How would finding out there is no God make you feel?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Surtur
This is obviously a question aimed only at people who believe in God. For arguments sake, let us say somehow..scientists prove God doesn't exist. As in, they have 100% concrete evidence. Don't ask how one could have 100% evidence God isn't real, that isn't the point.

The point is if you found out this..what would you do? Would it change the way you live your life at all? Would you experience some kind of emotional crisis at this news?

I know some people would just never in a million years accept any evidence that says God isn't real, but again for the sake of argument lets say whatever evidence they have convinces you it's legit.

Lord Lucien
I'd walk around with a smug "See I told you so" look on my face all day, and I would make so many friends who appreciate how right I always am.

Surtur
At least if this happened maybe places like churches wouldn't get tax exempt status anymore.

Which they shouldn't be getting anyways.

Lord Lucien
I think the issue of tax exemption would be a little far down on the list of reactions and considerations that people would make after this revelation. I'm thinking more along on the lines of fires, riots, murders, etc. All the fun stuff.

riv6672
Originally posted by Surtur
Don't ask how one could have 100% evidence God isn't real, that isn't the point.
Sure its the point.
Believers dont have evidence.
Atheists dont, either.
Both have faith in their beliefs.
Haha.

Emperordmb
Upset by the lack of deeper meaning in the universe.

Probably pissed off by shit like this that some atheists would probably do:
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'd walk around with a smug "See I told you so" look on my face all day,

I'm fine with religious and atheist people, it's when people are smug prideful dicks about what they believe or don't believe that rubs me the wrong way.

riv6672
I laugh at those people. Smugly. cool

Surtur
Originally posted by riv6672
Sure its the point.
Believers dont have evidence.
Atheists dont, either.
Both have faith in their beliefs.
Haha.

The point is more how people would handle the news. I'm sure some would just bury their heads in the sand, since some already do that in the modern age(people who believe dinosaurs chilled with humans and the earth's age numbers only in the thousands despite concrete evidence to the contrary).

riv6672
Dinosaurs have survived into our modern time.

Surtur
Originally posted by riv6672
Dinosaurs have survived into our modern time.

But that isn't what they mean when they say that.

Shakyamunison
"How would finding out there is no God make you feel?"

I would be astonished, but it would not change any of my beliefs.

riv6672
Originally posted by Surtur
But that isn't what they mean when they say that.
Nessie, baby.

Stigma
Originally posted by Surtur
This is obviously a question aimed only at people who believe in God. For arguments sake, let us say somehow..scientists prove God doesn't exist.
That's actually impossible.

Given that science has limits in the natural world, while God is not bound to one.

TBH I'd say that your question is flawed.

But sure why not extrapolate a bit:

Perhaps we could learn that there is no God after we die?

You could have said: then what about your life, would you be content to know this after you died and you cannot re-live what happened?

My answer is yes, I could die peacefully after following Christianity even if there is noone beyond.

Simple reason is that Christianity promotes objective morality, is the foundation of Western civilization and generally provides a very compassionate and fullfilling philosophy of life.

Stigma
Originally posted by riv6672
Dinosaurs have survived into our modern time.
You mean Hillary?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Stigma
You mean Hillary? http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23130897.jpg

Time-Immemorial
John Podesta said that aliens are Gods helpers.

NewGuy01
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'd walk around with a smug "See I told you so" look on my face all day, and I would make so many friends who appreciate how right I always am.

riv6672
Originally posted by Stigma
You mean Hillary?
Nothing so unimaginative, no.

John Murdoch
1 Corinthians 15:12-22 sums it up:
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Paul himself says the life of a Christian is in vain if Jesus did not rise from the dead, which is different from your initial question, Surtur, but does describe the vanity of Christianity apart from Jesus' resurrection.

I agree with Stigma as well on his first statement in this thread.

Flyattractor
I would find Lucy. Kick him in the nuts. Steal all his stuff and rape any of his beloved female family members. Then I would look at him and say "There aint no God, so Congrats buddy". Then I would walk away with a smug look on my face.

Newjak
Originally posted by Flyattractor
I would find Lucy. Kick him in the nuts. Steal all his stuff and rape any of his beloved female family members. Then I would look at him and say "There aint no God, so Congrats buddy". Then I would walk away with a smug look on my face. So if there were no God you would be a dick and rapist. Good to know what kind of person you are.

Flyattractor
Why shouldn't I be? Good and Evil are just matters of Opinion. Why should I place any value on what you think?

Newjak
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Why shouldn't I be? Good and Evil are just matters of Opinion. Why should I place any value on what you think?
So let me get this straight you're saying without a God there is no moral compass. Therefore if you think rape is good then you should be free to do whatever you want?

Which just boils down to basically you're saying without a God to rule over you you're a dick and rapist.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Newjak
So let me get this straight you're saying without a God there is no moral compass. Therefore if you think rape is good then you should be free to do whatever you want?

Which just boils down to basically you're saying without a God to rule over you you're a dick and rapist.

Why should I VALUE your OPINION of a Moral Compass?

I say its Law of Nature Only.

Might Makes Right.

You can shove your moral compass up your butt hole.

Society and its rules can go F_U_C_K it Self!

I am gonna do what I want.

Newjak
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Why should I VALUE your OPINION of a Moral Compass?

I say its Law of Nature Only.

Might Makes Right.

You can shove your moral compass up your butt hole.

Society and its rules can go F_U_C_K it Self!

I am gonna do what I want. I find it funny you talk about the Law of Nature when you most likely would die without societal protection.

Either once again thanks for confirming you want to be a dick and rapist.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Newjak
I find it funny you talk about the Law of Nature when you most likely would die without societal protection.

Either once again thanks for confirming you want to be a dick and rapist.

Never claimed I wasn't . I am Honest that way.


And I don't NEED society to SURVIVE, other than needing a weakness that I can prey upon.

No God so No Afterlife or Eternal Karma to worry about. So if I want to Burn your house down with you in it and then make sammiches with the meat. Why should I care if will upset your weekend plans?

Ohh will somebody make a mean comment about me on Facebook?

Ohh How Cruel Society can be!?

Newjak
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Never claimed I wasn't . I am Honest that way.


And I don't NEED society to SURVIVE, other than needing a weakness that I can prey upon.

No God so No Afterlife or Eternal Karma to worry about. So if I want to Burn your house down with you in it and then make sammiches with the meat. Why should I care if will upset your weekend plans?

Ohh will somebody make a mean comment about me on Facebook?

Ohh How Cruel Society can be!? It sounds like you assume there would be no laws... No police... No jail?

Is that what you're saying?

Emperordmb
Nah he's saying if there is no higher purpose or objective morality to the universe, it's nihilistic, in which case morality is empty and pointless.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Newjak
It sounds like you assume there would be no laws... No police... No jail?

Is that what you're saying?

A lot of those "Laws" are based on Religious Principles. So why should I put any value on them? Why should that give COPS any authority to stop me?


Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah he's saying if there is no higher purpose or objective morality to the universe, it's nihilistic, in which case morality is empty and pointless.

Seems to get it.

Emperordmb
Of course if you're abandoning morality for complete and total self-interest, that kind of behavior isn't exactly in your best self-interest since you'd probably get arrested or killed for your actions.

Newjak
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah he's saying if there is no higher purpose or objective morality to the universe, it's nihilistic, in which case morality is empty and pointless. I understand that is what he is trying to go for but it is such a childish argument to make. I just want him to think it out a little bit.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
A lot of those "Laws" are based on Religious Principles. So why should I put any value on them? Why should that give COPS any authority to stop me?




Seems to get it. By your own admission not all of them are based on Religious Principles. So how do those ones work if there is no God?

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand that is what he is trying to go for but it is such a childish argument to make. I just want him to think it out a little bit.
How exactly is that a childish argument? If everything is ultimately purposeless, why should he have a moral obligation to do anything?

Newjak
Originally posted by Emperordmb
How exactly is that a childish argument? If everything is ultimately purposeless, why should he have a moral obligation to do anything? Because it starts from the premise that all morals/laws must stem from a higher power.

It also assumes that any manner of purpose must stem from a higher power as well.

By using those assumptions he has tried to remove relevance on topic of morals. Essentially he is trying to make the argument without a God there can be no morals therefore there must be a God because we have morals. It's a childish way to argue. At least that is the argument he wants to make because he believes in a God.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Newjak
Because it starts from the premise that all morals/laws must stem from a higher power.

It also assumes that any manner of purpose must stem from a higher power as well.

By using those assumptions he has tried to remove relevance on topic of morals. Essentially he is trying to make the argument without a God there can be no morals therefore there must be a God because we have morals. It's a childish way to argue. At least that is the argument he wants to make because he believes in a God.
Laws are essentially a contract between people and get their weight from being respected and enforced. They can exist without morality.

If morality is purely subjective, then what logical argument is there that anyone should follow any specific judgement of morality and not base every one of their decisions on pure selfishness?

Newjak
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Laws are essentially a contract between people and get their weight from being respected and enforced. They can exist without morality.

If morality is purely subjective, then what logical argument is there that anyone should follow any specific judgement of morality and not base every one of their decisions on pure selfishness? You assume morality is purely subjective.

There are a number of different topics on this for instance we can talk about common laws that have found their way across the globe in many different and why they are common despite vast borders and differences in religions.

That doesn't change his childish argument on the matter. His argument is a perversion of what you're trying to talk about. If there is no God therefore rape must be okay because only God could decide it is immoral. It's a circular argument and you're not really defending his stance.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Newjak
You assume morality is purely subjective.
Then what constitutes objective morality Newjak?

Originally posted by Newjak
There are a number of different topics on this for instance we can talk about common laws that have found their way across the globe in many different and why they are common despite vast borders and differences in religions.
If you want to suggest law defines morality, then there are several examples that contradict that notion.

If you are suggesting the ubiquity of certain laws implies an objective moral truth, then it could also be argued that laws are basically a contract between every member of a community to provide protection, and people just happen to go with the laws that will protect them most. That doesn't imply an objective morality, just that people find certain ways of establishing law to protect themselves and the things they care about more effective than others.

Originally posted by Newjak
That doesn't change his childish argument on the matter. His argument is a perversion of what you're trying to talk about. If there is no God therefore rape must be okay because only God could decide it is immoral. It's a circular argument and you're not really defending his stance.
It's not that rape would be okay. He's arguing that if there is no higher power than the universe just arbitrarily exists and is thus devoid of any objective meaning, and if this nihilism is the case then there is no "okayness" or "not okayness" to something.

Newjak
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Then what constitutes objective morality Newjak?


If you want to suggest law defines morality, then there are several examples that contradict that notion.

If you are suggesting the ubiquity of certain laws implies an objective moral truth, then it could also be argued that laws are basically a contract between every member of a community to provide protection, and people just happen to go with the laws that will protect them most. That doesn't imply an objective morality, just that people find certain ways of establishing law to protect themselves and the things they care about more effective than others.


It's not that rape would be okay. He's arguing that if there is no higher power than the universe just arbitrarily exists and is thus devoid of any objective meaning, and if this nihilism is the case then there is no "okayness" or "not okayness" to something. But once again he assumes objective morality can only come from a higher power. In which case he is essentially arguing people can not be objective. Do you believe that?

Also I'm not suggesting that laws equate to pure morality but that doesn't mean we haven't seen humans develop collective morals similar to each other despite distance and religious backgrounds. Things like rape being bad, hurting children, outright murder.

And he is trying to argue that without God there can be no morals therefore rape would be okay. The implication he is trying to say is therefore there must be a God because rape is bad. It's a circular argument that tries to force an extreme view to solidify his own belief easily.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Flyattractor
I would find Lucy. Kick him in the nuts. Steal all his stuff and rape any of his beloved female family members. Then I would look at him and say "There aint no God, so Congrats buddy". Then I would walk away with a smug look on my face. Better page the dermatologist, cuz I'm under your skin.

Originally posted by Newjak
So let me get this straight you're saying without a God there is no moral compass. Therefore if you think rape is good then you should be free to do whatever you want?

Which just boils down to basically you're saying without a God to rule over you you're a dick and rapist. He's a sociopathic demagogue-admirer. He barely needs an excuse to lower himself to the level of the scum of humanity.


Originally posted by Newjak
But once again he assumes objective morality can only come from a higher power. In which case he is essentially arguing people can not be objective. Do you believe that? People can not objectively point to a literal, physical source of morality and claim it absolute and universal. They can call it objective, they can imagine in their minds that a source exists, and they can formulate their laws around that, but they can't objectively--empirically--identify morality or moral facts. A god or gods are usually needed to provide a buffer, and even then, their role in that morality will change based on the opinions and beliefs of every single individual (if they believe in that deity in the first place).

Originally posted by Newjak
Also I'm not suggesting that laws equate to pure morality but that doesn't mean we haven't seen humans develop collective morals similar to each other despite distance and religious backgrounds. Things like rape being bad, hurting children, outright murder. That's usually because these things collectively hurt us. We establish our morality around maximizing what we feel and believe to be beneficial to ourselves and our creations. And even then, sometimes we need to kill or rape or hurt children (usually by raping or murdering them). Plenty of cultures, societies, and governments in the past (and present) have modified their laws to fit what they (or the current ruler) feels to be beneficial. And they'll usually concoct a moral or religious (often both) reason to justify it.



Nihilism is the way to go. It's simpler. Less messy. Makes more sense.

Newjak
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Better page the dermatologist, cuz I'm under your skin.

He's a sociopathic demagogue-admirer. He barely needs an excuse to lower himself to the level of the scum of humanity.


People can not objectively point to a literal, physical source of morality and claim it absolute and universal. They can call it objective, they can imagine in their minds that a source exists, and they can formulate their laws around that, but they can't objectively--empirically--identify morality or moral facts. A god or gods are usually needed to provide a buffer, and even then, their role in that morality will change based on the opinions and beliefs of every single individual (if they believe in that deity in the first place).

That's usually because these things collectively hurt us. We establish our morality around maximizing what we feel and believe to be beneficial to ourselves and our creations. And even then, sometimes we need to kill or rape or hurt children (usually by raping or murdering them). Plenty of cultures, societies, and governments in the past (and present) have modified their laws to fit what they (or the current ruler) feels to be beneficial. And they'll usually concoct a moral or religious (often both) reason to justify it.



Nihilism is the way to go. It's simpler. Less messy. Makes more sense. Absolute and objective do not equate to each other. There does not have to be absolute moral authority for someone to be objective on a moral level for the given situation and society.

Lord Lucien
I don't mean to say that they equate. But if we're to use the word objective:

Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality.
Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices.
Based on observed facts.


Then we can't point to morality as something that can be objectively studied, measured, or observed in any way. It's an abstract concept created by humans, for humans. Just like the concept of 'law.' Or the 'Force.' It's not a real thing in the universe. It's something that gets created and interpreted by every single individual. His morality is different from that guy's. And that's guy's from that one over there.

It's a belief in the idea that there is a truth in regards to "correct" behaviour or thought. And countless people and ideologies have tried to suss out that truth and codify it (via laws and religious dogma, typically). Morality isn't objective. It's make believe. It will assume whatever truth it needs to. It's completely subjective because it's completely fictional.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Newjak
But once again he assumes objective morality can only come from a higher power. In which case he is essentially arguing people can not be objective. Do you believe that?
If there is an objective morality, then it is written into reality just as scientific law is and is thus based on a higher power. This higher power could be the Holy Trinity, the Jewish God, Allah, some other God, or hell even chance could constitute a higher power if you believe the universe exists "just because", though chance by its very definition is arbitrary and follows a "what happens happens" type deal so if the higher power behind the universe is chance then it doesn't give enough of a **** for there to be an objective morality.

So either there is a sentient consciousness behind our reality and therefore an objective morality defined by the creator of our reality, or we exist arbitrarily because of the higher power of chance in which case our existences are arbitrary and there is no objective morality.

Originally posted by Newjak
I'm not suggesting that laws equate to pure morality but that doesn't mean we haven't seen humans develop collective morals similar to each other despite distance and religious backgrounds. Things like rape being bad, hurting children, outright murder.
Are you familiar with John Locke's Second Treatise of Government?

Basically, law and government exist to provide security for the people consenting to law and government, so basically it's based upon "we'll protect each other and not hurt each other so we don't get ****ed" which can just as easily be motivated by selfish self-preservation as by an objective morality, and commonness in law can also be attributed to what works best for the people creating the laws.

It's like a business contract, there may be various similarities in business contracts and deals, but that's not necessarily because of an implicit morality in business, its because two people agreed on a mutually beneficial outcome.

Originally posted by Newjak
And he is trying to argue that without God there can be no morals therefore rape would be okay. The implication he is trying to say is therefore there must be a God because rape is bad. It's a circular argument that tries to force an extreme view to solidify his own belief easily.
I'm pretty sure that's not his argument. I'm pretty sure all he's saying is "If God doesn't exist there is no objective morality," not "I can point to an objective morality so therefore God exists," the two are not the same thing.

If he at some point made a statement or implication that morality exists so therefore God does, then feel free to prove me wrong, but he could very likely have a different reason for believing in God and the argument that "if God doesn't exist morality is an illusion" could be completely independent of that reason, so unless there's something actually pointing to that it seems a bit unfair of you to assume he's making that argument.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Better page the dermatologist, cuz I'm under your skin.


Man. That aint a trip to the Derma....that a RUN to the Free Clinic....STAT!!!!!!

nfactor1995
I'd mostly be just extremely confused. Without getting too deep into the whole discussion, I'd be absolutely mind-blown on how there is so much order and complexity in the universe without some sort of intelligent designer. Like, the odds of it all happening by chance and everything being random are so astronomically and hilariously low it's almost inconceivable, and as such, I would be in a profound and prolonged state of complete and utter confusion.

John Murdoch
Originally posted by nfactor1995
I'd mostly be just extremely confused. Without getting too deep into the whole discussion, I'd be absolutely mind-blown on how there is so much order and complexity in the universe without some sort of intelligent designer. Like, the odds of it all happening by chance and everything being random are so astronomically and hilariously low it's almost inconceivable, and as such, I would be in a profound and prolonged state of complete and utter confusion.

thumb up

My thing is that we see life comes from life: the law of Biogenesis. We don't observe abiogenesis. The universe had a start point (see the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics), and a supernatural Creator/Lifegiver that can act outside the laws of matter, space, and time (like the two above-mentioned) lines up with the evidence that is readily observable.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by John Murdoch
thumb up

My thing is that we see life comes from life: the law of Biogenesis. We don't observe abiogenesis. The universe had a start point (see the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics), and a supernatural Creator/Lifegiver that can act outside the laws of matter, space, and time (like the two above-mentioned) lines up with the evidence that is readily observable.

Outside of the universe? If there is an outside of the universe, then when and how did it begin?

I think you need to look at the Laws of Thermodynamics. I think you have been reading Christian propaganda, again.

John Murdoch
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Outside of the universe? If there is an outside of the universe, then when and how did it begin?

I think you need to look at the Laws of Thermodynamics. I think you have been reading Christian propaganda, again.

It is either true or not, not propaganda.

John Murdoch
The universe had a start, yet energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed (1st Law of Thermodynamics). The universe is a closed system, and entropy always increases in a closed system over time (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Thus something (or Someone, in this case, God) supernatural had to start the universe.

Shakyamunison

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by John Murdoch
The universe had a start, yet energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed (1st Law of Thermodynamics). The universe is a closed system, and entropy always increases in a closed system over time (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). Thus something (or Someone, in this case, God) supernatural had to start the universe.

Then how can I build a house or anything. Also, there is no proof that the universe had a start.

John Murdoch
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then how can I build a house or anything. Also, there is no proof that the universe had a start.

That actually supports the case for there being a Creator:

- You start with a plot of land.
- You have the materials to build the house.
- But, there has to be someone act upon those materials to build the house. The house cannot build itself.

For a house to exist, there has to be a builder.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by John Murdoch
That actually supports the case for there being a Creator:

- You start with a plot of land.
- You have the materials to build the house.
- But, there has to be someone act upon those materials to build the house. The house cannot build itself.

For a house to exist, there has to be a builder.

laughing

Then how does a crystal form? Same thing. The entropy on Earth is lower then other parts of the universe. But you said...

You don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics! All you are doing is spreading propaganda.

John Murdoch
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
laughing

Then how does a crystal form? Same thing. The entropy on Earth is lower then other parts of the universe. But you said...

You don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics! All you are doing is spreading propaganda.

I'm talking about the origins of the universe, not the continual processes of life and nature. You asked how you could build a house, I replied with a house needs a builder, materials cannot come from nothing nor put themselves together. Parallel that to creation of the universe from a Creator. God is the house builder.

I think we got mixed up there: the laws of thermodynamics argument and God being beyond them and things like the Watchmaker analogy is for the origins of the universe, not processes that occur naturally.

How does crystallization disprove God creating the universe/the Watchmaker analogy?

EDIT: I mean the above as an honest question, not trying to win the argument. I'll admit I don't know anything about crystallization, but the elements for it to take place are there in nature. I'm talking about where the elements came from in the first place, thus creation by God.

John Murdoch
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
laughing

Then how does a crystal form? Same thing. The entropy on Earth is lower then other parts of the universe. But you said...

You don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics! All you are doing is spreading propaganda.

http://mbbc.us/resource/skeptics.pdf

Dr. Patrick R. Briney is the author of this pamphlet, man. It's one of my sources, no need to hide that. The primary one that led me down looking more into scientific laws and discoveries going hand-in-hand with The Bible. Take a look through it and tell me what you think.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by John Murdoch
http://mbbc.us/resource/skeptics.pdf

Dr. Patrick R. Briney is the author of this pamphlet, man. It's one of my sources, no need to hide that. The primary one that led me down looking more into scientific laws and discoveries going hand-in-hand with The Bible. Take a look through it and tell me what you think.

Published in the United States of America in 1999 Mission Boulevard Baptist Church

This is propaganda, nothing more.

Maybe you should take a science class is school.

John Murdoch
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Published in the United States of America in 1999 Mission Boulevard Baptist Church

This is propaganda, nothing more.

Maybe you should take a science class is school.

Just because it is published by a Baptist church does not mean it is propaganda. Did you read through it?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by John Murdoch
Just because it is published by a Baptist church does not mean it is propaganda. Did you read through it?

I disagree.

I will not read your propaganda, because I've read it before.

Anyway, lets get back on topic.

"How would finding out there is no God make you feel?"

John Murdoch
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree.

I will not read your propaganda, because I've read it before.

Anyway, lets get back on topic.

"How would finding out there is no God make you feel?"

I'll finish the thread within a thread by stating that anyone can have bias. For example, Dr. Richard "Dick" Lewontin, Harvard University geneticist, biologist, and social commentator:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."

EDIT: Added bolding to the quote by Dr. Lewontin above. The rest of my original post continues below.

You are correct though, I'm not on topic. As I stated earlier, I'd be as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:16-22 - "most miserable" if Christ did not rise from the dead. The passage is in context talking about the resurrection of Christ from the dead, so I'd take the original question one step further and say that if Christianity turned out to be false, then my worldview would be that of 1 Corinthians 15:32 - "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die."

John Murdoch
Also, just want to say glad we can have a thread in the General Discussion Forum that has at the least points being made back-and-forth and doesn't get too far into name calling and such. Some of the more, shall we say, politically-geared threads go that route sometimes.

immaturerainbow
No different than I do now. What difference does it make? We die regardless.

Flyattractor
It pretty much just boils down to the old saying...

Congratulations. You Won Absolutely NOTHING!

Enjoy.

immaturerainbow
That's a great way of putting it honestly. But, I already think that when we die that's it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by immaturerainbow
That's a great way of putting it honestly. But, I already think that when we die that's it.

But the human race goes on. However, all things have a birth, a life, and a death.

immaturerainbow
Naturally, but that's existence and life itself. For whatever reason.

Lord Lucien
We know the reason. It's Jesus.

immaturerainbow
Implying that there is one.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by immaturerainbow
Naturally, but that's existence and life itself. For whatever reason.

Of course, but the reason is up to you.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
We know the reason. It's Jesus.

Have you recently become a Christian?

immaturerainbow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Of course, but the reason is up to you.
Well yes, we design our reason. It's not predestined.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by immaturerainbow
Well yes, we design our reason. It's not predestined.

It's surprising how many people don't realize that. big grin

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Have you recently become a Christian? I've always been a Chriztian. Jebus rules!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've always been a Chriztian. Jebus rules!
I'm surprised, if not a little suspicious.

Lord Lucien
I love everything to do with Jebus. I've never read the Bible though, only listened to other people preach. Jebus rulez.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I love everything to do with Jebus. I've never read the Bible though, only listened to other people preach. Jebus rulez.

You haven't read the Bible? Then you are a good Christian.

Flyattractor
You can't take Lucy serious when talking about Religon. His "religious savior" just lost her bid to become president of the U.S so he is understandably a little snotty right now.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Flyattractor
You can't take Lucy serious when talking about Religon. His "religious savior" just lost her bid to become president of the U.S so he is understandably a little snotty right now. I honestly didn't know that she even ran for president. It doesn't seem like her usual niche.

Jmanghan
Originally posted by Stigma
That's actually impossible.

Given that science has limits in the natural world, while God is not bound to one.

TBH I'd say that your question is flawed.

But sure why not extrapolate a bit:

Perhaps we could learn that there is no God after we die?

You could have said: then what about your life, would you be content to know this after you died and you cannot re-live what happened?

My answer is yes, I could die peacefully after following Christianity even if there is noone beyond.

Simple reason is that Christianity promotes objective morality, is the foundation of Western civilization and generally provides a very compassionate and fullfilling philosophy of life.

Ok, so you are clearly wrong, as, in the bible, God is seen wiping out cities, killing babies and children, promoting slavery, and condoning rape.

Dude is a scumbag.

You can't ignore one part of the Bible and accept another, thats just ignorance.

Flyattractor
Watch that kind of language. This is a family forum.

You dirty perv.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Ok, so you are clearly wrong, as, in the bible, God is seen wiping out cities, killing babies and children, promoting slavery, and condoning rape.

Dude is a scumbag.

You can't ignore one part of the Bible and accept another, thats just ignorance.
I personally am a non-denominational Christian. I have a pretty strong faith in the Holy Trinity because it actually makes logical sense to me. That same faith however doesn't extend to any Church, or even the Bible, since both are human constructs subject to human imperfection.

Surtur
Okay so here is a bonus question: How would you feel if you found out God was real, but that he just didn't give a shit about humanity?

In other words, what if you found out God was just..indifferent.

UCanShootMyNova
Creeped out.

Surtur
I can make you feel even more creeped out: if God is real and is all knowing and all seeing and omnipotent and all that..he/shei/it is watching you. Watching you right now. He/she/it has been watching you every second of every day.

UCanShootMyNova
~Very~ creeped out.

Stigma
Originally posted by John Murdoch
I'll finish the thread within a thread by stating that anyone can have bias. For example, Dr. Richard "Dick" Lewontin, Harvard University geneticist, biologist, and social commentator:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen."

EDIT: Added bolding to the quote by Dr. Lewontin above. The rest of my original post continues below.

You are correct though, I'm not on topic. As I stated earlier, I'd be as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:16-22 - "most miserable" if Christ did not rise from the dead. The passage is in context talking about the resurrection of Christ from the dead, so I'd take the original question one step further and say that if Christianity turned out to be false, then my worldview would be that of 1 Corinthians 15:32 - "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die."
These are some fantastic quotes, thanks for providing them! thumb up

You make a great point. I'd just add that that materialism lures scientists, but it's not like it's their default state.

Some of the greatest scientists that ever lived like Copernicus or Newton, or modern, influencial ones like Francis Collins* (the head of the Human Genome Project) were/are devout Christians. Thus, religion and science can coexist in harmony, benefiting each other thumb up


* BTW I recommend Collins's book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Raisen
It would change none of my beliefs. That's probably the answer of most atheists if the converse was proven true. Let's be real.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.