Then having a loving presence in your life is just an illusion, perhaps delusion. Would there be a point to the society of imaginary friends? Perhaps, but we might do better facing reality.
I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet, but check out the Exodus story, where a group of people who have been given evidence of god rebel against him, showing free will.
If god forced us to love him, that would be one thing. All I’m asking is to act like a non-absentee parent.
If God came down and said “yeah, I wiped out people in the flood, yeah I endorsed slavery” I wouldn’t be an atheist anymore, but I wouldn’t worship him. If he had a good explanation for natural evil, then maybe.
Ah, God as Mafia boss. Nice soul you have there, wouldn’t want anything to happen to it.
The Resistance knew what could happen to them if they disobeyed the Nazis, but they still did. So it would depend on how we were supposed to obey.
And of course plenty of people disobey laws even though they know they might get caught.
BTW, there isn’t a lot of evidence that there is any god, so it’s not like disbelief comes from not wanting to believe.
And much less evidence pointing to any particular sect’s god.
I have a great deal of respect for you as a poster, but in your responses to me, I feel you’re going off on all sorts of tangents unrelated to the OP.
I am here for the question in the OP. I am not here for the tangents and will not be responsive to them.
I’m sure glad God didn’t write the science textbooks. Well, phlogiston is the source of fire, if you view it in the proper way.
How come God can’t inspire people to write with even the same level of clarity as the non-English speaking authors of some of my users manuals?
Which is a bit unfair, since much of the Bible is quite clear. Morally horrendous, but quite clear.
I may as well weigh in on this.
In general, it’s hard for me to imagine a religion whose god allows mere humans to totally overturn any central tenets that were laid down by the founding god. On the other hand, I can imagine that the original rules might have included permission to change certain things within certain limits. That’s the catch: Did the original rules allow for it?
Or even better, the original rules may have included certain conditions. For example, “In situation A, follow Rule #1, but in situation B, follow Rule #2.” If it was set up like that from the beginning, then even if Rule #1 was followed for centuries, switching to Rule #2 does not necessarily constitute “updating the religion”.
Then again, there are sometimes cases where they say, “We’ve been interpreting this wrong all along! This is the proper way to understand it, and we have to modify the rules to account for it!” It’s entirely possible that they are correct, and they are fixing an error. It’s also possible that they are wrong (deliberately or not) and this would be unacceptable. It seems to me that this has happened many times through history, and usually results in new denominations (or whatever word you might prefer) branching from each other.
Cool. Then what do you think about the OP, including the “if”. What did you think about my point about morals, which is directly related to the OP.
Without the “if” this thread could go into GQ, since there are plenty of measurable and measured points about the societal impact of religion.
Because Scriptural tests aren’t meant to be the same thing as user manual (how many people are inspired by a user manual after all). The vast majority of ancient texts don’t seem to be. It’s part poetry, part stories (and history back then wasn’t intended to be an objective writing of facts), part ‘law’, part larger thoughts on morality and how to live with each other. In essence, it’s a big book or books regarding people’s experiences with God in various different ways.
Ah, so if someone else’s god doesn’t meet your standards, there’s no point to that person’s religion?
Yeah, that makes so much sense.
Along with the whole slew of “I don’t believe any god exists, therefore there can’t be any point to a religion that relies on a god for its meaning” posts in this thread.
Guess we can pretty much shut down the thread, then. 
I’ve already responded to the OP, without the ‘if.’ You have problems with my response. Good answers to the OP’s question that address the ‘if’ would be a subset of the good answers that don’t, No need for me to keep going, then.
Nice analogy. I was going to mention the Golden Gate Bridge, where they had to put in people catcher nets to keep people for exercising their free will by jumping of and going splat into the Bay.
I’m Jewish like you, and the Yom Kippur services I went to had death (or not being written into the Book of Life for the next year) as the penalty, which is much better than eternal damnation.
And what do you think about the Exodus story, where God made his existence and presence very clear. Remember what happened to Moses for hitting the rock.
I didn’t mean to imply it was a users’ manual - just that it should have been written with the clarity of even our worst users’ manuals. However, Orthodox Jews do treat it as a users’ manual, and have no big trouble doing so, with some interpretation to reflect changing technology. It’s enough that it gives instructions for a Temple not yet existing, it would be a bit much to expect it to explain how to deal with electric light switches.
I understand that non Fundamentalists interpret. A few years back I started a thread asking how people go about deciding which parts are rules, which parts are guidelines, which parts are true and which parts are myths. The only answers I got were from a deist, and I never argue with deists.
So how do you decide what is moral, besides using your personal view of morality, which is almost certainly better than the Biblical one.
Through our personal and communal lens. Generally I think we ask what comports with Jesus’ two commandments to love God and love your neighbor and read Scripture through that lens.
(FWIW, I came to believe in a lot of progressive views: same sex marriage, abolishment of the death penalty, universal health care, dramatic expansion of the welfare state after my conversion through reading of Scripture - the church I became a Christian was conservative and didn’t really believe in any of that and neither did I before I was a Christian. I’m in a far more progressive church now)
Ah, so I said no such thing.
FWIW there are atheists who respect that religion is important to others with positive impacts on their lives, and atheists who are antagonist to belief, actively proselytizing against it. Not much different than religious individuals who respect atheists and their ability to be happy and ethical with no god concept versus those who feel atheism is an affront and who proselytize.
Some atheists are anti religion but I think not most.
My own god concept is closer to atheism than it is to a Biblical god but I certainly understand how religion has value for many despite my own non-belief in a Biblical god.
How many atheists do you think fall into this category?
I think there is a selection bias. Most that speak up I think do view God as a concept to be that tyrannical entity, used by believers to impose their beliefs onto others. The majority live and let live atheists don’t generally feel the need to advertise their lack of god belief and are more willing to accept that religion can be a positive force, even while acknowledging that religion, like any tool, can also be used to very harmful ends.
I don’t think most atheists are anti religious.
No polling to offer though.
Because that is the point - religions rationalize their member’s life styles. Whether it’s the divine right of Kings or ‘do not covet thy neighbors ass’, it’s all rationalization of current life style.
Of course what a local society/culture wants, and what lifestyles its members live at any particular time are heavily influenced by the religiously influenced values of its populus. Sometimes to theocratic degrees and sometimes less directly, just by the impact of having grown up in a culture that espouses those values and that highlights the stories that teach those values.
One never exclusively follows the other in lockstep, especially in pluralistic societies, which also have to come to agreement on core key values that can be shared across religious platforms and that allow for co-existence.