NationStates Jolt Archive

When I see arguments over religion, they tend to be arguments over whether a god exists or not.
Is that truly what matters to you? Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs?
Or do you have another reason to not follow this god?

I'll answer my own question a bit later.

Excuse me if this thread has already been done or anything...

EDIT:
I'm going to try again with a less redundant question:
Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs about whether that god should be followed?

Evidence that a god exists would certainly change my belief about the possible existence of god. Especially if you are talking concrete or absolute proof.

Whether my other beliefs would change (i.e., would I worship, follow dogma, etc) would depend on what "god" was proven to exist.

I suspect that many of my fundamental beliefs would be unaltered.

If you believed god existed and just thought he was a dick, you wouldn't really be an atheist, would you?

Every thread you could possibly make about Atheism has already been done, that shouldn't stop you from coming in with a newish direction.

Personally, even if a god was shown to exist I would still remain an Atheist, just as fundies have ignored proof that a literal Genesis is wrong. I simply couldn't comprehend a world with deities, especially a God, and I would probably end up frantically trying to rationalize it away. If it knew what was good for it it would probably be rationalizing itself away, but that's another argument.

I personally would accept that God existed if there was concrete, physical proof of such that had been verified by independent sources.

You do know that Atheism is basically the idea that God doesn't exist. If he did exist the whole theology would be flat our wrong and would kinda not be valid any more. I'm sure some people would maintain it but those are the kind of people that you really wouldn't wanna hang around anyways.

Evidence that a god exists would certainly change my belief about the possible existence of god. Especially if you are talking concrete or absolute proof.
Argh, I botched the original post and didn't realize it.

What I meant to do was use a sneaky question to determine whether people's belief in a deity is equivalent to their following that deity. I seem to have forgotten the whole "sneaky question" bit, and most of the point of the thread, and ended up asking a silly question instead.

Ah well, people seem to be discussing along similar lines still though.

Meh, I consider thoughts along the lines of, "Well, what if I were to demonstrate proof of God?" to be rather pointless- there isn't any, and any real proof would have to be so extraordinarily extravegant that no human could pull it off. Short of a great black blob blotting out a nearby supernova, I really don't think that it's a question that will ever be put to the test.

For the sake of argument, let's say that there did turn out that there was one almighty creator. I probably wouldn't follow it entirely due to its obvious stupidity in the creation of the human body (there's another thread dedicated to that). Further, I'd try listening to what it actually had to say, rather than what a book written piecemeal over a millenium or true claims he has to say.

Basically, I'd shift from atheism to agnosticism- still wouldn't follow religion, but I'd be forced to admit that there's some sort of uber-being.

Especially if you are talking concrete or absolute proof.


Concrete or absolute? Consider this: science is faith.

-Even gravity is a theory, and not a law. We conduct so many tests in order to see if there is a pattern of things falling to the ground when dropped, and every time the experiment yields the same result. So, at some point, after some measure of experiments, we step over a line into the realm of 'supported faith' and accept gravity as a law.
-'Law' or 'fact' is synonymous with 'supported hypothesis' or 'supported theory', but requires a leap of faith, regardless how small, to become a law. Thus, laws are theories.
-All it takes is for one object to fall up to disprove gravity.

There's plenty of proof that God exists. Atheists exist because they refuse the proof in an effort to justify their corrupt actions. This is the truth.

Romans 1
18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

John 1
20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Is that truly what matters to you?Nope.Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs?Well obviously. I'd believe in God if it was proven to exist.. Or do you have another reason to not follow this god?That's another question entirely. Yes I have plenty of reasons not to follow some God.Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs about whether that god should be followed?If the proof was consistent with any of the God myths I know of, then no. I'd be likely to give the guy a black eye though.

The Biblical God is, in my perception, an evil ****. Nothing could ever make me willingly follow such an abomination. I hope that helps.

There's plenty of proof that God exists. Atheists exist because they refuse the proof in an effort to justify their corrupt actions. This is the truth.

Romans 1
18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


So...your proof is...
1. Bad things happen to atheists.

Guess who's overrepresented in prison? Not atheists. Bad stuff happens to many people.

2. God shows atheists stuff.

Hasn't happened to me yet.

3. You can guess at invisible stuff by visible stuff.

Which happens to be what science has been doing for the past thousand years. They still haven't found God.

Concrete or absolute? Consider this: science is faith.

-Even gravity is a theory, and not a law. We conduct so many tests in order to see if there is a pattern of things falling to the ground when dropped, and every time the experiment yields the same result. So, at some point, after some measure of experiments, we step over a line into the realm of 'supported faith' and accept gravity as a law.
-'Law' or 'fact' is synonymous with 'supported hypothesis' or 'supported theory', but requires a leap of faith, regardless how small, to become a law. Thus, laws are theories.
-All it takes is for one object to fall up to disprove gravity.
Science has nothing to do with faith. The products of science are always open to both interpretation & change. Science is the art of approximation.

A law is just a word a human slaps on something. The scientific community have stopped calling the fundamental theories 'laws' because they're too often revised, and calling something a law, then completely rewriting that law causes no end of confusion amongst lay-people.

Yeah, since my original post and its revision weren't very well planned out and ended up a bit nonsensical, I suppose I'll make the point I was trying to make and be done with it before I leave for the night.

The point I was going to make is that whether or not a particular god/dess exists doesn't seem like a good choice to be the primary factor for whether I would conceivably follow them. It makes more sense to me to discuss why this god is the one to follow, what makes it right for me to do so, etc., and to base my following and not-following off of that. Whether they exist or not seems to tell me only about their existence and not whether I'd follow them.

Anyway, g'night, I'm off.

There's plenty of proof that God exists. Atheists exist because they refuse the proof in an effort to justify their corrupt actions. This is the truth.I do hope for your sake, that God isn't real. Because with that attitude, you'll end up next to me in Hell, and I would really hate to spend eternity with you.

Romans 1
18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

John 1
20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.Dis 1
0½8: For the wrath of Quetzalquotl (sp?) is revealed from heaven against all false worthshippers & so on & so forth.

Just what kind of circular logic is that? Believe! Because if you believe, then you will believe this age old nonsense I spew!!

Guess again mate.

Proof that there is a God would not cause me to follow that God. I think it's ironic that an earlier poster claimed that people either disbelieve in the existence of a god or dont have a belief in the existence of a God because they wish to justify their corrupt actions.

So far as I am concerned simply following someone or something just because it happens to be both existent and powerful is itself corrupt and immoral.

As for people not believing in God and Jesus etc because that allows them to justify corruption....that's the silliest thing I have read today.

-All it takes is for one object to fall up to disprove gravity.

Actually, science demands that experiments or phnomena be repeatable. Therefore an object falling up just once would disprove nothing.

Proof that there is a God would not cause me to follow that God. I think it's ironic that an earlier poster claimed that people either disbelieve in the existence of a god or dont have a belief in the existence of a God because they wish to justify their corrupt actions.

So far as I am concerned simply following someone or something just because it happens to be both existent and powerful is itself corrupt and immoral.

As for people not believing in God and Jesus etc because that allows them to justify corruption....that's the silliest thing I have read today.
Couldn't agree more.

Argh, I botched the original post and didn't realize it.

What I meant to do was use a sneaky question to determine whether people's belief in a deity is equivalent to their following that deity. I seem to have forgotten the whole "sneaky question" bit, and most of the point of the thread, and ended up asking a silly question instead.

Ah well, people seem to be discussing along similar lines still though.

I would say that the two are indeed distinct questions, although as a necessary matter they tend to be one and the same.

Supposing, for instance, that it were proven that there was an infinitely powerful, but also uncaring or malevolent God, then I would dedicate my life to opposing him, and I would gladly endure whatever hell he has in store for me if it meant doing the right thing. To be honest, if God were like that, I'd imagine that hell would be a lot better place to be than heaven.

That being said, if you accept as true Kant's Moral Argument for the Existence of God, which I do, then the whole notion goes right out the window: the reason we know that God does in fact exist is precisely because there is an infinitely good moral law out there, and only an infinitely good and infinitely wise intellect could have created such a perfect moral law. As such, the notion that God's goodness is not inherent to him is simply absurd.

The whole basis of Christianity and religion is Faith. Not only would it be impossible to "prove" that God exists (he's a pretty stealthy guy by nature, plus if he really wanteded to he'd have shown up by now) but it would be contrary to the whole Christian "Without Faith I am nothing" doctrine. God and the Bible have made it abundantly clear that belief and faith are the stones in the path to heaven, and God's not gonna throw us a bone and show up on the 10 o'clock news any time soon. By definition "proof of God" is a contradiction of terms.

Can't say it'd change much for me. My moral framework is built on compassion and respect for my fellow man, so that's not gonna change just because a real honest to goodness God turns out to exist. My political views are based on what I think would be the best economic and social policies for society as a whole, so that's not gonna change if there's a God. And my hobbies and habits are based on what I a) find enjoyable and b) don't think is wrong, so none of that's gonna change either.

To turn it around though, what would christians do if it somehow turned out that they were all wrong? Would it change anything in your lives apart from whether you go to church? :D

I would say that the two are indeed distinct questions, although as a necessary matter they tend to be one and the same.

Supposing, for instance, that it were proven that there was an infinitely powerful, but also uncaring or malevolent God, then I would dedicate my life to opposing him, and I would gladly endure whatever hell he has in store for me if it meant doing the right thing. To be honest, if God were like that, I'd imagine that hell would be a lot better place to be than heaven.

That being said, if you accept as true Kant's Moral Argument for the Existence of God, which I do, then the whole notion goes right out the window: the reason we know that God does in fact exist is precisely because there is an infinitely good moral law out there, and only an infinitely good and infinitely wise intellect could have created such a perfect moral law. As such, the notion that God's goodness is not inherent to him is simply absurd.


If an infinitely good and wise intellect created an infinitely good and moral law, it would be incomprehensible to us mere mortals who are unable to concieve of infinity (we get the concept in abstract form, but not the literal reality of infinity.)

Also, our language is not perfect and rare is the person who reads the bible in it's original (also imperfect) language.

Finally, as people disagree as to the exact details of God's message, it can hardly be perfect.

Therefore I can't agree with Kant's cant on the subject. :D

That being said, if you accept as true Kant's Moral Argument for the Existence of God, which I do, then the whole notion goes right out the window: the reason we know that God does in fact exist is precisely because there is an infinitely good moral law out there, and only an infinitely good and infinitely wise intellect could have created such a perfect moral law. As such, the notion that God's goodness is not inherent to him is simply absurd.


But this argument quickly flies out the window when you realize that morality is constantly changing according to circumstances. Slavery for example has suprisingly become a taboo all of a sudden when it had been perfectly acceptable for thousands of years. Copying homework might be a mortal sin for the President of the school board but a simple fact of life for a struggling student. It's all just perception, not divine insight.

Can't say it'd change much for me. My moral framework is built on compassion and respect for my fellow man, so that's not gonna change just because a real honest to goodness God turns out to exist.

Secular humanists win in my book.

Actually, science demands that experiments or phnomena be repeatable. Therefore an object falling up just once would disprove nothing.


Way to douche on astronomy, astrophysics and geology dude. And a well documented case of something falling up would almost certainly cause some rethinking.

Way to douche on astronomy, astrophysics and geology dude. And a well documented case of something falling up would almost certainly cause some rethinking.

It might be an issue if the event was repeatable and observable, but if it only happened once that doesn't mean a thing. People on bad trips see things falling up all the time but that doesn't mean we're gonna start rewriting Physics books over it.

absolute proof of a god that i would recognize as a god (all powerful, all knowing, desirous of worship. NOT some long dead entity who started the universe then went on his merry way) would cause me to believe in god

i would try my best to find out exactly what that god wanted of me (supposing the deal was either "better life here with no disasters" or "eternal life in paradise") and i would obey it to the utterly best of my ability.

it would be kinda stupid not to wouldnt it?

it might be hard to adjust to the demand that i (for example) go on a murderous rampage against all nonbelievers but if hes GOD he's right by definintion eh?

it might be hard to adjust to the demand that i (for example) go on a murderous rampage against all nonbelievers but if hes GOD he's right by definintion eh?

This brings up something interesting.

If God appeared to you and only you (yep, lights and choirs of angels and all) and told you that to fufill his divine plan you had to do something blatantly against your current moral code (like a murderous rampage or whatever would persoanlly be the most morally repulsive to you) would you carry it out or dismiss it as a hallucination?

Actually, science demands that experiments or phnomena be repeatable. Therefore an object falling up just once would disprove nothing.

Incorrect. Science demands that phenomena be repeatable in order to establish laws, but not in order to prove them incorrect. It's simple logic: an established law claims that x always happens; a case is presented where x does not happen, but x^-1 happens instead. Therefore, the law, empirically, is disproven. The phenomena only has to be repeatable to establish a law, not to disprove one.

It might be an issue if the event was repeatable and observable, but if it only happened once that doesn't mean a thing. People on bad trips see things falling up all the time but that doesn't mean we're gonna start rewriting Physics books over it.

Hallucinations are not valid empirical observations, so your argument that we shouldn't accept a scientifically observed event because people may hallucinate the same event is about as acceptable as placing drug hallucinations as valid observations in Physics books.

But this argument quickly flies out the window when you realize that morality is constantly changing according to circumstances. Slavery for example has suprisingly become a taboo all of a sudden when it had been perfectly acceptable for thousands of years. Copying homework might be a mortal sin for the President of the school board but a simple fact of life for a struggling student. It's all just perception, not divine insight.

. . .You might want to read up on something called the naturalistic fallacy, my friend. Put simply, you are failing to distinguish between what is and what ought to be: it is unquestionable that people have tried to morally justify slavery in the past, but that says nothing about whether or not they were correct in their argumentation and justification.

So when you say that morality is all "just perception, not divine insight", what you really mean by morality is "the prevailing societal attitude about what is moral and immoral". This is completely different than what I mean when I say "the ideal moral law." In fact, it's not only not in the same ballpark, it's not even in the same sport.


If an infinitely good and wise intellect created an infinitely good and moral law, it would be incomprehensible to us mere mortals who are unable to concieve of infinity (we get the concept in abstract form, but not the literal reality of infinity.)

Also, our language is not perfect and rare is the person who reads the bible in it's original (also imperfect) language.

Finally, as people disagree as to the exact details of God's message, it can hardly be perfect.

Therefore I can't agree with Kant's cant on the subject.

*shrugs*

Fair enough I suppose, but I don't think that "Do Good and Avoid Evil" is really all that hard to comprehend, nor are secondary rules such as "Treat all rational beings as ends in themselves, and never as a means toward an end" or "Virtue is a habit of establishing right relationships with the world in accord with practical wisdom".

Moreover, I'd have to question how infinitely good an incomprehensible moral law really is, but that's a bit semantic.

i belive that there is a higher Being, and that "fate" is controlled by Him.

The thing is is that i don't follow any certain religion. All religios leaders now-a-days are either currupt or too extreme in there beliefs. I don't think thats considered athiesm. But thats a differant story.

. . .You might want to read up on something called the naturalistic fallacy, my friend. Put simply, you are failing to distinguish between what is and what ought to be: it is unquestionable that people have tried to morally justify slavery in the past, but that says nothing about whether or not they were correct in their argumentation and justification.

So when you say that morality is all "just perception, not divine insight", what you really mean by morality is "the prevailing societal attitude about what is moral and immoral". This is completely different than what I mean when I say "the ideal moral law." In fact, it's not only not in the same ballpark, it's not even in the same sport.

Coincidentally I'm just reading C.S. Lewis' argument against naturalism in his essay on "Miracles" (it's taking forever though becasue every time I pick it up for more than a few chapters his horrible logic starts to make me queasy).

Sure there might be a hidden rule book floating in the clouds of Good and Bad but that doesn't mean any human has the foggiest idea where to look to find it. The Bible doesn't even come close to a comprehensive source seeing as how it hasn't been updated in ages (not a word on gay mairrage or stem cell research) and seeing as how most of it's advice is anecdotal, it can be interpreted to support almost any side of any argument. The South sure was quoting the Bible left and right to keep Africans in chains. If God really meant us to follow this divine morality why would he keep it hidden and then punish us for not reading his mind. More importantly why would he make us so flawed that even if we had his rules right front of us we could never understand or follow it to the letter no matter how hard we tried.

When you boil it down, humans base their descisions and moral judgments on the information at hand, not some divine radio station. No wonder one person's morality changes over a lifetime, and that morality differs drastically based on the time and region in which you were born.

My point is, even if there is a divine moral law it has no bearing on our own descisions or morality becasue it can never be accessed by humanity. Otherwise how could you explain two priests praying to God or reading the bible with the same question and coming away with two completely different answers (thus the schisms). Even if it does exist it wouldn't really matter would it.

When I see arguments over religion, they tend to be arguments over whether a god exists or not.
Is that truly what matters to you? Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs?
Or do you have another reason to not follow this god?

Atheims is by definition the lack of belief that a god exists, not the "not following" of the god in question. So yes, obviously a proof that God exists would fundementally alter the atheist position.

EDIT:
I'm going to try again with a less redundant question:
Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs about whether that god should be followed?

As has been said by others, depends on which god. a lot of them are entirely undeservig of being worshipped quite frankly and if they were shown to exist would need to be opposed by any means possible as far as I'm concerned. Of course opposing a deity is a difficult thing to do, but fortunately there's no evidence any of them are actually out there to be opposed so no worries for me.

On another note, damn these threads are painful to read. It's amazing what kind of nonsense you have to wade through whenever this topic comes up.

Atheism is a theology? The constant silly claim that agnosticism is some kind of third option halfway point between theism and atheism. The ever so amusing "evidences" of God's existence which periodically crop up. There's an infinitely good Moral Law is there? and that's a fact that the person making this claim knows? Why doesn't this person who has it share it with the rest of us then... would that not be the perfectly moral thing to do? End worldwide strife in one fell blow, hooray! And for the sake of all that is scientific would people learn what "repeatable observations" means in a scientific context (I'm looking at you "douche on astronomy, astrophysics and geology" boy, they're all perfectly capable of acheiving reproducable results.)

Gah...

I would ignore him, anyway. He sounds like a tyrant to me. I will confront hell itself rather than let him break me.

A great quote on God:

"I'll say God seems to have a kind of laid-back management style I'm not crazy about. I'm pretty much anti-death. God looks by all accounts to be pro-death. I'm not seeing how we can get together on this issue, he and I."

When I see arguments over religion, they tend to be arguments over whether a god exists or not.
Is that truly what matters to you? Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs?
Or do you have another reason to not follow this god?

I'll answer my own question a bit later.

Excuse me if this thread has already been done or anything...

EDIT:
I'm going to try again with a less redundant question:
Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs about whether that god should be followed?

Proof of God's existance is all around us. We just have to read between the lines. My #1 "proof God exists" line is "Are we not here? Who put us here other than God?" There is a saying, "Blessed are those who believe and do not see." This saying justifies all I need to know about God. We see his miracles every day, and, though he acts confusingly at times, who are we to judge? We are only human.

I'd say belief without proof or ties to reality is something to be feared not admired (September the eleventh anyone?).

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit attrocities."

We see his miracles every day, and, though he acts confusingly at times, who are we to judge? We are only human.

We have every right to judge because /we're/ the guinea pigs here. Sure we see random good events happening all the time ("miralces") but there are plenty of really horrible things happening all the time that are obviously under an all powerful God's jurisdiction. I take offense that I can be sent to Hell and be punished eternally for murdering someone but Gods does it all the time in the form of Hurricanes and earthquakes and no one bats an eyelash.

A great quote on God:

"I'll say God seems to have a kind of laid-back management style I'm not crazy about. I'm pretty much anti-death. God looks by all accounts to be pro-death. I'm not seeing how we can get together on this issue, he and I."

No one is "pro-death" (besides corrupt individuals,) but be realistic. If there were no death, our Earth would become overpopulated so rapidly, we would all die anyways. Once someone dies, God creates more life. It's been one of nature's checks and balances since the beginning of time. Another point is that there is no possible way that every person on this Earth will agree with one another. If one group values life and is against death, there will always be an extremist, murderous group out there to counter-balance the other. Great idea, but no real relovance, just like Liberals.

If there were no death, our Earth would become overpopulated so rapidly, we would all die anyways.Liberals.

Buh??

You have to consider though, that the very fact that God made us corporeal beings that need resources to survive and then put us on a planet with limited resources (that we would have to fight over just to exist) calls his infinite mercy and wisdom into question. If he didn't want there to be greed, jealously, and murder why did he create need?

Coincidentally I'm just reading C.S. Lewis' argument against naturalism in his essay on "Miracles" (it's taking forever though becasue every time I pick it up for more than a few chapters his horrible logic starts to make me queasy).

He has a few good one-liners (for instance, the neat claim that there has never been a society that values cowardice in battle), but by and large, Lewis is a bad read if you are really looking for theological answers to those questions.

Aquinas has some flaws, but by and large his stuff is far and away the best and most comprehensive theology out there. Of course, it really helps if you have some background in Aristotle first.


Sure there might be a hidden rule book floating in the clouds of Good and Bad but that doesn't mean any human has the foggiest idea where to look to find it.

Sure we do: it derives primarily through our own natural faculties of theoretical and practical wisdom. One allows us to form demonstrative syllogisms about the information that the other concludes through repeated observation.

Take for instance the claim that gluttony is bad: how do we derive that? Well, partly it's is by coming up with a demonstrative syllogism that leads us to conclude that gluttony is bad, because gluttony causes all kinds of ill health effects that impair the natural and proper functioning of the human body. How do we know that gluttony causes ill health effects? Primarily because practical wisdom connects every instance of overeating and overdrinking with the consequent stomachaches, weight gain, etc, and advises us to take practical steps to avoid such vicious behaviors and cultivate virtuous ones instead.


The Bible doesn't even come close to a comprehensive source seeing as how it hasn't been updated in ages (not a word on gay mairrage or stem cell research) and seeing as how most of it's advice is anecdotal, it can be interpreted to support almost any side of any argument.

This is a very iffy way of putting it. If you are looking at it comprehensively, then yes, you are going to get a lot of goofy rules, like the rule that you should never hybridize your crops or you should never wear cotton/polyester t-shirts. I, however, would argue that there is a fundamental core to Biblical teaching, a core that Jesus himself identified in the Gospel of Luke: Love God with all your heart, and treat all people as your neighbor. There may be some correlaries, like aquiring wisdom (the Book of Proverbs) and faith (Psalms), but I don't necessarily see those as incompatible with the development of a strong theoretical and practical wisdom at all; in fact, I see the them as walking hand in hand.


The South sure was quoting the Bible left and right to keep Africans in chains.

Again, naturalistic fallacy

If God really meant us to follow this divine morality why would he keep it hidden and then punish us for not reading his mind.

I would hardly say that he keeps it hidden from you: I don't know about you, but my body always lets me know when I've been gluttonous, for instance. Generally speaking, if you are unhappy, you are doing something wrong.

More importantly why would he make us so flawed that even if we had his rules right front of us we could never understand or follow it to the letter no matter how hard we tried.

I would first argue that in the more narrow sense, we suffer not because God hates us and wants us too (this is one of the more detestable conclusions you come to by overindulging in Augustine and not enough Aquinas or Aristotle), but because we are ignorant of the larger good, or better put, we don't know what it is that will truly make us happy, and in our hazardous guesses, we sometimes cultivate habits of actions that hurt us instead of help us. But that being said, if you fail to develop your theoretical wisdom and ignore that which is good in pursuit of that which is bad, it isn't God's fault; it's yours. God already made you to know or learn that which is good, but if you have developed vicious habits, then it is more often then not (I will not say always, because clearly there are some instances where chronic lack of proper environment warps and twists our theoretical and practical wisdom), you are simply not paying attention.

In the larger sense, I would argue that God isn't all powerful. He isn't going to put things back together for you, because even though he may want to, the world is just not set up enough for him to do that (and to be honest, I'm willing to bet that as bad off as you can imagine, you are still fairly low on God's priority list even if he could intervene). All he can really do is give you the courage and hope to lean on when you are in trouble, a crutch that can help you get back on your own two feet for yourself. Far be it for me to suggest the Greater Good theodicy (I'm not using it as a defense of God), but that is a greater good than having an all-powerful God give you an empty, shallow, meaninglessly "happy" existence by always stepping in when you have problems.


When you boil it down, humans base their descisions and moral judgments on the information at hand, not some divine radio station. No wonder one person's morality changes over a lifetime, and that morality differs drastically based on the time and region in which you were born.

This is not incompatible with anything I just wrote. Of course we base our moral judgments on the evidence at hand, but we also filter it through rational faculties that God (one way or another) endowed us with, and in the contexts of God-given bodies that flourish only when given certain specific needs, needs which do not change over time and are not dependent upon region.

But despite any natural faculties we may have for problem solving or reason there are still issues that are all gray with no clear good or evil. People will show up with signs to protest with signs whether we try to kill people for their crimes or if we don't, and no one has the foggiest idea where God stands on the matter.

Some things have been programmed into us to see as good or bad to benefit our species but these could be explained as evolutionary byproducts more easily than divine ones. Why for example would God create someone whose brain chemistry leads leads them to finds certain actions perfectly acceptable when that the majority of us would find disgusting (chronic overeaters with no concept of gluttony is one tame exmaple). Genetic glitch sounds much more plausible than a malevolent God or a God asleep at the wheel.

Gah! I have much more disagreeing to do but now is the time for sleep. Night everyone.

But despite any natural faculties we may have for problem solving or reason there are still issues that are all gray with no clear good or evil. People will show up with signs to protest with signs whether we try to kill people for their crimes or if we don't, and no one has the foggiest idea where God stands on the matter.

Some things have been programmed into us to see as good or bad to benefit our species but these could be explained as evolutionary byproducts more easily than divine ones. Why for example would God create someone whose brain chemistry leads leads them to finds certain actions perfectly acceptable when that the majority of us would find disgusting (chronic overeaters with no concept of gluttony is one tame exmaple). Genetic glitch sounds much more plausible than a malevolent God or a God asleep at the wheel.

Some people who are defined as chronic overeaters are simply those who have bad habits of action: they have learned to associate overindulging in food with good feelings, in contravention of what their own body is telling them. I won't deny that there are some who by their nature have a problem which inhibits their natural faculties or development, just as I wouldn't deny that some oak saplings by nature fail in their purpose to develop into large, strong oak trees (a barkless oak tree, for instance). This is just something that sometimes happens with the way in which the system was set up: you get things that fail in their form and purpose.

As for the larger question of "why God would do something like that", I can only respond by saying what I've already said: God is not all-powerful, just all-good. If you want to interpret that as a genetic miscue: that's fine, but it's an incomplete understanding of what is going on. Namely, it explains how the material fails, but not how the form fails to be realized. If you have to ask what mileage I get out of the formal system that I don't out of the material system, I can only say that you need to read back over the post: I can explain why people do immoral things, and what the nature of immorality is, and your system can't.

This is the last one I promise:

The thing is that my system morality is defined by the majority (what actually happens) not some divine force no one's really ever talked to. When a person's individual moral assesment of his surroundings comes at odds with a majority of others (muder) they will be punished and labeled immoral to prevent this type of anti-group behaviour in the future. One of the sad results of this system is that a group will attribute their morality to a "divine source" to give their opinion credebility. They might even write a book about it and call it holy. It's not there fault, they don't know any better.

This is the last one I promise:

The thing is that my system morality is defined by the majority (what actually happens) not some divine force no one's really ever talked to. When a person's individual moral assesment of his surroundings comes at odds with a majority of others (muder) they will be punished and labeled immoral to prevent this type of anti-group behaviour in the future. One of the sad results of this system is that a group will attribute their morality to a "divine source" to give their opinion credebility. They might even write a book about it and call it holy. It's not there fault, they don't know any better.

. . .So you would support slavery if it were popular, and moreover say that it's moral if so? What a sad world you must live in.

Nope.Well obviously. I'd believe in God if it was proven to exist.. That's another question entirely. Yes I have plenty of reasons not to follow some God.If the proof was consistent with any of the God myths I know of, then no. I'd be likely to give the guy a black eye though.

The Biblical God is, in my perception, an evil ****. Nothing could ever make me willingly follow such an abomination. I hope that helps.

ROFL I LOVE YOU!

I consider religion to be just another form of social control just like any other. While I don't believe God exists, even if he did, I couldn't care less, I don't want that to be used as an excuse for oppression and control as much as I want any other reason for people to set themselves above others.

. . .So you would support slavery if it were popular, and moreover say that it's moral if so? What a sad world you must live in.


No need to get rude and personal, yeesh. But once again you've failed to grasp my point. You follow what you know to be your -own- moral truth, and no group or sect or bible can tell you you're wrong no matter how different your beliefs are. Sure they can lock you up or threaten you with hell if they find you too "immoral" for their taste but that doesn't make you wrong, just different. It's far from sad, it's deliciously liberating. Maybe Ive been right all along and cannibalism is on it's way back in, who knows? Not God and certainly not you.

P.S. If you do ever find that Big Book Of Good and Bad make sure to send it to me in a pdf. Thanks.

ROFL I LOVE YOU!Heh, thanks.. I think?

Please don't stretch what I said though. I have nothing against most religious people. Most being the keyword here. But the entire concept of obeying something just because it will clubber me if I don't, pisses me off quite thoroughly.

When I see arguments over religion, they tend to be arguments over whether a god exists or not.
Is that truly what matters to you? Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs?


Not really. I mean, I would acknowledge that it existed, but I wouldnt act any differently.

No need to get rude and personal, yeesh. But once again you've failed to grasp my point. You follow what you know to be your -own- moral truth, and no group or sect or bible can tell you you're wrong no matter how different your beliefs are. Sure they can lock you up or threaten you with hell if they find you too "immoral" for their taste but that doesn't make you wrong, just different. It's far from sad, it's deliciously liberating. Maybe Ive been right all along and cannibalism is on it's way back in, who knows? Not God and certainly not you.

Wasn't trying to personal, just pointing out unfortunate consequences of that worldview. Purely descriptive as opposed to prescriptive writing.

Moreover, I got your point quite clearly, but I can't help but note that in your system, you would have to support those goofy Biblethumpers if they became 50%+1 of the population. In my system, I can just as easily reject the teachings of those goofy Biblethumpers because my practical and theoretical wisdom tells me that what they are suggesting isn't healthy for human beings to do, and my rejection of those beliefs is based on how humans are, not how popular their views are.

And while there is no "big book of moral rules" (I believe that was a major point of what I was saying: you don't need a rulebook when you have your own body telling you "Don't do this, it's not healthy"), a good starter is a book called Posterior Analytica by Aristotle. Another, albeit somewhat less so (I do disagree with him at times) is the Summa Theologica by Aquinas.

No, you -don't- have to support them. If you don't think they're right (which you obviously don't) then they're not right. It's just horribly presumptuous and arrogant of you to say that God would agree, especially when they're saying God supports -their- cause too.

And while there is no "big book of moral rules" (I believe that was a major point of what I was saying: you don't need a rulebook when you have your own body telling you "Don't do this, it's not healthy"), a good starter is a book called Posterior Analytica by Aristotle. Another, albeit somewhat less so (I do disagree with him at times) is the Summa Theologica by Aquinas.

If everyone's just trusting their instinct (bodies) to decide moral issues then that's obviuously not divine because different people's gut feelings are different ("normal people" who become full after eating versus the rest of the population who doesn't). Since /feelings/ aren't constant across a population they clearly aren't divine information.

Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs about whether that god should be followed?

Of course. Similarly, if you could prove that Santa Claus existed, I would attempt to improve my niceness/naughtiness quotient as December approached.

I'd much sooner believe in Santa. For all those years I'd send letters to Santa and get just the gifts I asked for, but when I pray to god for roller skates I don't get crap. Go figure.

i would just like to say that i am Agnostic, well at least there are two types of Agnostic people. the ones who want to prove that god exists or not and then there is what i am...i think a god exists but i think Jews, Christians, Muslims and all them other religions are crazy God made us and watches us. but i do not think he gives a f*ck about anything we do. he exists and we exist no need for organised religion


sorry for my poor spelling

I'd much sooner believe in Santa. For all those years I'd send letters to Santa and get just the gifts I asked for, but when I pray to god for roller skates I don't get crap. Go figure.Aww! Well at least he didn't kill you for bugging him :p

If everyone's just trusting their instinct (bodies) to decide moral issues then that's obviuously not divine because different people's gut feelings are different ("normal people" who become full after eating versus the rest of the population who doesn't). Since /feelings/ aren't constant across a population they clearly aren't divine information.

1) It isn't instinct: it's the result of rational thinking. You have to learn that stomachaches and pains are connected with overeating. You have to learn that stomachaches and pains are symptomatic of unhealthy living. You have to learn that overeating is connected to unhealthy living. You have to learn how to eat just enough. At each step of the process, you have to organize raw perception into syllogisms through the help of the rational intellect.

2) Of course everyone will have different amounts for what qualifies as "just enough", but everyone still should strive to eat "just enough" and not "too much" or "too little". In that sense, there is very much a Golden mean that requires rational intellect to reach.

"atheists: how important is the exisence of God to your beliefs"

define atheism: the disbelief in a god

.................................................................................................... ...

*cough*

Sorry, but I have to sign off. In the interim, you might want to look at some Aristotle or Kant.

i would just like to say that i am Agnostic, well at least there are two types of Agnostic people. the ones who want to prove that god exists or not and then there is what i am...i think a god exists but i think Jews, Christians, Muslims and all them other religions are crazy God made us and watches us. but i do not think he gives a f*ck about anything we do. he exists and we exist no need for organised religion


sorry for my poor spelling

Well if you think a God exists but has no real stake in what's going on with humans then you're more of a Deist than an agnostic. Deists think that the universe is like a clock that God built, wound up, and let tick off all on it's own without any more intervention. Agnostics are pretty much defined by their disbelief or uncertainty about the existance of God.

"atheists: how important is the exisence of God to your beliefs"

define atheism: the disbelief in a god

.................................................................................................... ...

*cough*

I think the hidden suggestion here was that atheists care more about disbeleiving god, or something like that, that they care more about not being bound to a god or being against a god-like authority. It would be a good position to frame atheists into to then call their viewpoint misguided, disingenuous, etc.

Well if you think a God exists but has no real stake in what's going on with humans then you're more of a Deist than an agnostic. Deists think that the universe is like a clock that God built, wound up, and let tick off all on it's own without any more intervention. Agnostics are pretty much defined by their disbelief or uncertainty about the existance of God.
Close. Agnostics are defined by taking an agnostic approach to the question of whether there is a god or not, either on a subjective or an objective level.
Meaning they either don't know whether there is a god, or don't believe it's possible to give a definite answer to that question.

The majority of religious thinkers throughout Christianity have maintained that true faith springs from agnisticism (though that word wasn't invented until after most of those guys went to meet their maker). The infamous Occam's Razor was invented because of this.

Most atheists are agnostics. Most theists in my corner of the world, are agnostics as well. I have a feeling that isn't the case in America. but I can't be sure.

Concrete or absolute? Consider this: science is faith.

-Even gravity is a theory, and not a law. We conduct so many tests in order to see if there is a pattern of things falling to the ground when dropped, and every time the experiment yields the same result. So, at some point, after some measure of experiments, we step over a line into the realm of 'supported faith' and accept gravity as a law.
-'Law' or 'fact' is synonymous with 'supported hypothesis' or 'supported theory', but requires a leap of faith, regardless how small, to become a law. Thus, laws are theories.
-All it takes is for one object to fall up to disprove gravity.
For f*ck's sake, don't even try this slippery BS.
You should just gracefully admit you aren't serious about this, or just as gracefully concede that you don't understand the subject matter of your post well enough to be taken seriously.
FAITH:

(OED)
firm belief, esp. without logical proof

(Webster's)
unquestioning belief, esp. in God, religion, etc.

--
SCIENCE:

(OED)
branch of knowledge involving systemized observation and experimentation
systematic and formulated knowledge, esp. on a specified subject.
pursuit or principles of this.

(Webster's)
systemized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc.
a branch of knowledge, esp. one that [B]systemizes facts, principles, and methods

---------------
Now you want to try that science is faith crap again?

There's plenty of proof that God exists. Atheists exist because they refuse the proof in an effort to justify their corrupt actions. This is the truth.

Romans 1
18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

John 1
20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
This isn't proof, this is stuff you read someplace without (a) personal experience and (b) without any method of reproduction.
And your idea of atheism is a bit askew, probably in direct proportion to your bias in the opposite direction.

Science has nothing to do with faith. The products of science are always open to both interpretation & change. Science is the art of approximation.

A law is just a word a human slaps on something. The scientific community have stopped calling the fundamental theories 'laws' because they're too often revised, and calling something a law, then completely rewriting that law causes no end of confusion amongst lay-people.
Yes, good point.
And further, with the revision of law and constant updating due to refinement of existing knowledge with which we can compare and contrast more accurately, even the admission that there is revision in said field needs a lay-person's explanation to overcome the other lay-person's explanation, much to the detriment of original meaning and much to the use of people too biased or stupid to understand said principles in the first place. To wit, the once confused now become arrogantly ignorant.

Yes, this is a touchy subject with me, thanks!

Concrete or absolute? Consider this: science is faith.

-Even gravity is a theory, and not a law. We conduct so many tests in order to see if there is a pattern of things falling to the ground when dropped, and every time the experiment yields the same result. So, at some point, after some measure of experiments, we step over a line into the realm of 'supported faith' and accept gravity as a law.
-'Law' or 'fact' is synonymous with 'supported hypothesis' or 'supported theory', but requires a leap of faith, regardless how small, to become a law. Thus, laws are theories.
-All it takes is for one object to fall up to disprove gravity.

ALL it takes? Come the fuck on. The leap we make for beleiving in gravity and the leap we make for beleiving in god are two different stretches, and we only call it a "leap" to account for crazy things that we don't take seriously, such as living in a dream world or something. You know damn well that there is a huge difference between the leap of faith to gravity and that to an entire religious system.

To turn it around though, what would christians do if it somehow turned out that they were all wrong? Would it change anything in your lives apart from whether you go to church? :D
A very good point.
And a good nation name, too.
Welcome to NS, if i may be so bold. *bows*

ALL it takes? Come the fuck on. The leap we make for beleiving in gravity and the leap we make for beleiving in god are two different stretches, and we only call it a "leap" to account for crazy things that we don't take seriously, such as living in a dream world or something. You know damn well that there is a huge difference between the leap of faith to gravity and that to an entire religious system.Of course not!

I ask you: If you drop God on his head, does he not fall down? And does he not get a bump?


Couldn't resist.. Sowwies.

EDIT:
I'm going to try again with a less redundant question:
Would a proof that a god exists change your beliefs about whether that god should be followed?
It would make me a theist, since it would prove the existence of a God, but I'd still need some convincing for the worshipping bit.

There's plenty of proof that God exists. Atheists exist because they refuse the proof in an effort to justify their corrupt actions. This is the truth.

Romans 1
18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

John 1
20: For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21: But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.



Phttt! Using the bible as an example is lame.
It only applies to those who believe such a load of shite.


"There's plenty of proof that God exists. Atheists exist because they refuse the proof in an effort to justify their corrupt actions. This is the truth."

AHAHAHAHA, atheists are corrupt?
Get real, corruption is a lesson learned from the church/churches.
There is NO proof of a god or gods existance, just blind faith.

Why would god create volcanoes and such? Or was that satan?

HAHAHAHAHA, stupid christians :)

Way to douche on astronomy, astrophysics and geology dude. And a well documented case of something falling up would almost certainly cause some rethinking.
Alright, then, what do you think of the "WOW signal" of August 15, 1977 at 10.16 p.m., received by Big Ear at O.S.U.?
One minute long, and on a signal strength scale where most background noise reads 1-2, and anything >5 is a strong signal, this one read:
6EQUJ5.

If that weren't enough, another one of significance came through about two years ago but good luck finding the goodies on that one.

Why would god create volcanoes and such? Or was that satan?



Volcanoes are cool. Lay off them.

This brings up something interesting.

If God appeared to you and only you (yep, lights and choirs of angels and all) and told you that to fufill his divine plan you had to do something blatantly against your current moral code (like a murderous rampage or whatever would persoanlly be the most morally repulsive to you) would you carry it out or dismiss it as a hallucination?
You'd be Bill Paxton in, arguably, his best performance on screen.
(Frailty) ... good flick.

Moreover, I'd have to question how infinitely good an incomprehensible moral law really is, but that's a bit semantic.
Well, it would appear that semanticism is on relatively equal footing with pragmatism, more or less, on this thread .... as is kind of implied by the topicline.

Coincidentally I'm just reading C.S. Lewis' argument against naturalism in his essay on "Miracles" (it's taking forever though becasue every time I pick it up for more than a few chapters his horrible logic starts to make me queasy).

Sure there might be a hidden rule book floating in the clouds of Good and Bad but that doesn't mean any human has the foggiest idea where to look to find it. The Bible doesn't even come close to a comprehensive source seeing as how it hasn't been updated in ages (not a word on gay mairrage or stem cell research) and seeing as how most of it's advice is anecdotal, it can be interpreted to support almost any side of any argument. The South sure was quoting the Bible left and right to keep Africans in chains. If God really meant us to follow this divine morality why would he keep it hidden and then punish us for not reading his mind. More importantly why would he make us so flawed that even if we had his rules right front of us we could never understand or follow it to the letter no matter how hard we tried.

When you boil it down, humans base their descisions and moral judgments on the information at hand, not some divine radio station. No wonder one person's morality changes over a lifetime, and that morality differs drastically based on the time and region in which you were born.
ANOTHER good post.

Alright, then, what do you think of the "WOW signal" of August 15, 1977 at 10.16 p.m., received by Big Ear at O.S.U.?
One minute long, and on a signal strength scale where most background noise reads 1-2, and anything >5 is a strong signal, this one read:
6EQUJ5.

If that weren't enough, another one of significance came through about two years ago but good luck finding the goodies on that one.
Not to flaunt my ignorance or anything, but what is the wonderful importance of the random sounds?

Proof of God's existance is all around us. We just have to read between the lines. My #1 "proof God exists" line is "Are we not here? Who put us here other than God?" There is a saying, "Blessed are those who believe and do not see." This saying justifies all I need to know about God. We see his miracles every day, and, though he acts confusingly at times, who are we to judge? We are only human.
Ah, anthropic principle disciple.

Who are you to judge? You are the one with the "soul". YOU are the one to judge. One would think you would already be aware of that ... :rolleyes:

Moreover, ever had amnesia? Are you fully consciously engaged with everything you're doing and involved with at any point in time? I doubt it, even if you were on an acid trip.
Just because you don't understand how things work doesn't mean it's all due one source. Unless you would paraphrase "god" with "ignorance", on par with your discourse.

Not to flaunt my ignorance or anything, but what is the wonderful importance of the random sounds?
I should say the whole point is that an entire minute of intense, even exponentially powerful (given framework) signal strength pretty much by definition exceeds the parameters of "random" and inserts itself squarely into the "bizarre, unexpected and non-random anomaly".
Again, the random area you might be thinking of is within the 1-2 signal strength range.
The importance, if this is what you mean, to this thread is that there are indeed singular circumstances that although they cannot be repeated in a laboratorial sense, they nonetheless occur with people with expertise and understanding and can be verified and corroborated with others that they actually occurred/existed.
I'm not saying that helps the idea of scientific rigmarole so much, i am saying that this would obviously not change any "laws" or principles ... but it would definitely factor in to any further patterns of understanding, and under similar circumstances, WOULD change it. "It" being an understanding of extraterrestrial intelligence .... which as far as i see it, does factor into this thread's topicline somewhat.

1) It isn't instinct: it's the result of rational thinking. You have to learn that stomachaches and pains are connected with overeating. You have to learn that stomachaches and pains are symptomatic of unhealthy living. You have to learn that overeating is connected to unhealthy living. You have to learn how to eat just enough. At each step of the process, you have to organize raw perception into syllogisms through the help of the rational intellect.

2) Of course everyone will have different amounts for what qualifies as "just enough", but everyone still should strive to eat "just enough" and not "too much" or "too little". In that sense, there is very much a Golden mean that requires rational intellect to reach.

Currently, I'm writing my final paper on Aristotle for my Greek Philosophy class. You may be asking what I'm doing on the forums. All I can say is, Aristotle makes my head hurt. Please, no more relative means. Nicomachean Ethics, blech. I don't believe Aristotle was going for a universal golden mean; rather he was insinuating that a personal golden mean is required. Like his concept of substance, it cannot be universal nor particular. It is...something in the middle, like a golden mean that doesn't apply to everyone in the same way. Mean of means? But hey, maybe this is your take. It seems ripped from the pages of that book, though.

No one is "pro-death" (besides corrupt individuals,) but be realistic. If there were no death, our Earth would become overpopulated so rapidly, we would all die anyways.


Does anyone here sense what the problem is with this statement, as far as basic logic is concerned?
Ah ... i see ... the bottom line reference qualifies this peculiar lack of critical reasoning, by of course demonizing a supposedly oppositional political stance.
Great idea, but no real relovance, just like Liberals.
--
A further example of said lack of inherent critical reasoning follows ...


Once someone dies, God creates more life. It's been one of nature's checks and balances since the beginning of time.

To specify, i'm sure this individual would take umbrage to me making a comparison in, say, the fundamentalists' gross misinterpretation of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights ... a comparison where it says pretty specifically "Nature's God" (therefore qualifying not any specific Judeo-Christian deity) and the fundamentalists' current raving about what was actually meant as compared to what was actually stated. For further elucidation, i recommend reading the Treaty with Tripoli of 1796, Article 11, Signed by Pres. Adams and ratified by Congress.
Or even simpler, you don't hear "Father Nature" .... :rolleyes:

All in all, i think i have to only midly adjust the post to make it a little more sensible.
Great idea, but no real relovance, just like fundamentalist conservatives.

Volcanoes are cool. Lay off them.


I think so too, I was just using them as an example.

If God appeared to you and only you (yep, lights and choirs of angels and all) and told you that to fufill his divine plan you had to do something blatantly against your current moral code (like a murderous rampage or whatever would persoanlly be the most morally repulsive to you) would you carry it out or dismiss it as a hallucination?

I would require God to justify his commandment, for instance by explaining this divine plan that requires me to do such things. If he can convince me it is indeed "for the greater good" I would do it, if not I would tell Him where to stick his plan.

I would require God to justify his commandment, for instance by explaining this divine plan that requires me to do such things. If he can convince me it is indeed "for the greater good" I would do it, if not I would tell Him where to stick his plan.
Maybe even, you might fall into his good graces, and after spending some "quality" time with him, you could cast a deep sleep over him like he did to Adam in Genesis ... and then rip a rib out of him ... and then instead of him following your advice on where to stick his plan, you could cut to the chase.
Or even, deicide.
And .... then what?
:eek:

snip snip snip etc.

Man it's nice to see you in these debates on religion. Are you taking in any aprentices.

Man it's nice to see you in these debates on religion. Are you taking in any aprentices.
"....rise...." *gravelly voice of Palpatine* ;)

Thanks! Good to see you too! *bows*
I was a forum ghost for a few months due the server swap, and then one day, hope triumphed over experience. I'm not sure the forum or myself is any better for it.
I'm terrible at leading people, i'm better at making things worse and less focused, at the least, and slightly more-informed and sovereign at best.I find it better to toss reading material/viewing material at folks and hope they dig it too.
To wit ... 3-Fisted Tales of Bob is online IN ENTIRETY at the SubGenius site, and frankly, after reading that, it's good to take a little time to sniff flowers or something a little less grating. But it's worth it!

The crappy thing is most of my kick-ass stuff is on a drive i can't currently access .... and i'm using my new laptop instead of my desktop, which has all the organized sh*t on it (that i saved since my drive went TU).
How're you doing?

Evidence that a god exists would certainly change my belief about the possible existence of god. Especially if you are talking concrete or absolute proof.

Whether my other beliefs would change (i.e., would I worship, follow dogma, etc) would depend on what "god" was proven to exist.

I suspect that many of my fundamental beliefs would be unaltered.Pretty much that. If proven, then I could not deny the existence of the god, but I cannot think of any god that is worshipped in the world that I would choose to follow or worship myself, regardless of whether or not it actually existed.

"....rise...." *gravelly voice of Palpatine* ;)

Thanks! Good to see you too! *bows*
I was a forum ghost for a few months due the server swap, and then one day, hope triumphed over experience. I'm not sure the forum or myself is any better for it.
I'm terrible at leading people, i'm better at making things worse and less focused, at the least, and slightly more-informed and sovereign at best.I find it better to toss reading material/viewing material at folks and hope they dig it too.
To wit ... 3-Fisted Tales of Bob is online IN ENTIRETY at the SubGenius site, and frankly, after reading that, it's good to take a little time to sniff flowers or something a little less grating. But it's worth it!

The crappy thing is most of my kick-ass stuff is on a drive i can't currently access .... and i'm using my new laptop instead of my desktop, which has all the organized sh*t on it (that i saved since my drive went TU).
How're you doing?


I'm doing fine. I remember it was you who corrected me on the Jesus Christ, Davy Crocket thing. I might be rather blunt when speaking to those who still believe but thats becuase I was ones a believer and I think I've uncovered the magicians trap door.

I think the Christian agenda works thustly. Apologetics convinces Christians they have the right of way. The Christian joins in with support for nut job religous groups like Focos on the Family. We may not be able to get to the ignorant Christian leaders but at least we can break down there support. A Christian who knows that he or she isn't right becuase they've noticed holes in the case for Christianity is a Christian neutralised when it comes to the Christian agenda. Plus it's just fun bombing the ignorant with points of wisdom.

I still havn't answered the topic question. If God where proven to exist of course my beliefs would change. If the Christian god was proven to exist I'd kick him in the nuts than stomp on his head. Maybe others would join me.

The (non) existence of God is pretty much the key thing about being an atheist.

I'm doing fine. I remember it was you who corrected me on the Jesus Christ, Davy Crocket thing. I might be rather blunt when speaking to those who still believe but thats becuase I was ones a believer and I think I've uncovered the magicians trap door.


It would seem quite a bit of time has passed since then ..... i hope it's been good to you.
Even betterso that you choose for less and less veils for your world. *bows*