Atheists: what would it take?

[Eddi]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

I think you're actually asking a couple of different questions there, so I'll split my answer.

If Jesus came back to Earth and started working miracles, and it was obviously real (I think we can safely ignore skepticism for the sake of the hypothetical), then I wouldn't be an atheist. It would be that simple. 'Holy crap, there is a God!' means I am instantly not an atheist.

What it doesn't do is make me religious. Indeed, I could be religious already, and remain an atheist. Atheism and religiosity are 2 separate paradigms.

I don't believe the existence of a clearly supernatural Jesus would automatically or immediately make me a Christian. I would see him much the same as a super-evolved, and super-powerful alien might be seen. Awe-inspiring, certainly, but not someone I would worship and follow.

That might occur over time, depending on how things progressed, and his presence would certainly make me invest a lot of time and effort into trying to resolve the cognitive dissonance I would no doubt be faced with.
The thought of Jesus being able to effectively convince me that he is a being worth worshipping though...honestly, I'm not sure how that would work.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This one's for the Atheists:
What would it take for you to follow a religion?
I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?
Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?
If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?
And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?
Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

Though I am a strong atheist, but I am also a Hindu believing in 'non-duality' (Advaita). My view is verifiably true according to information available today.

Yeah, I would not be able to deny such an evidence and will have to change my views. There may be thousands of Jesuses around in the world. It was a common Latin first name. Popularity: 306 Jesus - Baby Name Meaning, Origin and Popularity

"While there are many saints' names and appellations to honor - Maria, Lourdes, Concepcion and Pilar are but a few - for boys, there are only Jesus and Messiah. Peaking in the early 2000s, Jesus is on the decline in popularity." Jesus (name) - Wikipedia

 

[sun rise]

I've written of this before, but hopefully it's not bothersome to those who have read it. I stopped being an atheist because I had experiences that were captured in a song

Change can come in the twinkling of an eye,
In the ripple upon a lake.
Change can come in the color of a flower,
In the sparkle of morning dew,
When the Light catches you.
In that tiny moment, you are transformed.

The "light" came into my life and my atheism dissolved over some months. Then I searched for that which would satisfy my intellect. It was not a matter of evidence or book reading, it was the Divine entering my life.

And there was no randomness about the timing. There is a saying "when the student is ready, the spiritual teacher appears". I can look back now and see the preparatory steps but at the time, it was not at all clear to me.

 

[stvdv]

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian

Exactly this happened to me
I used to fall in the Agnostic category
Atheistic doubts were gone forever after

I needed personal evidence, not hearsay, to know, so I understand Atheists who say they need evidence

Note: My definition of God is different from the usual Western definition

 

[Heyo]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

I'd go where the evidence leads. But new evidence has also to explain the lack of evidence in the past. So a new god has to be seen as new unless there is a compelling explanation why it couldn't be detected before.
"Jesus" "returning" and "working miracles" is evidence for a being claiming to be the Jesus of the NT - not evidence for that being true nor evidence for the trinity.
And following a messiah - probably not. He might turn out to be a jerk, like so many "messiahs" in the past.

 

[ChristineM]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

If there were verified evidence i would certainly consider that evidence and alter my position accordingly. Evidence is the key.

I very much doubt i would join a religion though. The dogma and hypocrisy is not for me.

Edit : I will add that I'll be asking said deity some very searching questions.

 

[Altfish]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

The re-appearance of Jesus would need to be verified ... and then it does not prove he was 'son of God'.
Then accepting that it is all proven, following a religion is not my idea of life. I would not worship this god. I may accept his existence but would not praise him.
I already live as good a life as I want, what could I change?

 

[Brian2]

Though I am a strong atheist, but I am also a Hindu believing in 'non-duality' (Advaita). My view is verifiably true according to information available today.

How is your view verifiably true according to the information available today?

 

[blü 2]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

A satisfactory definition of a real god ie a god with objective existence.

A satisfactory definition of "godness", the real quality a god has and a superscientist who can do what God can lacks.

A satisfactory demonstration of the objective reality of such a being.

A reason satisfactory to me to worship such a being.


(I'm not holding my breath.)

 

[Revoltingest]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

The Ardra Scenario would make me very skeptical.
Ref (for non-nerds)...
Ardra | Memory Alpha | Fandom

 

[Aupmanyav]

How is your view verifiably true according to the information available today?

Simple. At the time of inflation there was nothing other than physical energy. Therefore, whatever exists in the universe today is 'physical energy' aka Brahman, and nothing else, whether humans, animals, vegetation or inanimate substances.

 

[Brian2]

Simple. At the time of inflation there was nothing other than physical energy. Therefore, whatever exists in the universe today is 'physical energy' aka Brahman, and nothing else, whether humans, animals, vegetation or inanimate substances.

I think the problem that you don't know that there was nothing other than physical energy at any time. That is like saying that my beliefs are verifiable because I believe them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, if evidence shows that there was something else, I will accept that. As simple as that. Like @KWED said, go with evidence and do not make ridiculous claims.

 

[HonestJoe]

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Most religions are based on the principle of faith. If any were faced with verifiable truth of their beliefs, it would be at least as disruptive to those believers as anyone else.

At it's core, religious belief is typically about filling the gaps in our understanding of the universe. Some people find that comforting and others don't. If we all knew the certain truth, nobody would need a religion at all because we wouldn't have those scary gaps in our knowledge.

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

Exactly the same things I require to believe anything else (with all the same variations, quirks, biases and levels of confidence that come with it). From an entirely practical point of view, there is no difference between claims about the life and works of Jesus Christ and claims about the life and works or Robin Hood. The only difference is that nobody is trying to implement government policies on the basis of Robin Hood's words or calling for crossbows to be banned as sinful.

 

[blü 2]

I think the problem that you don't know that there was nothing other than physical energy at any time. That is like saying that my beliefs are verifiable because I believe them.

It's true that inflation is hypothetical. It's also true that so far it appears to work well as an account of what happened to bring about the universe as we see it 14 bn years later. So to date it continues to pass that particular test.

Science works by scientific method, which involves empiricism and induction. Since nothing protects such conclusions from unknown unknowns, science makes no absolute statements ─ as a matter of principle, they're expressed in a falsifiable manner.

But it does make its statements on the basis of examinable evidence. So more than mere belief, mere opinion, is involved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

The analogy I've used before is the Moon: if God is at least as relevant to my life and the world around me as the Moon is, I would expect just as much evidence for God as we have for the Moon: lots of it through various different channels, all in perfect agreement.

I'm not sure what the theistic equivalent is of being able to:

- just go out and see the Moon on a regular basis,
- predict the tides based on our observations of the Moon, AND
- bounce a laser off the Moon to confirm that it's exactly as far away from the Earth as those tide predictions assumed,

... but I'd be looking for something at least that compelling.

Short of that... it would take a lot to make gods the best explanation for, well, anything. We can always ask whether some sort of delusion explains our observations better than gods would, so gods would always have to clear at least that bar.

Also, gods aren't the only new explanation I'd be entertaining. There are plenty of other outlandish claims I put in the same category as gods, so if I start taking the idea of gods seriously, I'd also start taking all of them seriously, too: time travel. Ghosts. Aliens. Psychic powers. Mythical creatures. Etc., etc.

Establishing God (or some set of gods) wouldn't just be a matter of excluding natural causes or mental illness as the cause of our observations; it would also need us to establish that God is a better explanation for what we're seeing than, say, telekinetic time-travelling aliens.

... so I don't see it as likely - or even potentially as even possible - to establish any religion as "verifiably true."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Although I do not self-identify as atheist, I would like to ask the following.

Why the post? I do not recall ever encountering a single atheist who did not cite lack of evidence. Presumably, they would shift their position if confronted with incontrovertible evidence -- unless, of course, they were being disingenuous.

But even if we assume some significant minority of disingenuous atheist, he OP still seems a bit strange. The honest atheist will almost certainly respond "of course," while the disingenuous theist might well respond in the same manner.

It's as if you asked: "All those willing to deny incontrovertible evidence raise your hand."

No?

 

[Polymath257]

There is more than one question here. One is whether I would believe the factual claims. The other is whether I would follow the moral teachings.

Whether I would believe the factual claims would depend on the nature and strength of the evidence.

For example, suppose something claiming to be Jesus appears in the sky and heals people, calms storms, etc. That could *easily* be a highly technological alien that is playing to our superstitions. At the very least, I would believe there is something that can to whatever 'miracles' are actually done. But that is a LONG way from proving the existence of a creator of the universe.

So, again, what I believe would depend very heavily on the specific evidence and exactly what it shows. To believe a deity is involved, I would at least have to be able to discount the possibility of a high technology alien trying to manipulate us.

The second question is whether I would follow the moral teachings. That would strongly depend on my moral judgement of the entity. If it is anything similar to Yahweh of the OT, then it would be a moral duty to *fight* such a thing. The morality of Jesus is better, but I would have to look at details.

In short, powerful is not the same as deity. And deity is not the same as moral.

 

[Eddi]

Why the post? I do not recall ever encountering a single atheist who did not cite lack of evidence.

Why the post?

Because want to better understand other perspectives

As someone who is becoming increasingly Atheistic I feel as though I have very much benefited from some of the responses given in this thread

So to me this post has been a great success