If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

It doesn't matter what kind of god you're talking about, there is no evidence such a thing exists. I will "accept" God if/when there is enough solid evidence for his existence.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No atheist belief system?

But surely you all jest. You mean there's no actual belief that eating babies grants one eternal life?

you guys are shitting me here, right?

[Cyberman]

That's supposed to be our greatest secret. Nice one. Now we gotta brutally murder every non-atheist member involved in this thread.

Again.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

That's supposed to be our greatest secret. Nice one. Now we gotta brutally murder every non-atheist member involved in this thread.

Again.

Oh not again!

It does make such a terrible mess. Can't we just eat them instead?

[Cyberman]

That's what I plan to do. As long as they're not all stringy this time.

[pocaracas]

If there was a loving God, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not.

I was going to reply, but with no interaction after 4 pages, I feel it's not conducent to anything....

Anyway, care to define these words so we can talk about the same things, seeing as they may be ambiguous:
- God
- Accept

Also, what would be a "loving God"?
Why do you call a God "him", as if it's a male human?


Would I accept a loving male human?... If we're talking about my father or children, yes, platonically speaking... Otherwise, no, I don't swing that way.

[Simon Moon]

Ladies and Gentleman,

I would like to propose the following question to those who are Atheist:

If there was a loving God, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not.

I realize that this may seem like an overly basic question. But I am trying to better understand the presuppositions (metaphysical dream) that is behind the Atheist belief system. For this to help me improve my understanding of the Atheist belief system, I need everyone to be truthful and forthcoming about the question.

For the vast majority of atheists, our atheism is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one.

The main reason we do not believe in the existence of gods is due to insufficient evidence, valid and sound logic, and reasoned argument to support the claim.

So, to answer your question, if the existence of a god was demonstrated to be true, or likely to be true, using the above mentioned criteria, I would be compelled to accept that it exists.

But if by 'accept him' you mean to worship said god, no.

If you mean any of the gods described in the various ancient superstitious texts (Bible, Koran, Vedas, Avasta, etc), then hell no. None of these gods are worthy of worship, or loving.

[The Valkyrie]

If there was any god and there was sufficient evidence for its existence I would believe.

That does not necessarily mean worship.

An all loving god? Depends just how far that loving goes.

[downbeatplumb]

Ladies and Gentleman,

I would like to propose the following question to those who are Atheist:

If there was a loving God, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not.

I realize that this may seem like an overly basic question. But I am trying to better understand the presuppositions (metaphysical dream) that is behind the Atheist belief system. For this to help me improve my understanding of the Atheist belief system, I need everyone to be truthful and forthcoming about the question.

I look forward to hearing everyone's comments.

Thanks,

Nathan

Here is a little question for you.

If it was proved that the hindus were correct would you accept that?

[Coffee Jesus]

I have a question along these lines. Say our knowledge of God was an innate type, would you accept it as credible, or would you only take his existence seriously if he proved his existence in some empirical fashion?

I think this is the question I asked myself when I left Islam. Do I need proof outside innate experience or is innate knowledge a possible proof of his existence? I chose the latter. Then I asked myself to whether I had this knowledge or not.

You have innate knowledge of your own mind, and you have empirical, logical knowledge of the world of the senses—the world of space, time, and causality. The only things we understand intuitively, like time and space, are the things our ancestors needed to understand to survive, but it turns out that our intuitive understanding of time and space is really an oversimplified best-fit model.

You might find this interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_problem