Otto Tellick writes:
The statements on this page originate not from the person who is putting these words to paper, but from an entity that is using 200 people in this manner in order to make it clear and irrefutable that these statements were not invented by any human.
I think people are having a problem with your 200-person scenario being equated to being irrefutably not-invented by any human. It's just not very intuitive that such is the case.
That confusion is causing a lot of folks to pick on your 200-person scenario when that's probably not what you intended... I think? Unless you wanted to discuss that aspect of the scenario... in which case I think Larni has made an excellent response and I fully agree with him.
Anyway, I'm going to assume you meant "what if we find clear and irrefutable evidence that only points towards a specific creator." And I'm going to kind of ignore the whole 200-person part of it.
So, I'm an atheist (6 on the Dawkins scale? I don't really like scales...), but if I ever came accross clear and irrefutable evidence that only pointed towards a specific religion being more-or-less correct, then I would start investigating that religion so that I could understand how our world was. My hopes would be to understand which parts were more-correct, and which were less-correct. My goal would be an honest understanding of how our universe is.
What I'm generally trying to say is that I'm not an atheist because I'm against religious ideas.
I'm an atheist because I'm interested in the honest truth about our world, what we know and what we do not know. So far the truth doesn't point into any specific direction, which leaves me in a position of atheism. However, if that truth suddenly started pointing somewhere else, then that's where I'd go.
™ Version 4.2
