Nonbelievers: How Would You React to the Following Events

[clairobscur]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Nonbelievers, how would you react if the following events happened to you?

1. You hear God speak quite explicitly while awake and engaged in daily life but no one but you has heard it.

I consult a psychiatrist

2. You hear God speak and everyone else in the world also reports hearing the Voice

.

Something saying it’s god spoke. Depends on what was said, and requires further inquiry.

3. There is a sudden mass disappearance of people by the millions all over the world.

A mysterious event happened. Note that few people in the world even heard of the rapture. I would never had if it weren’t for posting on this board. And the rapture, even by Christian standards, is a fringe belief.

If all disappeared people belonged to a church whose members believe in a rapture, it might be a relevant hypothesis. Otherwise, it would be way down the list of conceivable explanations. As mentioned, believing in ETs is way more common than believing in a rapture, so I think a lot of people would guess “ETs”.

[FinnAgain]

@Walmarticus

I read it as though the “voice of god” is self confirming. You know it is god’s voice simply by hearing it. It has some sort of godly authenticating signature, for which we have been imprinted to receive, or something.

Even if that’s the case, we’re still left with supernatural beings. Why couldn’t one fake the ‘authentication’ code? What, it can beam thoughts directly into my head, but it can’t flip the switch in people that makes them think “ah yeah, that’s the genuine article alright!”

[x-ray_vision]

@FinnAgain

Even if that’s the case, we’re still left with supernatural beings. Why couldn’t one fake the ‘authentication’ code? What, it can beam thoughts directly into my head, but it can’t flip the switch in people that makes them think “ah yeah, that’s the genuine article alright!”

It doesn’t matter if supernatural beings could be deceptive. Walmarticus understood the hypothetical in the OP to be that it is God and that the former nonbeliever knows it is.

[Walmarticus]

@x-ray_vision

If that was the case, QSH wouldn’t have responded the way he did in post #3. He would instead have advised Lobohan that he misunderstood the OP.

Ah ha. Since the Voice of God is merely a voice of god, I would:

1. be very discrete, because hearing voices no one else can hear isn’t a good sign, even in the wizarding world.

2. hit the woods, because people are gonna freak.

3. go on a looting spree, then hit the woods.

[FinnAgain]

@x-ray_vision

It doesn’t matter if supernatural beings could be deceptive. Walmarticus understood the hypothetical in the OP to be that it is God and that the former nonbeliever knows it is.

Well, but that’s part of my point. Even if someone ‘knows’ that it’s God talking to them, people have ‘known’ that about many different gods and many different visions through history. If the God can cause people to ‘know’ that He’s talking to them, then any number of other gods, goddesses, demons and so on should be able to duplicate the same feeling, too.

[x-ray_vision]

@FinnAgain

Well, but that’s part of my point. Even if someone ‘knows’ that it’s God talking to them, people have ‘known’ that about many different gods and many different visions through history. If the God can cause people to ‘know’ that He’s talking to them, then any number of other gods, goddesses, demons and so on should be able to duplicate the same feeling, too.

I didn’t just say that people know that it’s God, I also said that it actually is God (in the misunderstood hypothetical).

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

I’d think things similar to most other people who don’t suffer delusions* would think.

1. If upon asking a large enough sample of others near me whether they heard the voice or not and their answer was a unanimous “No”, I would assume someone played a nifty trick on me but also consider that I might be seriously mentally ill. I would definitely talk to a physician and.or psychologist about it.

2. I couldn’t know what “everyone else in the world” reported hearing. But assuming there were widespread, legitimate reports of this happening I would wonder how the hell that was possible. Then, in working through how indeed that was possible I would consider many things, but not that it was “God”, 'cause that’d just be silly, wouldn’t it?

3. I would be surprised and very worried about what was going on. I would be especially worried about all the fruitcakes running around claiming that this was proof of the End Days but that something must have gone wrong because they didn’t get sucked up into the spaceship behind Hale-Bopp like all those other disappeared folks, and they were always the most righteous of all! It ain’t fair!

*Up until this Voice, possibly.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Walmarticus

Dopers are so anti-god that in a hypothetical situation where god exists, god still doesn’t exist.

I think that practically no one who posts here regularly would be anti-god if god existed, as that would be irrational.

Of course, we have no objective reason to believe that god does exist, therefore it is rational to not have a belief in god (or as you put it: “anti”-god–I think atheist is a better term).

More importantly, I did not read that god was posited to exist in the OP’s hypothetical, so unless I missed something, it is not “anti-god” to be unconvinced of god’s existence under the terms of the OP.

If, on the other hand, one were to offer as a hypothetical that: “it has been scientifically proven that god exists” and then went on to ask, “based on this hypothetical fact, do you believe that god exists?” One would be compelled to reply: “Holding that condition to be hypothetically factual then, yes–one must conclude that god exists. But, wow! That certainly was a waste of time, wasn’t it?”

Got point?

[AlienVessels]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Nonbelievers, how would you react if the following events happened to you?

1. You hear God speak quite explicitly while awake and engaged in daily life but no one but you has heard it.

2. You hear God speak and everyone else in the world also reports hearing the Voice.

3. There is a sudden mass disapperance of people by the millions all over the world.

It’s not a reasonable question. It assumes the conclusion that God exists when the premise of the non-believer is that God does not exist. Why do I suddenly change my premise?

God is infinite and these events can be caused by finite power. There is a huge gap between what it takes to make this stuff happen and really God-like events. In fact, in the context of an infinite God, man and all his works are not enough to gauge the power of God. In that context, these events are trivial and I try to find out what is behind then.

[monavis]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Even if the events exactly parallel those argued by some to be what’ll happen in the Apocalypse?

I would assume that it wasn’t God, because if Jesus was telling the truth of what would happen then the Apocalypse would not be from God! Jesus said the sun would lose it’s light and the moon would turn to blood etc. also that he would come in His father’s Glory while some of them listening to Him would not yet have seen death!

[Der_Trihs]

@monavis

Jesus said the sun would lose it’s light and the moon would turn to blood etc. also that he would come in His father’s Glory while some of them listening to Him would not yet have seen death!

Believer: “But Jesus said he would come back before some of those listening to him had seen death!”

Death: “THAT MUST BE WHY HE ASKED ME TO SNEAK UP ON THEM FROM BEHIND. NEVER SAW ME COMING.”

[Czarcasm]

Doesn’t this OP fall under the Babel fish clause? The Christian God is a god of faith, not proof. By proving that he exists, faith is destroyed, and God no longer exists.

[manila]

So god’s going to talk to me? Really? Are we gonna have small talk or is he going to say something profound?

Seriously, there is nothing he/she/it could say that has any value whatsoever to my life.

I know my destiny, I was young once, I grew up, I am growing older and am sooner or later I am going to die.

My morality was born from an inherent affinity to my fellow man. My ethics are born from a belief that I need to be a good person. I was a rebel in my youth, a cynic in my early adulthood, a skeptic in my maturing years and a live and let live kind of guy now.

Really, there is nothing anyone’s god can offer me.

I suppose I cannot really argue against the possibility of a supreme creator, although I believe that it is absolutely possible to argue successfully against the existence of the abrahamic or hindu god. ( or in fact any other god you choose to colour) But as I believe there is no requirement for a god in our universe I would probably offer a few viewpoints.

Millions of people suddenly disappear? Well that happens with natural causes but I suspect you are hinting at some some sort of rapture effect. Which by the way is begging the question.

To answer that I can only say that I would doubt my sanity rather than believe that some fairy tale had come true.

[Walmarticus]

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

I think that practically no one who posts here regularly would be anti-god if god existed, as that would be irrational.

Oh I don’t believe this at all. People would dislike religion even stronger, because now god isn’t simply fictional, but a massive asshole.

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

Of course, we have no objective reason to believe that god does exist, therefore it is rational to not have a belief in god (or as you put it: “anti”-god–I think atheist is a better term).

I mean not only disbelief in god, but thinking that religion is bad. Atheist isn’t the same thing.

@I_Love_Me_Vol.I

If, on the other hand, one were to offer as a hypothetical that: “it has been scientifically proven that god exists” and then went on to ask, “based on this hypothetical fact, do you believe that god exists?” One would be compelled to reply: “Holding that condition to be hypothetically factual then, yes–one must conclude that god exists. But, wow! That certainly was a waste of time, wasn’t it?”

Got point?

That is somewhat similar to how I initially read the OP. I figured we were to assume that our knowledge of god was objective based on the misleading way the OP framed the question.

It isn’t me that’s lacking in point, but the OP.

[SenorBeef]

I have to say I find the responses in this thread somewhat perplexing and dissapointing. You make atheists look like hard headed idiots who are not interested in proof but only interested in confirming their non-belief.

Now the most reasonable reaction to singularly hearing a voice claiming itself to be the voice of God is assume a hallucination, that’s true. It may be possibly actually be the voice of God, but more likely it is a hallucination or some sort of trick.

Now - everyone in the world unamimously confirming the experience - this makes it far less likely to be a delusion, since there’s no plausible way for everyone to spontaneously share such a delusion at the same time. There become other possibilities like some sort of advanced mind control technology or aliens - or, I guess, you could suppose a completely looney tunes hallucination where you’re just completely off the rocker at that point and envisioning newcasts in which it’s declared that everyone in the world had this experience, and that everyone you meet confirms it. But now all explanations are so unlikely that it actually being the voice of god is much less unlikely.

In the third case - if suddenly every hardcore Christian on the planet were taken away, that would be fairly compelling evidence. Sure, maybe they all went into hiding, maybe aliens scooped them all up as a practical joke - but by now, especially if you combine these events, a pretty good case can be made for believing in god.

Sure, it may be one of those far out explanations that’s the case - and the issue should be investigated by that time - but at this point it starts becoming quite reasonable for an atheist and a skeptic to start believing in god. Those things, while having other explanations, still constitute evidence.

The attitude in this thread actually isn’t skeptical at all. It’s not skeptical to say “no matter what, I don’t believe it” - skepticism is the philosophy of requiring evidence to support positions. This would be evidence.

For the hand of god to scoop you up into the sky, and then, say, create a mountain in the middle of a flat plain, and tell you “Hey, God here, you should believe in me - and oh in case you think you’re just hallucinating, check out CNN when you get home, they’ll confirm everything happened” and then you say “WELL NO THAT’S JUST SILLY! GOD DOESN’T EXIST!” in response to it is not skeptical, a weird idiotic denialist position.

And if you see a giant flying pink unicorn flying all over the world, and everyone else sees it, and thousands of cameras record the image, and people running radar systems across the world confirm something is really there, what’s the point of saying “flying unicorns don’t exist!”?

By taking on this attitude, you actually empower religious people. When they say stuff like “oh it’s not that you lack proof, you’re just unwilling to admit god/see the light”, this sort of thread confirms that very thing. You actually undermine the atheist position as the most rational, supported position to one to a denialist position where you’d feel that way no matter what evidence/arguments/proof.

You have to be open to the possibility of the existance of god to rationally conclude that it’s almost certainly not true.

This sort of hypothetical is extremely unlikely to ever happen - and that’s sort of the point, god is extremely unlikely to exist - but in the hypothetical that there was pretty good evidence of something pointing to god’s existance, the hypothetical reaction should be to very well consider the possibility of God’s existance.

[Czarcasm]

Perhaps it would be best not to convince atheists that the god that is described in the Bible exists, considering how some now view that (currently)fictional entity.

[wonky]

@SenorBeef

Now - everyone in the world unamimously confirming the experience - this makes it far less likely to be a delusion, since there’s no plausible way for everyone to spontaneously share such a delusion at the same time. There become other possibilities like some sort of advanced mind control technology or aliens - or, I guess, you could suppose a completely looney tunes hallucination where you’re just completely off the rocker at that point and envisioning newcasts in which it’s declared that everyone in the world had this experience, and that everyone you meet confirms it. But now all explanations are so unlikely that it actually being the voice of god is much less unlikely.

I can’t even begin to understand this. We know that there are crazy people. Why wouldn’t I always assume my own insanity–something we know exists–rather than leaping to the idea of God–something I don’t know exists?

The hypothetical is trying to say, “Given that God is real, what do you feel when God does stuff?”

That first step is a lulu.

[SenorBeef]

@jsgoddess

I can’t even begin to understand this. We know that there are crazy people. Why wouldn’t I always assume my own insanity–something we know exists–rather than leaping to the idea of God–something I don’t know exists?

This is why I gave differing answers to 1 and 2, and spelled this out. If it’s just you hearing the voice, it’s much more reasonable to assume you’re crazy. If everyone hears the voice, less so.

It’s just implausible for every single member of the human race, regardless of their cultural backgrounds or their isolation from other people, to have the same exact delusion at the same time.

Now - you could still be living in your own delusion. You could be completely hallucinating all the news broadcasts that report that everyone else shares your delusion. You could be imagining all the conversations you had with people who describe having the same experience as you. But at that point you’re so far gone you have no grasp on reality at all. You are a non-functional, completely crazy person - so it doesn’t really matter what you choose to believe on this issue, it’s not like you’re going go on and have a normal life otherwise.

The hypothetical is trying to say, “Given that God is real, what do you feel when God does stuff?”

That first step is a lulu.

Well that’s the point of a hypothetical, to examine the underlying beliefs in what would happen in various situations.

If someone brought me into a room with a Bigfoot, and said hey, meet the guy who caught him in the Yukon forests, and here are some biologists who are confirming that his DNA is unique and that it’s certainly not a guy in an ape costume", my reaction would be to say “oh, huh, Bigfoot does exist”, not “NO NO NO! BIGFOOT DOESN’T EXIST!”. I’m not tied to the point of not believing in Bigfoot to the point of denying evidence - I just have seen no evidence which makes me believe he exists.

Imagine we simplified this question to: Given proof to your satisfaction that god exists, would you believe in god? To say “no, god just doesn’t exist!” as a hypothetical to this question is a closed-minded answer. It’s saying that no matter what evidence anyone throws at you, you won’t believe in god. This actually empowers the religious people. It reduces your non-belief to the same unthinking position as their belief. It gives weight to their idea of “oh, you’re not on the side of evidence/logic, you’re just against god, therefore I can just dismiss your claims”

What’s actually discrediting to the theistic position is to say “yes, if enough evidence were presented, I would believe in God, because I’m willing to follow the evidence. But it’s exactly because your position is so devoid of it, that you have to come up with these unlikely hypotheticals that have about 1 in a gazillion chance of happening, that I can conclude that god almost certainly does not exist”

By being willing to accept god with the right amount of evidence, you aren’t somehow bolstering their position, you’re discrediting it. And vice versa.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@SenorBeef

In the third case - if suddenly every hardcore Christian on the planet were taken away, that would be fairly compelling evidence. Sure, maybe they all went into hiding, maybe aliens scooped them all up as a practical joke - but by now, especially if you combine these events, a pretty good case can be made for believing in god.

I have to disagree with this. Non-magical explanations would still be more likely than magical ones. The disappearance specifically of Christians is not part of Christian scripture or most Christian belief anyway, and that selection could just as well be hostile as friendly. In fact, I would assume that it was more likely to be hostile, since it would be involuntary and highly disruptive.

[Walmarticus]

@SenorBeef

What’s actually discrediting to the theistic position is to say “yes, if enough evidence were presented, I would believe in God, because I’m willing to follow the evidence. But it’s exactly because your position is so devoid of it, that you have to come up with these unlikely hypotheticals that have about 1 in a gazillion chance of happening, that I can conclude that god almost certainly does not exist”

In the zany hypothetical, I think the OP is indeed being petty enough to be seeking this kind of validation, and I think some of us nonbelievers are stubborn enough to not give it to him.