I'm interested in hearing from all positions on the "Dawkins Scale" (from 1=entirely religious to 7=entirely atheistic), with particular attention to: What conclusions do you make, given this new evidence/revelation? Do you accept it, reject it, or await/pursue further information? What leads you to choose the course that you think you would take? Which of the two outcomes would you be most comfortable with?
On the Dawkins scale I'm about 6.5.
What I would be thinking about is what is the motivation for this message? It seems to me that with either A or B accepting what the message says as factual is jumping to a conclusion.
What does the author gain from such a round about way of making it's point.
Why not implant the information into every ones brain?
For the message to say that there is no gods would beg the question why bother to give out this information and why should we believe the author of the message has the knowledge required to say there are no gods.
On the other paw, if one particular religion is correct we still have the issue of not having any evidence that the author of the message has the knowledge required to say the religion in question is real.
To sum up I would be looking for evidence that the author of the message had the evidence to back up the assertion of either A or B: implanting a message in 200 peoples mind is a neat trick but does it provide evidence for the knowledge of which (if any religion is correct? I think not).
Basically I'd would want the author to 'prove it' and in terms of the author 'proving' there are no gods; good luck with proving a negative.
My position would be one of extreme scepticism about the motives of the author and the ability of the author to evidence his assertions.
™ Version 4.2
