Just for fun, I would like to see what kind of god atheists would see fit to worship or accept.

No being that wants to be worshiped, let alone demands to be worshiped, should be worshiped. A loving, caring, helpful god would be worthy of thanks. So would a creator. But worship? Why would a powerful being want human worship?

One who proves it's existence.

One that claims to be all knowing/all loving and actually lives up to its claims.

One that would actually slap its followers when they're being arseholes and actually say "NO!"

would there be a law?

Wouldn't need ten commandments.

Don't be a dick, don't hurt other people, don't treat others as you wouldn't want to be treated yourself.

Well, I went to the trouble to answer this in the thread where you originally asked it, so I'll just copy my answer, here:

(October 8, 2015 at 8:34 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: It's not really about what kind of god would be acceptable to me. Though I suppose if I had to think about the question a bit, I'd at least include "not genocidal, not giving 'divine revelations' that are in opposition to clearly-observable and -testable science, and does not feel the need to threaten humans into obedience". Maybe one that revealed Himself in a way that's a little less like UFOs picking up drunken rednecks out in the desert near Nevada, and, say maybe visited the population centers of Babylon, Athens, China, Rome, or Alexandria, instead of one of the most backward peoples on the planet, and then hoping we all extrapolate His existence from the sparse, secondhand accounts of questionable reliability based on testimony of a few guys who came from there telling a story of a dude in the desert.

What is not  acceptable to me is a god-concept that is so obviously manmade, full of all of the prejudices and superstitions and barbaric violence of a group of desert tribesmen, who apparently didn't know that by showing up in the Mideast he'd be ignoring the entirety of China and SE Asia, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, et cetera.

What is not  acceptable to me is a "free gift" that is on unnecessary pain of torture for disobedience, like a psychopathic pharaoh, when all that needs to happen (if we assume the proposition that an Omnipotent God somehow cannot stand the sight of sin and thus cannot let sinners into heaven) is that I die. Just die. End. Finis. I have failed to listen to the Messiah and find The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and am unable to come unto the Father. Great. Only those who do so get to go to heaven. Why the torture? It's unnecessary for God, but totally necessary for a priest who is trying to force as many people to accept his authority as possible, and is willing to use immoral means of psychological manipulation to do so.

When I cannot tell your God from a psychopath, it is unacceptable to me, because I am a moral person.

So I suppose the short answer is: "For starters, not a homicidal, genocidal, misogynistic, eternal-torturing psychopath."

As to your newest question, above, I'd say "laws are for priests and kings, not gods". There can be a "path to enlightenment" or somesuch, if that's what this god wants, but the moment I see "rules", I see human primate instincts toward hierarchy and dominance coming out, using the "god concept" as a way of strengthening their claim to the alpha level of the tribe. Not really something a god would be petty enough to have to worry about.

My concept of god versus not-god pretty much rules out the concept of this Being behaving like an Alpha chimpanzee (or human equivalent).

(October 8, 2015 at 8:59 pm)Beccs Wrote: Wouldn't need ten commandments.

Don't be a dick, don't hurt other people, don't treat others as you wouldn't want to be treated yourself.

and if somebody was being a dick?

(October 8, 2015 at 9:02 pm)sinnerdaniel94 Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 8:59 pm)Beccs Wrote: Wouldn't need ten commandments.

Don't be a dick, don't hurt other people, don't treat others as you wouldn't want to be treated yourself.

and if somebody was being a dick?

Are human societies incapable of regulating the behavior of their own members through laws and "unwritten" rules/social mores?

Why would we need a god to deal with dicks?

I worship nothing. I would accept a god that could prove his, her or it's existence and asked nothing of me (i.e. a god of unconditional love).

"Ideal god"? What would we need that for? Why not come up with an "ideal" STD, an "ideal" global disaster, or an "ideal" totalitarian regime? The ideal versions of all those things would be the ones, that wouldn't exist anywhere, other than in fiction.

In other words - we already have an "ideal god", which is to say - we have no god at all. All we need is for thick people to realize and accept that...