Oh hell, let’s start this one as the companion thread to my companion thread to the currently active thread on whether or not religious people are crazy.
As I stated in my earlier thread I believe in Something. In my personal theology I believe everything is a part of the Universe(s) experiencing Itself. I know people from both sides of the spectrum will find that statement unsatisfactory, but I tried once to explain my thoughts, did very poorly. So now my words are as simple and succinct as I can make them. If you ever want to discuss them over coffee and have a free night I will oblige.
So calling all you theists, whatsoever your ilk, what are you going to do with the unbelievers? Please try to answer truthfully.
Agree to disagree? Seriously, I believe in something, but as long as people aren’t bothering anyone else, I really don’t care what other’s religious beliefs (or lack there of) are.
In this universe there is no room for agreeing to disagree. Atheists are unequivocally wrong. No room for debate, but still there are those that will not accept this truth. What do you do with them?
I think you’ve set the bar kind of high. Why is there no agreeing to disagree in your world? Agreeing to disagree doesn’t mean that you have to think that the people you disagree with are right or think that they have valid points. It just means that you decide that trying to convince them that they’re wrong is more trouble than it’s worth.
There are a multitude of different types of theists with mutually contradictory beliefs. If atheists are wrong, then most or all varieties of theists are *still *also wrong. So they can’t really answer your question accurately unless you specify whether they are one of the theists who have been proven wrong, or one of the theists who have been proven right.
Your premise is flawed. In this imaginary world where gods exist, people who would become atheists here would be theists instead. To do otherwise would be like someone not believing in chairs.
Well, yes, it isn’t very clear, but I think I more or less get where you are coming from. The thing is, though, it does not really seem to be theism, at least as traditionally conceived by any of the major theistic religions. “Theism” usually means belief in a personal God (i.e., a God, or gods, who is a sort of invisible, super-powerful person). What you are talking about seems more like pantheism or Spinozism, and it is no coincidence that Spinoza got accused of being an atheist in his time (even though his metaphysics has very little in common with that of someone like, say Richard Dawkins).
Well, let’s go about figuring out who God is and what he wants. Or whatever mystical force you want to assign as the driving force of the universe. I mean - even if atheists are wrong, and there is something, we shouldn’t try to just worship some idea of a god at random, right?
We should try to figure out what he wants with us, and how his presence plays into our understanding of the world. So let’s try to objectively determine through some sort of evidence what god has done in history, and what communication he’s had with humanity, if any, and what his nature is. And from there, what he might want, and what our purpose is in the universe.
If there were enough evidence around to determine this - if we communicated god and fully understood his will, why would there be unbelievers? That’d be like not believing that Europe is real or something.
Your premise makes no sense. There’s essentially no world where we can say “ok, let’s say there’s no evidence for god and we have no idea what or who he is, but we know people that don’t believe in him are wrong” - there’s nothing useful to be done with that.
“All you theists” better not do any planning until the OP tells us which religious sect is the right one in this hypothetical. It might turn out that most of you are in the same sinking boat that the atheists have been put in.
This. If Amaterasu descended to earth and proved to everyone that she exists, I’d willingly believe in her and join in her worship. (Unless, of course, she made it clear that she only welcomes worship from Japanese people, in which case I’d believe in her and politely ignore her.)
His premise is silent on whether there is evidence, and in fact implies that there is evidence, without saying what evidence there is, because we “know” the atheists are wrong.
Therefore, whatever evidence there is will also be used to determine, if we can, which God exists. Once we know which God exists, we use the evidence to correct as best we can any flaws in the “best” religion to worship this God.
If we can determine a “correct” set of principles to then guide us in this religion, we then make sure that at least one opportunity is available to all to learn about this God; and after that, we leave the atheists free to go to their destruction if they so desire.
