If the timing of this discussion has anything to do with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, aka, "the god Particle," I have it on good authority that they're going to stop calling it that - since they've proved its existence, any relationship is severed.
The real question is, do you believe you know the difference between belief and knowledge?
"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on."
-- Neil Degrasse Tyson --
I agree with Loren here, no big deal. As a skeptic I got used to accepting everything once there was enough evidence. If there eventually (miraculously?) was some provable evidence about the existence of some supernatural being I think I would treat it as I always did. I'd be stumped but I would probably accept it if there was nothing to disprove the evidence. And I realize that I would still not be a believer, I would accept it the same way I accepted everything till now. But seriously, there's probably more chance of the opposite.
Were the existence of god proven scientifically, most of us atheists would probably be able to accept the scientific proof.
Not too hard to believe in the existence of something real like the coffee cup I hold here.
What will be the most fun is watching the collapse of religions which, of course, rely on faith in god's existence.
Faith would be like a vestigial organ, something which would have to be discarded in order to face the reality of a real god.
I am of the notion that chaos would be the order of the day.
What an idea for a novel.
My primary question at that point is: "Who is this god, REALLY?" Discovering the nature of that being, what he/she/it was about and what (if anything) it desired would truly be an intriguing process. There's also the matter of which god (if any) it was, whether it was associated with christianity, islam, hinduism or, most amusingly of all, NONE OF THE ABOVE!
Can you imagine the conversation?
Me: "So you're not the god of the christians?"
Deity: "Are You KIDDING??? Have you actually READ that dreck? Partial differential equations are EASY to swallow, compared with that noise, and they actually WORK!"
Deity & Me: [collapsing from unbearable laughter!]
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
-- Chapman Cohen --
Yea, I was thinking that several religions who didn’t particularly like the ideology of this newly revealed “real god” would start planning his(?) assassination. He(?) would be politicized, plots would be hatched by world leaders to protect or destroy him(?) (“herm” perhaps ?)
I am sure that the historical twists and turns would be totally unforeseeable as world factions try to suck up to . . . .er . . . God. (Since God is now a real entity, I guess I’d have to capitalize the name (s)he chooses. Bill? Ed? Suzy? Perhaps “Joe the god”.
Oh wait, I guess that is what is happening now, except they’d no longer get to create a god they imagine to be susceptible to their sucking up.
Requests/supplications would pour into god’s e-mail, but, amazingly, the system wouldn’t crash.
I think the likelihood of substantiating the puerile concept of god that most Christians have (authoritarian, but loving parent), is nil. This concept is such a transparent human invention that it is laughable. Freud's "the Future of an Illusion" covers this in great detail.
Human children are ignorant and completely dependent on their parents. The ideal parent figure is strong, protective, and a knowledgeable source for ongoing guidance. The adult human experiences the same fears as he/she did in childhood and must invent a supernatural parent to provide the same emotional security.
Is Atheist's were believe in Science ?
Why does science have to prove god's existence. The concept of a "god" i.e. yahweh of the Old Testament and his supposed son jesus is disproved by there complete disregard for their most ardent followers.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?- Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]
It's a thought experiment -- it can't hurt you! No one is being asked to believe bullshit, just imagine what it might be like IF the bullshit were true. Yes, belief in absurdities is dangerous but merely contemplating them is not unless the contemplator is so insecure that they're afraid of their own mind. Jeez -- lighten up a little!
Dude relax, most people on here (and atheists in general) are a tad less than hard 7 atheists and that's not the point anyway. No one's trying to convert anyone to theism, least of all G (I've read plenty of his other blogs to know that). I agree with Anthony in that complete close mindedness is religion's game, not ours. Hell, even Richard Dawkins refers to himself as Agnostic on the question "is there a god." Your crazy standards would limit atheism to an extreme that would diminish us all.