Could anything change your mind on the existence of any god?

[Calypze]

Whatever your current position on God or gods, can you imagine some sort of evidence that would make you change your mind on the matter?

[Larkin]

Short of a deity appearing to me and saying "hey douchebag, why have you been atheist all this time? I'm clearly real. If you don't start worshipping Imma kick yo ass straight to hell" nothing would really change my position. Something like the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe being proven true might work, but I'm not good enough at maths to understand it.

Also, I really resent your use of terms in the poll. It's not "I'm an atheist" it's "I'm atheist". I am without God, not I am an without God. It bugs me because it puts atheism into a category, essentially labelling it as a faith of its own, when really it is just a state.

There are differences between gnostic and agnostic atheism too, which is similar to what you're asking.

[Calypze]

Also, I really resent your use of terms in the poll. It's not "I'm an atheist" it's "I'm atheist". I am without God, not I am an without God. It bugs me because it puts atheism into a category, essentially labelling it as a faith of its own, when really it is just a state.

Aww come on, this is silly. You can put "a" before any position someone holds.

There are differences between gnostic and agnostic atheism too, which is similar to what you're asking.

Sure.

[Larkin]

Aww come on, this is silly. You can put "a" before any position someone holds.

The point being that a common theist response to atheist arguments is "WELL YOU BELIEVE IN ATHEISM HURR" or "ATHEISM IS A RELIGION TOO DURRR".

While this isn't the case, people saying "I am an atheist" only furthers this problem.

[Calypze]

The point being that a common theist response to atheist arguments is "WELL YOU BELIEVE IN ATHEISM HURR" or "ATHEISM IS A RELIGION TOO DURRR".

While this isn't the case, people saying "I am an atheist" only furthers this problem.

And why should theist (deliberate?) strawmen govern the rules of conversation?

Are you a democrat (as in favoring a liberal democratic form of government)? If you are, then it is a state of your mind. Yet it is perfectly possible to put "a" before "democrat".

I can't vote right now. But if I could, I'd choose option: No, and I'm currently a theist. Although, I don't know what means ,,anything'', I am sure that for now everything shows that God exist.

If you actually read the OP, you would have seen "some sort of evidence". Can't put everything into the voting question.

[Larkin]

And why should theist (deliberate?) strawmen govern the rules of conversation?

Are you a democrat (as in favoring a liberal democratic form of government)? If you are, then it is a state of your mind. Yet it is perfectly possible to put "a" before "democrat".

Well actually it's grammatical too, for the reason I already mentioned - atheist literally just means without god.

So it would be incorrect to say "I am an without god", would it not?

The example you cite is an interesting one. I believe the "a" would only precede democrat with a capital D - as in the Democrat party of the USA. In that case it is acceptable to say "I am a Democrat" just as it is to say "I am a Tory" here in the UK. But to say "I am conservative" is better than "I am a conservative." See?

[Ummagumma]

Yes. If a God was to appear in front of me, or otherwise be a measurable, verifiable entity, I'd 'believe' it. Like how I 'believe' in the electromagnetic force, and gravity, and thermodynamics, and particle/wave duality, and.. etc., etc., etc.

(I am entirely anti-theist. I think God/s come from the same place as Love, and Art, and Hate. An anthropomorphic projection of emotion, coupled with a desire to understand the environment.)

[Larkin]

(I am entirely anti-theist. I think God/s come from the same place as Love, and Art, and Hate. An anthropomorphic projection of emotion, coupled with a desire to understand the environment.)

Careful. The neuroscience behind the existence of things like love is more dense than a simple projection/desire combination.

For example, love is a response triggered in a certain part of the brain as a combination of the traditional "lust" and "addiction" responses. It is essentially a subconscious addiction to feelings of lust, but it does have its own part of the brain - and so isn't entirely produced by emotion.

Art, similarly, evokes the part of the brain dedicated to aesthetic pleasure. Some more so than others.

These things are more grounded in science than God.

[Ummagumma]

Careful. The neuroscience behind the existence of things like love is more dense than a simple projection/desire combination.

.........

These things are more grounded in science than God.

Careful? huh?!

..I think you entirely misread my post, but no harm done.

Oh, and about the an or not an thing: it is simply noun or adjective. "I am atheist" - I am related to or characterized by or given to atheism. "I am an atheist" - I am someone who denies the existence of god. Both fit, really. The 'I am conservative' vs. 'I am a conservative' is a false parallel though, as 'a conservative' is most likely directly applied to the political party rather than the broader sense of conservatism. All depends on context.

[Larkin]

Careful? huh?!

..I think you entirely misread my post, but no harm done.

No, I didn't. You were comparing God to Love, Art, Hate - things you consider to be man-made, constructions born out of emotion and application to the world, correct?

While it is a noble principle - "man created God, God didn't create man" - it is incorrect to consider Love or Art as PURELY man made constructions as they are founded in the brain, as I demonstrated.

So I agreed with your conclusion, but not your whole argument. If that makes sense.

[Ummagumma]

No, I didn't. You were comparing God to Love, Art, Hate - things you consider to be man-made, constructions born out of emotion and application to the world, correct?

No. They are things that come from our mind, but not consciously made. Unless you think you can choose who to fall in love with, or choose what type of art you react to, or.. That list was specifically intended to show it as a subconscious thing. 'God is a by-product of consciousness', if that makes more sense. Or even, to paraphrase the Bible, 'God is Love'.

[Simon Cashmere]

Yes. If a God was to appear in front of me, or otherwise be a measurable, verifiable entity, I'd 'believe' it. Like how I 'believe' in the electromagnetic force, and gravity, and thermodynamics, and particle/wave duality, and.. etc., etc., etc.

(I am entirely anti-theist. I think God/s come from the same place as Love, and Art, and Hate. An anthropomorphic projection of emotion, coupled with a desire to understand the environment.)

But how could you know that thing was a God? Because it or they could do impressive things? Imagine if you will a human society that was stable, managed to not kill each other, and lived productively devoted to science and technology for a million years. Or let's say a billion years. That advanced version of ourselves, 1 billion years from now, meets you. Would their ability to manipualte the world around them seem godlike? have they conquered death? Probably. Would you worship them? What about a life form that is not composed of carbon like us, say, is made of energy. It can do fantastic things - do you consider it to be a god?

I'm just saying, even if you have some sort of entity before you that is immortal and can bend time and space, it does not mean they are deity. I guess what you might be getting at - is if something could appear before you and prove that they made the universe...but even so again - what if they were just ordinary mortals (once) like us, but are many millions or billions of years advanced?

The other thing is - let's say there is a divine being. All powerful, all knowing - and comes to me and says, worship me. I'd say...why? Because you are all powerful - show me that you are somebody worth appreciating and I might appreciate you, but *worship* you? C'mon. You mgiht be a Supreme Being, but you didn't *earn* that right presumably, you just are. That's nothing special at all.

[Ummagumma]

But how could you know that thing was a God?

I have no idea at all, as I find the very concept of a deity inconceivable.

But, for arguments sake, if there was some entity that could conclusively prove that it created this universe and the rules that govern it, and that it had no progenitor itself (as in, 'God Is', or whatever).
As for your time-traveller, I guess someone that figured out entropy and managed to travel back through time.. is quite worth worship. If it is a beneficent being with my interests at heart, and has also created some technological afterlife, or whatever. Otherwise, I suppose from some angles, any 'God' is just another being, another form of existence with whatever super-mojo-o-matic abilities.. so whether they are technological, or supernatural, what difference does it make? It is still just another being. Worship/Love/Whatever should be earned, not expected.

[AqD]

I'll change my mind when God shows up himself.

[America125]

I'll change my mind when God shows up himself.

same here

[Sar1n]

I'll change my mind when God shows up himself.

Me, not even then. I'd probably consider it to be some advanced alien with twisted sense of humor. That's the problem, any evidence about god is inherently subjective.

[America125]

Me, not even then. I'd probably consider it to be some advanced alien with twisted sense of humor. That's the problem, any evidence about god is inherently subjective.

lol

[Aeneas Veneratio]

I would like to change my vote from "Yes, and I'm an atheist" to "No, and I'm an atheist", beyond death is another matter. On this side (the world of the living), "god" has never shown itself, so I seriously doubt that will change, and I lack a belief in science ever being able to prove an immaterial being.

[Modestus]

Yes, a big large and throbbing penis appearing out of the middle of the sun (visible from earth) singing some song (audible from earth) from the musical Grease.

Edit I think I could do a graphical representation of what this would look like, censored of course.

[Enzo]

If someone could build a conscious machine with non-living matter and they can fully explain the process of thes generation of this effect then I think that would conclusively prove materialism and so there would be no need for any kind of God. It's worth bearing mind that no-one is even on track to being able to make anything like that and it's possible it never happen, we could easily have had such things by now like in 2001 a Space Odessey, though I don't see anything like HAL anywhere.