Atheists: Would you *prefer* that a god exist or not?

But if you had no belief that dogs existed, asking what size you prefer would be odd.
How fast should a unicorn you wanted to own run?

I do wish people would be a little clearer with this. You may well be “agnostic” but you are either an agnostic thiest or an agnostic atheist. That is relevant to the question and incedentally it takes absolutely no courage to be an atheist. What is it about “I’m not convinced” that is particulary courageous?

The way you use the words above ecourage people to think that atheism is a view of certainly and knowledge. It isn’t.

The most appealing god I’ve ever had described was in Isaac Isamov’s Final Question. For one it can’t be blamed for all the bad in the universe because it doesn’t come into being until near the end of the universe

Would I “prefer” that a god exists? Would I “prefer” that a square has 5 sides? Would I “prefer” that cyanide is healthy?

God, by definition, doesn’t - and cannot - exist.

The question can be interpreted in two ways:

  1. do you hope you are wrong about this world, and there actually is a God
  2. would you prefer to live in a different world, in which there is a God (or perhaps gods)

I answered the first question, and voted “no”, because if there is a God that God must be awfully nasty. (Or not powerful enough to prevent evil, in which case, maybe it doesn’t matter.)

As to the second, of course it depends on what sort of God we might have. Yes, I think I would prefer to have Gods who loved justice, and protected the innocent. No, I would not want an omnipotent God who damns people to an eternity of torture for their sins, though.

oops, eta this was supposed to be attached to my first post, not this one.

Yeah. Technically I’m agnostic, but I think the odds are very low that there’s a god anything like what’s described by the major religions near me. So I’m okay being called an atheist. Maybe more important, I live my life assuming there is is God.

Is that the god near the *Milliways *restaurant?

But, if it were the second option, and you effectively have the hypothetical power to will a better world into existence along with a compatible god, wouldn’t you rather just cut out the middle man and will a better world into existence?

Instead of (and these are my words here) “if I could make a world that is not demonstrably incompatible with a just god, then I would want there to be a just god to protect the innocent,” why not just make it “I would like to make a just world where the innocent are protected”?

Because I don’t see how even a world that is compatible with a just god, demands said god’s existence. Wouldn’t just having all around better people who didn’t treat each other like shit and cared enough to look after the innocent serve the same end? While it might be fantastical, I mean… we are talking about a god here. Reality went out the window as soon as we entertained that notion.

Best short order cook, or so I’m told.

Whether god exists is less important in my opinion than whether there is a heaven. In fact, it would be great if we could be sure there’s no heaven. Then everyone could focus on making this place better instead of waiting for their eternal reward which all too often is done at the expense of others.

Prefer not. The gods as depicted by all religions I’ve come across are either jerks, idiots, or both.

If the OP had asked about an afterlife, or grand purpose or whatever, then that’s a more interesting and nuanced discussion, at least for me.
But it’s just tradition, and our tendency to anthropomorphize, that means people associate philosophical questions like that with a daddy figure(s).

I’m not exactly an atheist (too much work), but definitely prefer the no-god option.

Otherwise we’re stuck with a deity(ies) that are either blithely and lazily omniscient, or actually enjoy watching or facilitating suffering and death.

Too much work? It’s as easy as pie! We get to sleep in on Sunday mornings too.

What kind of God? How about a personal god who would smite my enemies and help me out of jams? That would be pretty cool.

I like this one best so far

Um, wouldn’t that make you, in fact, god?

Welllll, if you have a universe that somehow knows who is innocent and has the ability to alter events to protect them, then you have a universe that it demonstrating intelligence and awareness. I think it would be fair to say that that such a universe either is or contains some aspect or agent within it that is (a) actively benevolent towards the innocent, (b) actively aware of what happens to the innocent, and c) powerful enough to intervene for all the innocents.

I would posit that it’s entirely fair to declare such a universe, or the innocent-saving aspect of that universe, to be a god.

This of course presumes that the innocent-saving system involves active and discerning intervention on the part of the universe. If the system is achieved by locking everybody in a box so that nobody can interact with anybody and thus no innocents can be imperiled, then the amount of active benevolence and awareness on the part of the universe is zero, and no god would be implied.

I’m already a god, thanks for asking.

(I’m an author. As far as my characters are concerned I’m a god - and not a benevolent one either.)

I’d be open to a god that wasn’t all powerful. Some loving creator that was sad about how miserable life can be. Some god who tried to compel us to be better people but didn’t have the power to force biological life to be good.

But an all powerful god who felt that all the evil and pain was somehow ‘worth it’? No fucking way. That’d be like living under Hitler with no possibility of escape. Evil and pain are built into biology, and life is a zero sum game in many ways. If this is the best a creator could do it is very evil and inept.

I know I shouldn’t, but I can’t resist. What part of your worldview makes you not an atheist?

And yet such a universe would STILL not require a god. Either by modeling of the universe, the availability of resources, evolutionary psychology, etc., or just plain old Big Brothering. Whether a universe with such control over human behavior would truly be desirable, particularly if due to the latter, is certainly debatable. Either I don’t really want such a universe, or such a universe doesn’t necessarily need a god, the point is I personally am satisfied that I don’t want a god, even a god of my choosing in a universe of my choosing (more on that below).

As DorkVader notes, and I’ve been trying to heavily imply in my last couple posts, if you are allowed so much creative control over the universe as to choose the universe to suit the god, you are effectively yourself god in at least a deistic sense, with the power of creation and of determining the course the universe will follow, as if no other will but your own matters, and all physical laws will be made to comply with your vision of the universe.