mean we were believing in a genocidal maniac (assuming it was Yahweh that was proved). But such is life, we can't pick and choose the universe we live in. 

But I am not too worried that this is going to happen. 

Except that it wouldn't be a matter of belief; it would be a matter of KNOWING god existed, just like I know my cat exists.

Now, given that, WORSHIPING god ... as I've said before ... whole 'nother matter!

>>Now, given that, WORSHIPING god ... as I've said before ... whole 'nother matter!

That describes a deist. I know a deist, and he's better at arguing with Fundiies than me. His famous slam-dunk; "If God is all-powerful, then why does he need mere mortals to do his (dirty) work?".

If the timing of this discussion has anything to do with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, aka, "the god Particle," I have it on good authority that they're going to stop calling it that - since they've proved its existence, any relationship is severed.

The real question is, do you believe you know the difference between belief and knowledge?

"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."
-- Neil Degrasse Tyson --


I agree with Loren here, no big deal. As a skeptic I got used to accepting everything once there was enough evidence. If there eventually (miraculously?) was some provable evidence about the existence of some supernatural being I think I would treat it as I always did. I'd be stumped but I would probably accept it if there was nothing to disprove the evidence. And I realize that I would still not be a believer, I would accept it the same way I accepted everything till now. But seriously, there's probably more chance of the opposite.

Were the existence of god proven scientifically, most of us atheists would probably be able to accept the scientific proof.

Not too hard to believe in the existence of something real like the coffee cup I hold here.


What will be the most fun is watching the collapse of religions which, of course, rely on  faith in god's existence.

Faith would be like a vestigial organ, something which would have to be discarded in order to face the reality of a real god.

I am of the notion that chaos would be the order of the day.

What an idea for a novel.

My primary question at that point is: "Who is this god, REALLY?"  Discovering the nature of that being, what he/she/it was about and what (if anything) it desired would truly be an intriguing process.  There's also the matter of which god (if any) it was, whether it was associated with christianity, islam, hinduism or, most amusingly of all, NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Can you imagine the conversation?

Me: "So you're not the god of the christians?"

Deity: "Are You KIDDING???  Have you actually READ that dreck?  Partial differential equations are EASY to swallow, compared with that noise, and they actually WORK!"

Deity & Me: [collapsing from unbearable laughter!]

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
-- Chapman Cohen --

Yea, I was thinking that several religions who didn’t particularly like the  ideology of this newly revealed  “real god” would start planning his(?) assassination.  He(?) would be politicized, plots would be hatched by world leaders to protect or destroy him(?) (“herm” perhaps ?)

I am sure that the historical twists and turns would be totally unforeseeable as world factions try to suck up to . . . .er . . . God.  (Since God is now a real entity, I guess I’d have to capitalize the name (s)he chooses.  Bill? Ed? Suzy?  Perhaps “Joe the god”.

Oh wait, I guess that is what is happening now, except they’d  no longer get to create a god they imagine to be susceptible to their sucking up.

Requests/supplications would pour into god’s e-mail, but, amazingly, the system wouldn’t crash.

I think the likelihood of substantiating the puerile concept of god that most Christians have (authoritarian, but loving parent), is nil. This concept is such a transparent human invention that it is laughable. Freud's "the Future of an Illusion" covers this in great detail. 

Human children are ignorant and completely dependent on their parents. The ideal parent figure is strong, protective, and a knowledgeable source for ongoing guidance. The adult human experiences the same fears as he/she did in childhood and must invent a supernatural parent to provide the same emotional security.

Is Atheist's were believe in Science ?

Why does science have to prove god's existence. The concept of a "god" i.e. yahweh of the Old Testament  and his supposed son jesus is disproved by there complete disregard for their most ardent followers.  

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]                                                                                     


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service