Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

[ChristineM]

I was thinking about the questions/thoughts in your post. They are the kind of questions which are worth asking and thinking about. The Bible makes it clear, at least I see it that way, that the suffering in this world is not imposed by God, but was the result of human sin entering into the paradise God created and sin negatively contaminates every aspect of creation. Childhood leukemia and countless other diseases which cause suffering are truly awful. Yet, think about it, If God took away all the things which cause suffering in this world it would be heaven. But this is not heaven because it is a world filled with sin, sin which people willingly choose to do while rejecting God and the sin-free, suffering- free qualities of heaven.

I am not saying a child is responsible for their leukemia or anyone is sick due to their own personal sin, necessarily. My point is that sin which exists in this world harms and damages the life God intended.

The bible also makes it clear that god made everything, including sin.

Of course cherry picking is an acceptable way to shift responsibility away from the omniscient god of the bible but i prefer to read it as a book, not just selected verses

 

[ArtieE]

“Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?”

Please answer 1, 2 or 3.

1) Yes, I would like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
2) I am not sure. I might like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
3) No, I would not like to believe in God even if there was evidence that was good enough.

* By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists.

No. Who in their right mind would like to believe in the existence of a genocidal maniac who drowns a whole planet?

 

[Revoltingest]

I've no desire to believe in gods.

 

[columbus]

No. Who in their right mind would like to believe in the existence of a genocidal maniac who drowns a whole planet?

This brings up a big problem with @Trailblazer OP. Which God?

Even just limiting the question to the God of Abraham, there's still a wide array. Genesis God is primitive, ethically and physically. Bahia God is vastly more sophisticated. There are so many various images of God, just among Abrahamic religionists much less the rest of the world religions through the centuries, that the question doesn't make sense.
Tom

 

[wandering peacefully]

By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists

This is kind of a silly non- question because 'sufficient to believe' and 'proof' are two totally different concepts. No matter how many different ways some people try to make them equivalent, they are not. Those who believe in gods do not have any 'proof', they just believe their various evidences which are all subjective. Proof is not dependent on what people want or believe. It's based on facts or documents that can be used to show that something is true.

If there were actual proof there was a god, someone who didn't believe it would probably have mental health issues.

Wanting a God to be real is irrelevant. Either there is proof there is one or there is no proof there is one. But playing along, it would depend on what the god was and what it wanted as to whether or not I would want it to be real. So far, none of the thousands of Abrahamic man made god conceptions seem anything worth value. I'm not familiar with Hindu gods but maybe there are some with good values which I would want.

 

[Shad]

On another thread….

Trailblazer said: Many atheists say they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence.

@ ecco said:
Name one. Show where he/she said "they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence." That isn't what atheists say. That's what theists would like to believe atheists say.

Trailblazer said: Holy moly! ~~~ This is practically all atheists say, at least to me. Sorry, I cannot quote atheists from other forums because that is not right. They posted to me on other forums in confidence. Sure, they are public forums, but it is bad practice to take posts from one forum to another forum. But it is not only on the “other forums” where atheists have said this. They have also said it on RF. I am not saying that ALL atheists would like to believe in God if they had the evidence, since some atheists probably have no interest in God. But if they don’t have any interest in God, why is this forum comprised of as many atheists as believers? Hmmmmm.....

This would be a great topic for a new thread:

“Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?”

Please answer 1, 2 or 3.

1) Yes, I would like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
2) I am not sure. I might like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
3) No, I would not like to believe in God even if there was evidence that was good enough.

* By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists.

I doubt there will ever by the type of evidence for God I find sufficient. After all the track record is pretty poor

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On another thread….

Trailblazer said: Many atheists say they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence.

@ ecco said:
Name one. Show where he/she said "they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence." That isn't what atheists say. That's what theists would like to believe atheists say.

Trailblazer said: Holy moly! ~~~ This is practically all atheists say, at least to me. Sorry, I cannot quote atheists from other forums because that is not right. They posted to me on other forums in confidence. Sure, they are public forums, but it is bad practice to take posts from one forum to another forum. But it is not only on the “other forums” where atheists have said this. They have also said it on RF. I am not saying that ALL atheists would like to believe in God if they had the evidence, since some atheists probably have no interest in God. But if they don’t have any interest in God, why is this forum comprised of as many atheists as believers? Hmmmmm.....

Personally, I'm interested in theism as a social phenomenon.

I gave up on the idea that theists might have reasonable justification for their beliefs a long time ago. However, the question of how many theists not only maintain these ridiculous beliefs but make them the core of their belief systems and their lives is fascinating.

This would be a great topic for a new thread:

“Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?”

Please answer 1, 2 or 3.

1) Yes, I would like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
2) I am not sure. I might like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
3) No, I would not like to believe in God even if there was evidence that was good enough.

* By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists.

I want my beliefs to align with reality as closely as possible. If a god existed, I would want to know about it.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Whether God is as clear as the sun would depend upon your perspective.
I think He is but others do not share my views.
I do not have belief because I am entirely sure.
Yet I cannot prove God exists to anyone else.

A deity really should be an objective reality, but that's not how beliefs work.

 

[Sand Dancer]

The salient difference between the Bible and the Writings of Baha'u'llah is that we have the original writings of Baha'u'llah penned in His own hand. We do not have that for Jesus. All we have is what men wrote that came to us by way of oral tradition. The OT is not authentic either. There is no way to verify that it was written by Moses and I do not even think anyone makes such a claim.

So the only hurdle we have to cross is to determine if Baha'u'llah was really a Manifestation of God.
I am not saying that is a small hurdle. Stay tuned to this channel and we will see.

It's very lucrative to found your own religion.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Whenever I read an atheist post stating the God of Abraham was evil, I always wonder how and why they think the Apostle John could say @ 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” Do they think they know something John didn’t? Lol.

Different groups wrote the bible through different times in history with different important events going on, reflecting their writing and their view of god. The positive sayings reflect a different time than the negative ones, so we have conflicting verses interspersing themselves in the Bible. The Quran, on the other hand, becomes progressively more negative without verses interspersing themselves next to the positive. It makes it seem like the Bible is better because you can look at the positive verses and negate the bad. Seems disingenuous.

 

[Trailblazer]

What better answer can I offer than variations of "I have no way of knowing, and less reason to care"?

Thanks, that is your answer.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's very lucrative to found your own religion.

Only if it is a false religion and you are a con-man, in which case it is not really a religion.
No "true" Prophet ever made money off the religion He founded.

 

[Trailblazer]

A deity really should be an objective reality, but that's not how beliefs work.

That is not how God works.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evidence is the key

Yes it is. I do not "like" believing in God much of the time but I have to believe based upon the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If there was good evidence for any God then I would have to accept such - it being reality after all. No belief involved, just acceptance.

I agree would be the rational and wise thing to do... After all, He is God.

If God had a hand in our journey and history I might not be too pleased (so not exactly liking God), since I might view this God as being incompetent, malicious, or any other descriptive, if such a God could have changed history or the starting conditions for humans. Why allow so much conflict regarding religious beliefs, for example? If God had no such control - merely waving the starting flag (or using the starting gun - big bang?), and saying 'off you go lads and lasses - good luck - you'll need it', then I might be more sympathetic.

God did not create history, humans created history. The world is like a chess board that God gave us and we are like the pieces that move around on the chess board by virtue of our free will. God does not enter the game. All God does is send Messengers in every age.

So liking might be dependent upon the circumstances - that is, how much control any God had.

Me too.

Anyway, Hiya! Hope you are well and all that.

My life is a veritable mess but I will get through it, I always do.
I hope you are doing well.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. Who in their right mind would like to believe in the existence of a genocidal maniac who drowns a whole planet?

God did not do that.
The Bible is probably responsible for most atheists because they actually believe it is all literally true.
I find that rather sad.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes it is. I do not "like" believing in God much of the time but I have to believe based upon the evidence.

We have been here before. I believe the first time we crossed swords. The conclusion then is that you have a much lower threshold of what you consider evidence than i do.

 

[Trailblazer]

This brings up a big problem with @Trailblazer OP. Which God?

Even just limiting the question to the God of Abraham, there's still a wide array. Genesis God is primitive, ethically and physically. Bahia God is vastly more sophisticated. There are so many various images of God, just among Abrahamic religionists much less the rest of the world religions through the centuries, that the question doesn't make sense.
Tom

There is only one true God, but there are many human conceptions because there have been many different scriptures revealed in different ages.

If people would look at the latest version of God, the Baha'i version, they would know what God wants us to know about Him now.
The older versions were written to and for people who were primitive or less advanced, so why would they be useful for this new age of men?

 

[ChristineM]

God did not do that.
The Bible is probably responsible for most atheists because they actually believe it is all literally true.
I find that rather sad.

Nope, they believe religious believe its true and to this day those religious argue long refuted nonsense that the bible says xxxx so xxxx.
The evidence shows it did not happen so the argument is why do some religious belief such bronze age claptrap and make excuses for what is said in the bible to be the cause

 

[Trailblazer]

We have been here before. I believe the first time we crossed swords. The conclusion then is that you have a much lower threshold of what you consider evidence than i do.

It is not a lower threshold, it is just a different threshold.
Most atheists will never believe in Messengers of God, no matter how good the evidence is.
I have accepted that is just the way it is, after talking to atheists 24/7 for over five years.