Why I am not an atheist (it's not what you think ;) )

[Cforcerunner]

First of all, thanks for the thought-provoking reply, Cforce. Let me try to answer a few of your points.
I reject my view as agnosticism. It's not that I don't know. I believe I have as much knowledge about the existence of god as any other human. Any attempt to quantify this knowledge or absence thereof is complicated by the total absence of a definition of god. How could anyone  possibly point a finger and say, "this is god" or "that is not god". If you have an operational definition, I'd love to hear it.

Apologizes for the abstract subject matter, but bare with me and by all means feel free to ask for any clarification.

Let's say, for purposes of this discussion (I will break down into 3 components for clarity's sake), we can define "theology" as being (1) the metaphysical assertion that the external world around us has been mechanically processed and fashioned harmoniously(commonly through traditional understandings / interpretations through narratives of divinity including, God, gods, or goddess) and (2) universally within human experience, with the inclusion of objective purposes and intent that are relative to the form of theology (3).

(1) These harmonious processes and fashions have been frequently embodied by the very materials humans have experienced in order to be understood in manner suited for human understanding. Think of a male pagan farmer in Ethiopia during a period where humanity is transitioning out of hunting and gathering and into agriculture. He believes the sun as a god, watching over his crops. Regardless of what he understands scientifically of what is actually happening to his crops, according to his theology and worldview, the objective of the sun is to give crops in which enables him to eat. The same can be said of the origin of the seasons in greek mythology. They illustrated a narrative using Zeus and his daughter in order to assert why laws of nature harmonizes and synchronizes the four seasons as they are.    

(2) Just as I experience the four seasons (winter, spring, summer, fall) in the United States, you do as well. Theology asserts the external world is of a certain order, intent, and true to certain kind of nature.

(3) This can be somewhat confusing, as though the terms of what is experienced are objective according to a religion, they are also relevant to that particular worldview. In other words, one worldview can sharply differentiate significantly from another form of theology (one often contradicts another quite sharply).  

I don't see that people who hate gays or women are going to stop hating gays and women because of the existence or non- existence of some entity. Suppose some mysterious being appears out of a puff of smoke and says, "I don't hate gays or women". What will that change? People who believe god hates gays and wants women to be subservient to men will just claim that this being is not god but, say, a devil.

This is true, the idealistic existence of some sort constant material "god" who sat down on a throne around the Mt. Olympus region who may or may not puff in and out of smoke would not necessarily "force" certain behaviors unto others. And yes, the alterations of theology is not very difficult. To say God hates all people with yellow hats could be theologically debated despite being logically incompatible with previous notions of God.

Ok, I'll stop. Things are getting way too metaphysical for these old materialist bones.

I'm curious of your own beliefs, it's easy to box one's belief under the box or tree of a certain philosophy, so your personal philosophy would be interesting to know.

Anyway thanks for your comments. They've been educational.
ciao,
Attila

Thank you, I love a good intellectual discussion  

[Attila]

Apologizes for the abstract subject matter, but bare with me and by all means feel free to ask for any clarification.

Let's say, for purposes of this discussion (I will break down into 3 components for clarity's sake), we can define "theology" as being (1) the metaphysical assertion that the external world around us has been mechanically processed and fashioned harmoniously(commonly through traditional understandings / interpretations through narratives of divinity including, God, gods, or goddess) and (2) universally within human experience, with the inclusion of objective purposes and intent that are relative to the form of theology (3).

Firstly, this is great fun. Thanks for carrying on. Now to business: you have a strange notion of theology.  Theoology without a qualifier (jewish, christian, ..., or any other -ology) typically involves the study of something rather than the content of what is being studied. For this reason we'll need to find a word to replace theology or else qualify it or the discussion becomes completely opaque. Please avoid value-laden notions like "harmonious". It is meaningless, at least to me. If it means something to you please define it precisely. Concretely, examples of things fashioned harmoniously versus things that are not fashioned harmoniously. Also: how can an assertion be metaphysical? That makes no sense to me. As I understand things, people assert things and people are typically physical rather than metaphysical, right? If you mean the content of the assertion is metaphysical then I simply reject it on rationalist grounds. Terms like "traditional understanding" are dodgy and poorly defined. By "narratives of divinity" you mean stuff like the koran, the bible, various "sacred texts", stuff like that?

I'm afraid that number (2) has no meaning for me at all. If something is universal within human experience and if you accept that I am human, then you claim that I must have experiences something, correct? Ok so far so good. What exactly (in everyday words please) am I supposed to have experienced? That is all I could squeeze out of (2) I'm afraid. I suppose you're using to interacting with people far more intelligent than I so indulge me please. I'll stop here and await your explanations since your "narrative" (is that correct?) has a structure and if I don't understand the first part the remainder will certainly be incomprehensible as well.

I'm curious of your own beliefs, it's easy to box one's belief under the box or tree of a certain philosophy, so your personal philosophy would be interesting to know.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the word "beliefs" but if you're asking about my personal moral/political philosophy, it's simple: the ultimate evil is authority. I am against all forms of it and would argue that the majority of the world's ills stem, directly or indirectly, from its imposition -- in short I'm an anarchist.

Ok, I've said enough. I eagerly await your clarifications.
Ciao,
Attila

[Cforcerunner]

Firstly, this is great fun. Thanks for carrying on.

Now to business: you have a strange notion of theology.  Theoology without a qualifier (jewish, christian, ..., or any other -ology) typically involves the study of something rather than the content of what is being studied. For this reason we'll need to find a word to replace theology or else qualify it or the discussion becomes completely opaque.

I'd have to disagree, this definition of theology is fine for the time being. Commonality can be found over a broad range of religion, religious notions, theology: including belief of the aboutness of natural order, human condition, afterlife, eschatology, ect. Any religion should be considered compatible with this discussion.

Please avoid value-laden notions like "harmonious". It is meaningless, at least to me. If it means something to you please define it precisely. Concretely, examples of things fashioned harmoniously versus things that are not fashioned harmoniously.

"Harmonious" or the concept of harmony is essential for this definition. Think back to my example with the Ethiopian farmer. He is interpreting the sun god as offering him crops. The same sun we know from studying nature has taken some sort of anthropomorphic form embodied in a divine entity in order to bring about intention and purpose for something that is otherwise inanimate.

Another way of thinking about this is how science and religion differentiate fundamentally. Think "why" vs. "how". You can scientifically deduce the causality of how the sun is providing sunlight and synthesizing the crop's chemical compounds. However, why the the sun and the chemical compounds are coordinating in such a fashion which enables the crops to being formed; is not a scientific relative question. Hence, this primitive farmer asserts a metaphysical explanation in order to rationalize what the natural order of events have created in favor of him.

Also: how can an assertion be metaphysical? That makes no sense to me. As I understand things, people assert things and people are typically physical rather than metaphysical, right? If you mean the content of the assertion is metaphysical then I simply reject it on rationalist grounds.

For practicality's sake we can term metaphysics as simply anything "beyond the physical". As far as what people assert, I'd say the majority of used language are actually abstract semantics. Although many assertions, premises, statements of fact, are grounded in the physical. Most are organized and arranged within the abstract. These are usually where the many branches of philosophy hit. Think of common dialogue such as:

"you should do this, stop doing that"
"It's done this way, not that way"
"I don't like you"
"I feel terrible about this"
"I am in love"
"This is beautiful"
"kowabunga!"

Most everyday language is not about pure physicality. In fact, conceptions such as "meaning", "culture", "truth", "justice", and human understanding and rationality itself are not a physical phenomena (despite these concepts being "founded", originated or arguable contingent within the physical).

Think of economic currency, or a personalized journal, from the perspective of a blue jay perched on a tree branch or a timber wolf passing down an empty roadside.... These objects would just "be". The most basic concepts of "trading" and "expressing ideas and impulsion" are not physical.

You wouldn't be rejecting these premises on rationalistic grounds, but those of the (now) widely panned fundamental logical positivism. Apparently there are still some good defenders for this school of thought, and if you consider yourself a very pure and fervent materialist, I'd be curious to hear your rebuttal.

Terms like "traditional understanding" are dodgy and poorly defined.

I don't consider this a "dodgy" term, but I will clarify. Again, think back to the farmer and the natural order of things. Through his interpretation, nature's apparent tendencies of placing a sun which is providing the farmer living commodities such as food and warmth. Rather than rationalizing to himself that the sun "is what it is" or "this is just how things are", he is instead offers credit and gratitude to some sort of "divine being" in which these events are being contrived. Not only has this particular farmer inferred this, but in fact, the majority of mankind throughout their history. Generally speaking, all foundational human societies have interpreted or attested some sort divine explanation in regards to their inference of the natural world.    

By "narratives of divinity" you mean stuff like the koran, the bible, various "sacred texts", stuff like that?

Yes, the major religions have revelations which are primarily written. But several others have been told through other means such as oral tradition and hieroglyphics.

But what my definition for what "narratives of divinity" are, can be as broad as any objectivity in which external world is destined for. Whether it is intended to please a particular god/goddess, or that the earth should be completely deforested and eradicated of all trees. As long as the nature insinuates any sort of element of aboutness. To render some sort of "story" for the external world to play out would be suitable when considering how human beings cognitively infer events which demand what we would otherwise recognize as being a member within a "plot". Although these narratives traditionally and commonly include some sort of attribution toward a god, goddess or God, it is not a prerequisite.

I'm afraid that number (2) has no meaning for me at all. If something is universal within human experience and if you accept that I am human, then you claim that I must have experiences something, correct? Ok so far so good. What exactly (in everyday words please) am I supposed to have experienced? That is all I could squeeze out of (2) I'm afraid.

Sorry for the confusion. I'll to try clarify both (2) and (3) with a simple example: I and a friend from Washington D.C. are hypothetically journeying to South Dakota and witnessing Mount Rushmore side by side. We would both be experiencing Mount Rushmore and equate the same exact experience, more or less. Now, compare this experience with someone else, lets say, a 12th century knight from Germany. The meaning and significance for us being a modern American would differ sharply than the knight, because culture has inherently endowed meaning upon that mountain's sculpture.

The same could be said theologically speaking. Lets say the same sun god of our Ethiopian farmer has somehow created wildfire for a nomadic group of natives living off the same land. Perhaps they embody some sort of god of a more vengeful manner. Regardless, it is still the same physical sun we are talking about, but their purposes and attributes are being inferred metaphysically in sharply different terms.

I suppose you're using to interacting with people far more intelligent than I so indulge me please. I'll stop here and await your explanations since your "narrative" (is that correct?) has a structure and if I don't understand the first part the remainder will certainly be incomprehensible as well.

Haha, that is very kind of you to say. But I am afraid I am very much just an everyday person and am no expert in the realm of philosophy/religion. Although I do enjoy philosophical talks and discussion and any sort of critical thinking as an enjoyable hobby.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the word "beliefs" but if you're asking about my personal moral/political philosophy, it's simple: the ultimate evil is authority. I am against all forms of it and would argue that the majority of the world's ills stem, directly or indirectly, from its imposition -- in short I'm an anarchist.

Interesting, perhaps we can better discuss them in another thread of discussion.

[Attila]

Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what you're on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

[Cforcerunner]

Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what your on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

Very well, I'll do my best to commentate on the discussion point in short layman's terms.

Now to business: you have a strange notion of theology.  Theoology without a qualifier (jewish, christian, ..., or any other -ology) typically involves the study of something rather than the content of what is being studied. For this reason we'll need to find a word to replace theology or else qualify it or the discussion becomes completely opaque.

I'd have to disagree, this definition of theology is fine for the time being. Commonality can be found over a broad range of religion, religious notions, theology: including belief of the aboutness of natural order, human condition, afterlife, eschatology, ect. Any religion should be considered compatible with this discussion.

Here you are suggesting that in order to discuss religion we must talk specifically in the context of one particular religion at a time (i.e. Christianity theology only can only be related in it of itself). I disagreed with you and argued there are many (enough) things in common with all (or at least most) religions that all could be discussed.

Please avoid value-laden notions like "harmonious". It is meaningless, at least to me. If it means something to you please define it precisely. Concretely, examples of things fashioned harmoniously versus things that are not fashioned harmoniously.

"Harmonious" or the concept of harmony is essential for this definition. Think back to my example with the Ethiopian farmer. He is interpreting the sun god as offering him crops. The same sun we know from studying nature has taken some sort of anthropomorphic form embodied in a divine entity in order to bring about intention and purpose for something that is otherwise inanimate.

Another way of thinking about this is how science and religion differentiate fundamentally. Think "why" vs. "how". You can scientifically deduce the causality of how the sun is providing sunlight and synthesizing the crop's chemical compounds. However, why the the sun and the chemical compounds are coordinating in such a fashion which enables the crops to being formed; is not a scientific relative question. Hence, this primitive farmer asserts a metaphysical explanation in order to rationalize what the natural order of events have created in favor of him.

Previously, I was defining how nature being "harmonious" as a needed definition when discussing theology. However, you argued in favor of dismissing it outright.

I assumed you wanted to do this because it may be difficult to define what is or is not "harmonious" in nature. So I made up an example of farmer growing crops. I argued that theology implies the harmony of how the crops were being made through definable and visible coordination within different parts of nature in order to be produced. My point with the science/religion spill was that this coordination could be reducible for what is empirically causing the the plants to be made, but science can't say anything regarding the actual "harmonizing" (one act of nature working within another independently of the other in such a way that there so happens to be materialized result, really anything as far as we are concerned, but in this case a crop).

This farmer is pondering for what reason nature is allowing him food to eat (remember, science can not attest any part of nature working toward an end result). He is gives credit to the sun (one of the leading causation resulting in his food being produced), in a metaphysical sense (to say the sun has somehow planned, plotted that his crop could be produced would not be a physically deducible implication or in other words, pure observation of the events taking for any purposes could only be implied intuitively)

This same example can be applied across the board to a number of religions. Wheather it is the God of Abraham conjuring the water of the seas, or a sun god bringing forth the light of the earth. All of these are explaining some sort of harmonious acts of nature resulting in some sort of phenomena occurring within the natural world. And this harmonizing is needed in defining theology as these deities are explaining reasoning behind the wonders of what is occurring within the natural world we are in.   

Also: how can an assertion be metaphysical? That makes no sense to me. As I understand things, people assert things and people are typically physical rather than metaphysical, right? If you mean the content of the assertion is metaphysical then I simply reject it on rationalist grounds.

For practicality's sake we can term metaphysics as simply anything "beyond the physical". As far as what people assert, I'd say the majority of used language are actually abstract semantics. Although many assertions, premises, statements of fact, are grounded in the physical. Most are organized and arranged within the abstract. These are usually where the many branches of philosophy hit. Think of common dialogue such as:

"you should do this, stop doing that"
"It's done this way, not that way"
"I don't like you"
"I feel terrible about this"
"I am in love"
"This is beautiful"
"kowabunga!"

Most everyday language is not about pure physicality. In fact, conceptions such as "meaning", "culture", "truth", "justice", and human understanding and rationality itself are not a physical phenomena (despite these concepts being "founded", originated or arguable contingent within the physical).

Think of economic currency, or a personalized journal, from the perspective of a blue jay perched on a tree branch or a timber wolf passing down an empty roadside.... These objects would just "be". The most basic concepts of "trading" and "expressing ideas and impulsion" are not physical.

You wouldn't be rejecting these premises on rationalistic grounds, but those of the (now) widely panned fundamental logical positivism. Apparently there are still some good defenders for this school of thought, and if you consider yourself a very pure and fervent materialist, I'd be curious to hear your rebuttal.

Here you seem to be implying that you hail towards logical positivism (if it ain't  physical it is nonsense), the fundamental premise of this philosophy has been more of less been shown to be inherently fallacious and dated. But that being said, there are some who have modernized their arguments and perhaps you can still vouch for some sort of variation on this particular philosophy.

But what my definition for what "narratives of divinity" are, can be as broad as any objectivity in which external world is destined for. Whether it is intended to please a particular god/goddess, or that the earth should be completely deforested and eradicated of all trees. As long as the nature insinuates any sort of element of aboutness. To render some sort of "story" for the external world to play out would be suitable when considering how human beings cognitively infer events which demand what we would otherwise recognize as being a member within a "plot". Although these narratives traditionally and commonly include some sort of attribution toward a god, goddess or God, it is not a prerequisite.

In other words, whenever you apply nonphysical attributes from human cognition (anything being "planned", "coming about without incident") you inherently gather these "divine stories, plays, events" which are used in illustrating the orchestration of the natural world.   

The same could be said theologically speaking. Lets say the same sun god of our Ethiopian farmer has somehow created wildfire for a nomadic group of natives living off the same land. Perhaps they embody some sort of god of a more vengeful manner. Regardless, it is still the same physical sun we are talking about, but their purposes and attributes are being inferred metaphysically in sharply different terms.

Depending on the religion, these metaphysical implications or religious interpretation of what is occurring through nature can vary from religion to religion.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

It probably wouldn't change your behavior that much, but I remind you that you are a product of the Christian West, which has a 2000 year history with the teachings of Jesus.  If you had been born in a Muslim country like Afghanistan, you might now be telling your sons to go into suicide bombing for a profession and killing your daughters because someone from another tribe saw them without their burqas.
Think of the discovery of communication with God like the discovery of a birth father for an adopted son. It would probably change the son's concept of who he was and answer a lot of questions, but he would still be essentially who he was. 

[Tank]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

It probably wouldn't change your behavior that much, but I remind you that you are a product of the Christian West, which has a 2000 year history with the teachings of Jesus.  If you had been born in a Muslim country like Afghanistan, you might now be telling your sons to go into suicide bombing for a profession and killing your daughters because someone from another tribe saw them without their burqas.
Think of the discovery of communication with God like the discovery of a birth father for an adopted son. It would probably change the son's concept of who he was and answer a lot of questions, but he would still be essentially who he was. 

I don't think god exists. I was making the point that saying one would not alter one's behaviour in light of new information is a little irrational. My comment had nothing to do with institutionalised superstition. Yes I am very fortunate to have not been born into a culture where institutionalised superstitions can force their lies on people, in particular children.

[Attila]

Personally I think the discovery and hopefully some sort of meaningful communication with God would be the greatest discovery humanity could ever make and it would make a huge difference to me and many others. I hope I wouldn't change my behaviour but to say one would not change one's behaviour, irrespective of what new knowledge they gained, is a unreasonable, but only a little.

It probably wouldn't change your behavior that much, but I remind you that you are a product of the Christian West, which has a 2000 year history with the teachings of Jesus.  If you had been born in a Muslim country like Afghanistan, you might now be telling your sons to go into suicide bombing for a profession and killing your daughters because someone from another tribe saw them without their burqas.
Think of the discovery of communication with God like the discovery of a birth father for an adopted son. It would probably change the son's concept of who he was and answer a lot of questions, but he would still be essentially who he was. 

I don't think god exists.

Nor do I. 

I was making the point that saying one would not alter one's behaviour in light of new information is a little irrational. My comment had nothing to do with institutionalised superstition. Yes I am very fortunate to have not been born into a culture where institutionalised superstitions can force their lies on people, in particular children.

But doesn't that depend on the nature of that information? Would the new information that the number of molecules in the universe is not a prime number (or the contrary) change your behaviour in any shape, way or form? Is so, how? And doesn't the (non-)existence of god fall into that category?
ciao,
Attila

[Tank]

I was making the point that saying one would not alter one's behaviour in light of new information is a little irrational. My comment had nothing to do with institutionalised superstition. Yes I am very fortunate to have not been born into a culture where institutionalised superstitions can force their lies on people, in particular children.

But doesn't that depend on the nature of that information? Would the new information that the number of molecules in the universe is not a prime number (or the contrary) change your behaviour in any shape, way or form? Is so, how? And doesn't the (non-)existence of god fall into that category?
ciao,
Attila

As you point out, it's the nature of the information that is at the root of one's reaction to the new information. I couldn't give a rat's arse about the latest soap opera story line on TV. However if one could disprove beyond doubt that god did or did not exist that piece of information would impinge on you, if not directly then indirectly through the behaviour of others in their reaction to it. I would expect that such a revelation would have a huge impact on society and you are part of society and therefore not entirely immune to what goes on around you. The fact that you have signed up to this forum and take part in theistic discussions puts the lie to the fact that you claim not to care about the existence, or not, of god. Your actions speak louder than your words. If you truly didn't care about the existence of God I contend that you wouldn't have joined this forum  

Regards your prime number example. That's an example based on an abstract irrelevance. The existence, or not, of God is not an abstract irrelevance. In my opinion it's built-in to our very psyche as human beings.

[Attila]

As you point out, it's the nature of the information that is at the root of one's reaction to the new information. I couldn't give a rat's arse about the latest soap opera story line on TV. However if one could disprove beyond doubt that god did or did not exist that piece of information would impinge on you, if not directly then indirectly through the behaviour of others in their reaction to it. I would expect that such a revelation would have a huge impact on society and you are part of society and therefore not entirely immune to what goes on around you. The fact that you have signed up to this forum and take part in theistic discussions puts the lie to the fact that you claim not to care about the existence, or not, of god.
Regards your prime number example. That's an example based on an abstract irrelevance. The existence, or not, of God is not an abstract irrelevance. In my opinion it's built-in to our very psyche as human beings.

Thanks Tank. I like your answer. The problem is that "god" is not a well-defined object. So it's quite possible that discovery of god has zero impact on humanity. Wouldn't a more likely outcome be that the part of humanity gives a toss about a possible deity (1) denies that it's god and rejects the one we come up with out of hand and we're back to the current  state. As a practical matter I have no idea  how you would identify a god in the unlikely  event that one  exists. Do you?

Your actions speak louder than your words. If you truly didn't care about the existence of God I contend that you wouldn't have joined this forum 

People keep claiming that and I keep denying that. I have a sneaky suspicion that you're just winding me up, right? Just a quick sentence: atheism has nothing to do with god but rather about values and practices in a godless world and how to deal with the delusional. Surely that's reason enough to be here, yes? And to meet people like your good self ...  I world without god makes sense but a world without Tank? No way, José!
ciao,
Attila

[Attila]

Hi Cforce,
I think we are failing to communicate. I have no idea what your on about and your manner of expressing yourself is not one that I'm capable of dealing with. If you want to continue this discussion I'd suggest simplifying things dramatically and dealing with one point at a time. What you write comes across as gibberish which I'm sure is not at all your intention.
ciao,
Attila

Very well, I'll do my best to commentate on the discussion point in short layman's terms.

Hi Cforce,
We seem to live in very different time as well as philosophical zones. Thus, we will have gaps in our conversation. At this point let me acknowledge your superior education, experience and wisdom. I don't think anyone reading our respective contributions to this forum would have the slightest doubt about it. All this notwithstanding let me suggest that your response could be considered as patronising. Communicating in simple comprehensible language has always been quite enough for individuals we would both agree are worth reading, from Bertrand Russell to Richard Feynman to Noam Chomsky.

If I object to a term in a given context and attempt to present reasons why I object, being responded to by the phrase "this definition ... is fine for the time being" could be interpreted as authoritarian. Now I am sure that these are unintended outcomes but I would request, if there are to be further exchanges between us, that you be sensitive to the impact of your phrasing.

Early on your refer me to your example of "a male pagan farmer in Ethiopia during a period where humanity is transitioning out of hunting and gathering and into agriculture." In your subsequent responses you refer repeatedly to this "example" on the assumption that it has some content. You seem to know what he thinks and that this knowledge can have an impact of the points that are in question. I again confess my own ignorance. I have no idea what a pagan farmer in Ethiopia thinks. If you could indulge me by referring to some works where this is discussed, I'd be most grateful. In addition, I wonder about your use of the term "pagan". What is its semantic content in the time frame referred to? Were there non-pagans then? If not why make the effort of adding the word "pagan"? Is that a critical part of your example? Would it not be possible and easier to use more accessible examples, say, from our own time where I have some hope of understanding what you are talking about.

I am well aware that I may be "cramping your style" with these requests and I have no wish to impose my style of discourse on you. Terminating this discussion may be a more suitable response from you and one that I'll happily accede to.
ciao,
Attila

[Recusant]

Attila, I like your style, man!

[Tank]

As you point out, it's the nature of the information that is at the root of one's reaction to the new information. I couldn't give a rat's arse about the latest soap opera story line on TV. However if one could disprove beyond doubt that god did or did not exist that piece of information would impinge on you, if not directly then indirectly through the behaviour of others in their reaction to it. I would expect that such a revelation would have a huge impact on society and you are part of society and therefore not entirely immune to what goes on around you. The fact that you have signed up to this forum and take part in theistic discussions puts the lie to the fact that you claim not to care about the existence, or not, of god.
Regards your prime number example. That's an example based on an abstract irrelevance. The existence, or not, of God is not an abstract irrelevance. In my opinion it's built-in to our very psyche as human beings.

Thanks Tank. I like your answer. The problem is that "god" is not a well-defined object. So it's quite possible that discovery of god has zero impact on humanity. Wouldn't a more likely outcome be that the part of humanity gives a toss about a possible deity (1) denies that it's god and rejects the one we come up with out of hand and we're back to the current  state. As a practical matter I have no idea  how you would identify a god in the unlikely  event that one  exists. Do you?

The discovery of God would have to include a detailed and verifiable definition of what God is. Thus the problem of 'god' not being well-defined would go away. Almost all humans have an opinion about the existence, or otherwise, of God. The discovery of God would impact on the world view of all these people. Now suppose God turned out to be Allah, the Muslims would feel vindicated. Now suppose God turned out to be like nothing ever described, all theists would get their knickers in a twist and all the atheists would be looking to start the new 'correct' church, whatever that may be.

The thing is that if one view of God were proved correct some people would simply go around with their fingers in their ears going 'La la la, don't want to know!' But I very much doubt you would be one of those people. I contend that as a curious and intelligent person you would at the very least not be able to resist studying the evidence and making your own mind up about whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of God. So I don't think you could possibly 'not care' about the existence, or not, of God. Now as to whether you believed the evidence represented proof would be down to your existing world view and the nature of the evidence. But your analysis of the evidence would impact on your world view, it would either reinforce it or destroy/weaken it, would it not? So unless you became a hermit before the 'revelation' and thus never heard it, I would contend that you could not help but be influenced by the information and debate about it.

If God existed and chose to want you to believe, you would believe, how God chose to make you believe is up to God.

Your actions speak louder than your words. If you truly didn't care about the existence of God I contend that you wouldn't have joined this forum 

People keep claiming that and I keep denying that. I have a sneaky suspicion that you're just winding me up, right? Just a quick sentence: atheism has nothing to do with god but rather about values and practices in a godless world and how to deal with the delusional. Surely that's reason enough to be here, yes? And to meet people like your good self ...  I world without god makes sense but a world without Tank? No way, José!
ciao,
Attila

I wasn't trying to wind you up 

Unless you're playing the deist/theist card atheism has everything to do with the existence, or not, of God. In my opinion atheism isn't a cause but a result. It is the result of a naturalistic rational world view. If one holds a naturalistic world view the result is an atheist or possibly agnostic world view. And again I note that nearly all your posts are in the religion area or are on religious subjects, thus religion must be important to you and as all religions are founded on theistic/deistic faith then the existence of God must be a relevent sub-set of your interests; thus proof, or otherwise, of the existence of God would impinge on you. 

[Tank]

Attila, I like your style, man!

Not too dissimilar to your own.

[Recusant]

Thank you for the compliment, Tank.