What would you do if you found out that God wasn't real

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the definition of a straw man. You're trying to keep the subject to within a precise definition of your own for the purposes of proving it wrong, when the subject in fact is not so clearly defined (or defined that way by all) as you would like it.

It is not a straw man argument at all. I'm not out to prove / disprove the existence of a diety, I am questioning individually how people's lives would change if something were proven without a reasonable doubt one way or the other. Therefore your response is invalid and you fail to understand the original question.

As usual, you respond with an attack as if the original poster is attacking you directly. Try to calm down a little and answer the question under the given parameters, otherwise don't bother commenting as you have nothing to contribute that will be valuable to this particular discussion.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Vic
It's the definition of a straw man. You're trying to keep the subject to within a precise definition of your own for the purposes of proving it wrong, when the subject in fact is not so clearly defined (or defined that way by all) as you would like it.

It is not a straw man argument at all. I'm not out to prove / disprove the existence of a diety, I am questioning individually how people's lives would change if something were proven without a reasonable doubt one way or the other. Therefore your response is invalid and you fail to understand the original question.

As usual, you respond with an attack as if the original poster is attacking you directly. Try to calm down a little and answer the question under the given parameters, otherwise don't bother commenting as you have nothing to contribute that will be valuable to this particular discussion.

I didn't attack you, and you might want to consider why you feel the need to claim I did.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: VicIt's the definition of a straw man. You're trying to keep the subject to within a precise definition of your own for the purposes of proving it wrong, when the subject in fact is not so clearly defined (or defined that way by all) as you would like it.

Straw Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

This is exactly what you did to my original post; you misrepresented it, then attacked the misrepresentation. It's ironic that you tried to define my post as a straw man, when you yourself used a straw man on a non-straw man post. Interesting debating strategy, I can see why you get into flame wars with people on other threads. Just because you think that someone is a certain way, does not mean that they are that way.

Please don't use terms like "straw man" if you don't know what they mean.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: VicIt's the definition of a straw man. You're trying to keep the subject to within a precise definition of your own for the purposes of proving it wrong, when the subject in fact is not so clearly defined (or defined that way by all) as you would like it.

Straw Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

This is exactly what you did to my original post; you misrepresented it, then attacked the misrepresentation. It's ironic that you tried to define my post as a straw man, when you yourself used a straw man on a non-straw man post. Interesting debating strategy, I can see why you get into flame wars with people on other threads. Just because you think that someone is a certain way, does not mean that they are that way.

Please don't use terms like "straw man" if you don't know what they mean.

Uh no. If that was the case, then your original question was answered in the first reply (by shocksyde), or by jjones' reply a few posts down from that on the first page, or by Connoisseur right after that.
It appears, however, that you were not satisfied with those answers, and you began using a mathematical example of how we had to agree that x (with x being God) had to equal a certain number in a certain equation (given as an example that we had to define God according to your precise parameters) when the definition that you were giving for God (the bearded old man in the clouds) is not accepted (literally) by any Christian church that I am aware of except the Mormons (who stand strongly by the belief that God has a physcial body although most Christian sects find this blasphemous).
Now, I just know you're going to resort to Genesis 1:26 next ("Let us make man in our image") so let me head you off on that by explaining that that image is that of the mind, i.e. the Logos, or rational thought capable of creative expression, and not of the body.

However, if the particular purpose of this discussion of yours is to discover what peoples' reactions would be, then (as I already noted) that was answered in the very first reply, and I already elaborated on that. Religion is an institution of human beings, not God itself. Take away God (supposing that were possible) and people would justorganize much the same way for a different (but similar) attributed purpose. Most churches are just for socializing and business networking. You know that, right?

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: loic2003

God creating a planet from nothing in a few days is physically dubious, at best.

You have failed to list actually why you believe in christianity. You seen to think that the more faith you have (ie the more you still believe in something despite the evidence to the contrary) the more holy/religious/virtuous. It's a trap to make you continue to believe. I ask you why you actually believe, and you quote some passages that have captured your imagination, and 'wowed' you a little. This is not a strong enough reason.
Would a fan of lord of the rings truly believe in all the creatures in it? It's a captivating book, afterall! What if the books were written 2000 years ago, and 10 million people believed the stories were true. It'd be very easy to fall into believing LOTR was true, especially if you were born into a family who also believed, and who told you it was all true from birth. Can you not see this?

Actually a few days to God might be eternity to us. You can't say he made the earth in earth days because the earth was not created yet. The bible is not meant to take literally as a science book like I mentioned before way back on page 2. The point of the passage: God created the heavens and the earth. God is the reason this universe came into being. Again, the big bang was created out of nothingness, maybe that was God's doing? But science will probably never prove it, or disprove it, its a moot point. I personally believe God had more to do with it than science. Thats just my opinion though and one reason I'm Christian. Nobody brainwashed me, again I was Atheist until I was 27 years old, it just sorta "clicked on" inside me. That "click" may be God, Holy Spirit, whatever.

There is nothing in the bible that indicates that evolution did not happen. In fact, it specifically says Adam and Eve are the first humans created in God's image. God's image is not the human race. God's image is love... They are the first humans created out of love, and to love. They didn't run around to conquer, rape, pillage, and kill. It specifically says right after the creation of Adam and Eve, that their son murdered their other son, and left to join a barbarian tribe. That leads you to believe that other humans were on the earth before Adam and Eve. This is what lead up to Noah's Ark with God wiping out everything and starting over. Because he brought Adam and Eve into a world of evil and he felt there needed to be a clean slate.

Thats all it says. Take it as you will. Thats the first 1/4 of Genesis in a nutshell.

Again, this is a reoccuring theme in the bible, that the ones who are full of love will be persecuted for doing so by the selfish. Thats another reason I am Christian, again. Love = God. Selfishness = Devil... This may be human nature, and it is... Satan is here to corrupt us, we have to choose to see it and do something about it... Is he a red guy with horns and a pitchfork? No, he's the persona of selfishness. That's all he is.

Think of the Bible in more of a book of emotions and feelings, rather than science. You can't prove emotions and feelings (unless there is a physical response that can be measured) so its very hard to prove any of it. For all you know I'm very happy right now, but theres no way to prove it, so I must not exist. Thats how these arguments sound to me.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: VicIt's the definition of a straw man. You're trying to keep the subject to within a precise definition of your own for the purposes of proving it wrong, when the subject in fact is not so clearly defined (or defined that way by all) as you would like it.

Straw Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

This is exactly what you did to my original post; you misrepresented it, then attacked the misrepresentation. It's ironic that you tried to define my post as a straw man, when you yourself used a straw man on a non-straw man post. Interesting debating strategy, I can see why you get into flame wars with people on other threads. Just because you think that someone is a certain way, does not mean that they are that way.

Please don't use terms like "straw man" if you don't know what they mean.

Uh no. If that was the case, then your original question was answered in the first reply (by shocksyde), or by jjones' reply a few posts down from that on the first page, or by Connoisseur right after that.
It appears, however, that you were not satisfied with those answers, and you began using a mathematical example of how we had to agree that x (with x being God) had to equal a certain number in a certain equation (given as an example that we had to define God according to your precise parameters) when the definition that you were giving for God (the bearded old man in the clouds) is not accepted (literally) by any Christian church that I am aware of except the Mormons (who stand strongly by the belief that God has a physcial body although most Christian sects find this blasphemous).
Now, I just know you're going to resort to Genesis 1:26 next ("Let us make man in our image") so let me head you off on that by explaining that that image is that of the mind, i.e. the Logos, or rational thought capable of creative expression, and not of the body.

However, if the particular purpose of this discussion of yours is to discover what peoples' reactions would be, then (as I already noted) that was answered in the very first reply, and I already elaborated on that. Religion is an institution of human beings, not God itself. Take away God (supposing that were possible) and people would justorganize much the same way for a different (but similar) attributed purpose. Most churches are just for socializing and business networking. You know that, right?

Are you always this angry? If you already answered the question, then why post again just to start an argument / flame war? I was looking for calm discussion, as usual it seems you are looking for a battle. There are other threads to battle people, this is not one of them. If you've already answered the original question, then be on your way, go back to battling in the other threads. The reason I posted the equation example was because of someone posting that without faith / belief in god, they would not exist. That is what the comment was in regards to. Once again you yourself are using a straw man argument, in taking what I said out of context and applying it towards something as an attack on you, which at the time of the statement it was not.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: thraashman
As far as what I'd do if I found out God wasn't real. Well I'll start by saying that I'm an Atheist, so quite frankly not much would change for me. I have a feeling I may end up having to spend time with some friends who have trouble if it was a worldwide everyone finds out God isn't real thing.

Now, if I were religious and I was present with incontravertable evidence that God didn't exist. I think first I'd brow beat Pat Robertson. Then I'd do everything I could to continue living a good life. I guess I feel that people who live their life for God aren't actually living their life. Sometimes it seems like people don't think straight about God. They think "hey, God gave me this great gift called life and all he wants me to do with it is thank him." That's like if a friend gave me a really really cool gift but told me the only condition upon which I could keep it is if I thanked him constantly .... and made sure that I only used the gift when he was around and always let him use it first, and basically didn't get to enjoy the gift for what it is.

It's as simple as this. If a god exists and it's benevolent, then God doesn't care if you believe or not so long as you live your life by good principles. If a god exists and wants you to spend all your life praising him and would punish you for not believing regardless of your acts, then that god is not benevolent and is in fact the most evil being in existence. So even if I was proved God did exist, but it was proved to me that God would punish non-believers, even if I knew for a fact that God existed, I would dedicate my life to destroying the belief in that God. Not because I want people to suffer, but because the more people that are in the end NOT on the side of that evil god, the better chance of there being enough souls to depose God and put in a benevolent leader. Kinda like a military coup, but without the natural totalitarian dictatorship that follows. Truthfully, most of the time it seems to me that God is presented as the most vicious, horrible, totalitarian dictator there is. Most "believers" are simply afraid NOT to believe in God, which is a sad, sad existence.

At least you have some basis for your reasoning, and aren't just saying it because you can.

I don't mean to insult you but I did want to clarify some things.

They think "hey, God gave me this great gift called life and all he wants me to do with it is thank him.

I do not recall a passage in the Bible stating that you should spend your entire life thanking him. It says that Jesus came to save us and that we are supposed to live in his image. We are supposed to (yet we always fall short) of leading a sin-less life.

Additionally we (And by we I mean Christians) are supposed to spread God's word so that all may know of his compassion and glory.

If a god exists and wants you to spend all your life praising him and would punish you for not believing regardless of your acts

The Bible never states that you will be punished if you don't spend your entire life praising God for every waking moment of the day. Not only that for people who don't believe it states that Jesus died to save us from out sins. He was the ultimate sacrifice. He died so that we (We meaning everyone) may not perish but have eternal life.

There is no expiration date. All one would need to do is ask for forgiveness.

Truthfully, most of the time it seems to me that God is presented as the most vicious, horrible, totalitarian dictator there is.

Do you have any evidence for this? I don't mean to offend you in any way, but what leads you to believe this?

Most "believers" are simply afraid NOT to believe in God, which is a sad, sad existence.

People who believe in God are not afraid to believe in something else. It is our choice to believe in God. And we believe that our choice is right with every bone in our body. Being scared has nothing to do with it...where did you get this idea?

-Kevin

I should clarify my responses here as I was not insulting a religion, but I was commenting on how oftentimes Christianity is presented as an argument to Atheists. For the most part in my comments I'm referring to the people who'll say the fear God. Now that may not be alot of people you know, perhaps I've just met too many people like that around here. I think the idea of fearing God is ridiculous because I think it quite impossible to fear and love the same thing.

Alot of things I critique are not in the Bible, unfortunately alot of people believe things that aren't in the Bible that are quite ludicrous. There are many, many people that feel that someone who doesn't believe in God and accept Jesus will go to hell. I think it loony to believe that someone can act horribly and then repent and go to heaven, when someone like the Dalai Lama would go to hell if you get my drift. And at least around here it's almost funny how many people believe that basic belief.

As far as the totalitarian dictator comment, alot of that is in the Bible. Mostly old testament really where God did ALOT of evil stuff that a dictator would do. New testament, not as much, but there's still that prevailent belief amongst followers that non-believers go to hell and that hell is the worst place in existence, and that's exactly something a dictator would do, torture people that don't follow him.

I don't know about you, but I've definately talked to many people who believe that the purpose of life is to praise God. And I definately think that that is stupid. I personally don't have a purpose in life except to live my life. There doesn't have to be a reason behind everything.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: VicIt's the definition of a straw man. You're trying to keep the subject to within a precise definition of your own for the purposes of proving it wrong, when the subject in fact is not so clearly defined (or defined that way by all) as you would like it.

Straw Man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

This is exactly what you did to my original post; you misrepresented it, then attacked the misrepresentation. It's ironic that you tried to define my post as a straw man, when you yourself used a straw man on a non-straw man post. Interesting debating strategy, I can see why you get into flame wars with people on other threads. Just because you think that someone is a certain way, does not mean that they are that way.

Please don't use terms like "straw man" if you don't know what they mean.

Uh no. If that was the case, then your original question was answered in the first reply (by shocksyde), or by jjones' reply a few posts down from that on the first page, or by Connoisseur right after that.
It appears, however, that you were not satisfied with those answers, and you began using a mathematical example of how we had to agree that x (with x being God) had to equal a certain number in a certain equation (given as an example that we had to define God according to your precise parameters) when the definition that you were giving for God (the bearded old man in the clouds) is not accepted (literally) by any Christian church that I am aware of except the Mormons (who stand strongly by the belief that God has a physcial body although most Christian sects find this blasphemous).
Now, I just know you're going to resort to Genesis 1:26 next ("Let us make man in our image") so let me head you off on that by explaining that that image is that of the mind, i.e. the Logos, or rational thought capable of creative expression, and not of the body.

However, if the particular purpose of this discussion of yours is to discover what peoples' reactions would be, then (as I already noted) that was answered in the very first reply, and I already elaborated on that. Religion is an institution of human beings, not God itself. Take away God (supposing that were possible) and people would justorganize much the same way for a different (but similar) attributed purpose. Most churches are just for socializing and business networking. You know that, right?

Are you always this angry? If you already answered the question, then why post again just to start an argument / flame war? I was looking for calm discussion, as usual it seems you are looking for a battle. There are other threads to battle people, this is not one of them. If you've already answered the original question, then be on your way, go back to battling in the other threads. The reason I posted the equation example was because of someone posting that without faith / belief in god, they would not exist. That is what the comment was in regards to. Once again you yourself are using a straw man argument, in taking what I said out of context and applying it towards something as an attack on you, which at the time of the statement it was not.

I fail to see where you could interpret my statements as representing anger on my part, beyond the fact that you refuse to address my points. If you think my points irrelevant, then fine, that's your opinion. However, I see your question the same way. As to your example (which I missed) that someone here feels they would not exist without God, well... I don't know how I would exist without myself or my reality either. Perception is a slippery thing. Perhaps if I seem angry, it's my frustration in dealing with people who think they know it all when the only thing they know is their own personal perception and nothing more.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Christians tend to beat their bibles so loud that they wouldn't hear the news that God isn't real. They would warp the message to what THEY believe and it'd be a lost cause.

A perfect example of this is the Darwin vs Bible discussion....if you can call it a discussion. Either you believe in science or you believe in a book that was written by people that lived 2000+ years ago. You can debate that it was God that wrote the bible, but the human element exists in its writings... I don't doubt that it's a great document and that it instills great moral values. What I really don't doubt is that the world is 4.6 billion years old and that the rock record proves that dinosaurs DID exist.

Wow. Quite possibly the most ignorant post in this thread.

My guess is you've never read Darwin. If you did, even he casts doubt on his own findings and all his claims are speculative at best -- in his own words. Evolution is a theory, nothing more. Not even Darwin could prove it, nor has any scientist since.

I'd also guess you've never read the Bible either, which is clear based on your comment of it.

This is not suprising, you are just repeating what you learned in school without clearly educating yourself on both sides of the issue and not challenging the validity of what you were told. So much for being enlightened...

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Vic
I fail to see where you could interpret my statements as representing anger on my part, beyond the fact that you refuse to address my points. If you think my points irrelevant, then fine, that's your opinion. However, I see your question the same way. As to your example (which I missed) that someone here feels they would not exist without God, well... I don't know how I would exist without myself or my reality either. Perception is a slippery thing. Perhaps if I seem angry, it's my frustration in dealing with people who think they know it all when the only thing they know is their own personal perception and nothing more.

Let me clarify: your points are not irrelevant as a whole; they do warrant discussion, and I agree with some of them. In this context, however, I just wanted to focus on a particular idea, more along the lines of gathering data, to see in what way religion plays a good / bad role in today's society, and how it would be affected if one facet of religion were removed; in this case, the belief in the existence of a surpeme being.

I agree that religion itself is more the institution which is formed around a core set of beliefs. Religion could still exist without the belief in a surpreme being. I understand being frustrated, as some people don't like to talk calmly about something which is close to the heart or in other words may be a core function of their belief system. Unfortunately due to my programming background I tend to classify thought similar to how a computer program would run, for example I would classify religion as a module with variables that could be different based upon conditions you were raised in and such. It's just how my brain works.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: loic2003
That evidence is?
-a complete and utter lack of any physical evidence, now or ever in history of any god ever existing
-impossiblity of a god, (law of thermodynamics, etc)
-long history of gods being invented, thought to be real then the religion curiously turning to mythology as the religion expires. Strong possiblity all current religions will eventually go the same way.
-in-built desire of the human mind to have a parent figure to look up to and hence create/believe in a religion. Desire to explain the unknown.
-Human fear of death and the comforting feeling a religion provides
-lack of proof of any miracle ever occuring. Supposed miracles always subtle and explainable scientifically (no amputees growing limbs back or AIDS victims curing themselves, no matter how good the person is and how much god loves them)
-clear evidence that christianity was a bastardisation of roman caltholism and paganism. Since the church used to rule the land, there's a strong likelyhood the bible was edited to maximize population control (do as we say and you'll not suffer unimaginable torture for eternity... )
-Very strong evidence to prove that the earth was created by natural events and not in a few days by a magical being. Evolution.
-dubiously coincidental feature of most religions that the god happens to be invisible, and the only 'proof' of them existing is blind faith.
-etc etc etc

How does any of this prove evolution?

 

[Miramonti]

Choosing faith changed my life, for the better.

If I find out God doesn't exist, my life still changed, for the better.

 

[WiseOldDude]

I have been saying that for a long time, but very few listen.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Actually a few days to God might be eternity to us. You can't say he made the earth in earth days because the earth was not created yet. The bible is not meant to take literally as a science book like I mentioned before way back on page 2. The point of the passage: God created the heavens and the earth. God is the reason this universe came into being. Again, the big bang was created out of nothingness, maybe that was God's doing? But science will probably never prove it, or disprove it, its a moot point. I personally believe God had more to do with it than science. Thats just my opinion though and one reason I'm Christian. Nobody brainwashed me, again I was Atheist until I was 27 years old, it just sorta "clicked on" inside me. That "click" may be God, Holy Spirit, whatever.

There is nothing in the bible that indicates that evolution did not happen. In fact, it specifically says Adam and Eve are the first humans created in God's image. God's image is not the human race. God's image is love... They are the first humans created out of love, and to love. They didn't run around to conquer, rape, pillage, and kill. It specifically says right after the creation of Adam and Eve, that their son murdered their other son, and left to join a barbarian tribe. That leads you to believe that other humans were on the earth before Adam and Eve. This is what lead up to Noah's Ark with God wiping out everything and starting over. Because he brought Adam and Eve into a world of evil and he felt there needed to be a clean slate.

Thats all it says. Take it as you will. Thats the first 1/4 of Genesis in a nutshell.

Again, this is a reoccuring theme in the bible, that the ones who are full of love will be persecuted for doing so by the selfish. Thats another reason I am Christian, again. Love = God. Selfishness = Devil... This may be human nature, and it is... Satan is here to corrupt us, we have to choose to see it and do something about it... Is he a red guy with horns and a pitchfork? No, he's the persona of selfishness. That's all he is.

Think of the Bible in more of a book of emotions and feelings, rather than science. You can't prove emotions and feelings (unless there is a physical response that can be measured) so its very hard to prove any of it. For all you know I'm very happy right now, but theres no way to prove it, so I must not exist. Thats how these arguments sound to me.

I respect your informed resonse.

God = love, devil = selfishness. Good stuff. The bible may well have been of great use as the ultimate analogy back in the day when the average person was far more a barbarian than those (we would hope) of today with far more advanced moral values. These days, I don't think we need it.
Why do you feel you need this book? You don't need to know how to behave; you clearly demons[trate you have a level of intelligence which allows you to figure out how to behave. When you're walking down the street and you see an attractive lady, do you have to open up the good book and check out if it's Ok to rape heror not? Of course not.
Pack anmimals know not to go about killing each other, and they haven't even embraced a god!

As for the origins of the universe, the appearance of massive changes in time values between dimensions, and the like, well yes, they haven't all been fully explained, but we should not be so foolish as to fall back on 'god' to explain the unknown. Remember, the aztecs would have to make a daily sacrifice to their sun god in order for the sun to rise the next morning. The norse people believed lightning literally was Thor, the god of thunder, striking his hammer. They truly believed this, and obviously used this to explain what to them was a mystery. Does this sound familiar?

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Why do you feel you need this book?

Does this sound familiar?

I don't necessarily need the Bible. The bible was written by man, and man is not perfect, so things in the bible may or may not represent the true spirit of God. The point across the entire book is you should be loving, and not be selfish. Nobody is absolute, those are reserved for God and Satan. We all are on a scale between the two spectrums.

Thats the only point I feel I need to embrace. The rest of it is just story, history (if its fact or not who knows), and basically a guide (from 1400+ years ago) on how to live through the story and many books.

Sure, many people in those days probably needed a bible to know how to act, and we might be better off today. However, just because we are more developed today doesn't mean the bible is completely irrelevant or obsolete either. It's like saying the USA consitution was written 225 years ago, and some of it doesn't apply today. Since we are so much better today than we were back then, so we should just scrap it and forget about it. Not true. Theres lessons to be learned on why we have a consitution and why the things were in there to begin with.

So to answer your question, why am I Christian today? Like I said I just "felt it"... I've also had some divine intervention (atleast what I believe is divine intervention.) I've had certain issues in my life where I've prayed to God for clarity, because something was messy, uncertain, and driving me nuts. The next day I received my clarity. It's happened a few times where while it could be just circumstance or coincidence, it's just felt very comfortable. There's no way to explain it. Things just happen.

I also agree that going to God to explain everything and believing he is the answer for things unknown seems like a cop-out, and prevents people from knowing the real truth. However, while science can explain some things, and will unlock mysteries of the future, theres things science can't explain. And probably will never explain. What do you use for that?

Take love for example. What is love? What scientific or evolutionary need was there for Love? To be hand in hand with another being with mind body and soul? Take for example, I have a roommate that I've known for 15 years. We are friends. We help each other out, socialize, and people probably thought we were gay over the years, but I do not love him. People are pack animals, and we can be pack animals and not love one another... So how does science calculate "Love"? What makes one person more loving compared to another? Upbringing? Genetics? Hmmmm... Well... Just to give you an example. I met a friend of mine from Highschool (not my roommate) and befriended his brother. I have hung out with both of them. They had the same parents and upbringing. One was a total schmuck who was selfish and would screw me over, the other one would do anything for me... Why is the one different from the other? Is it genetics, environment, or something else?

Can science answer that question?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: loic2003
As for the origins of the universe, the appearance of massive changes in time values between dimensions, and the like, well yes, they haven't all been fully explained, but we should not be so foolish as to fall back on 'god' to explain the unknown. Remember, the aztecs would have to make a daily sacrifice to their sun god in order for the sun to rise the next morning. The norse people believed lightning literally was Thor, the god of thunder, striking his hammer. They truly believed this, and obviously used this to explain what to them was a mystery. Does this sound familiar?

Your excuse for the falacies of evolution is that it has yet to be explained by science? Your faith in evolution is no worse than the Aztec's making a sacrifice to the sun god. After all, all the "evolutionists" in this thread can do it attack a guy for his belief and the Bible, yet they provide no proof that we have evolved from anything.

Maybe you can help me, because this was never explained to me in school...

Why is it we find bones of many things, but none of documenting the millions of years, or whatever time frame you like (evolution can't say for sure when either), of evolution of man from a lesser creature?

They don't exist, yet according to evolutionists I can find bones of things much older than human, or ape-man (or whatever you wish to claim we evolved from). Where are the bones? There should be millions of them by now, yet no scientist can find even one.

 

[Motek]

There is no way to prove he is not real.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Take love for example. What is love? What scientific or evolutionary need was there for Love? <snip>

This is an excellent point. At what point was 'love' deemed important? Why do no other animals have it? Why don't plants have it? (After all, we did evolve from planets... that is what evolution is.)

I could easily argue that love is a weakness. Look at all the stupid things people do when they are in love. Certainly love isn't an imporovement, therefore since evolution is an imporovement upon itself, humans that acquired love should have died off loooooong ago.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Juddog
If you are currently religious, and you found out or it was proven to you in some way (which of course impossible to prove that something doesn't exist) that God didn't exist, would it change your faith? Would you continue to go to church, or would you give up your religion?

Let's not debate whether he / she / it exists or not, only what you would do if you found out that he / she / it doesn't exist. How would that change your outlook on the world, and how you interact with others?

I believe it is unequivocably impossible to prove God doesn't exist. My hope entirely rests on the faith He has given me. Those who don't belike in Christ as their Savior will call this uneducated, a copout even. This is fine, and I have no way to answer that. Believers don't need to. They acknowledge God's sovereignty.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Juddog
If you are currently religious, and you found out or it was proven to you in some way (which of course impossible to prove that something doesn't exist) that God didn't exist, would it change your faith? Would you continue to go to church, or would you give up your religion?

Let's not debate whether he / she / it exists or not, only what you would do if you found out that he / she / it doesn't exist. How would that change your outlook on the world, and how you interact with others?

I might off myself, but at the least I wouldn't go to Church etc since that would be a complete waste of time, though I'd probably look into spirits and whatnot, unless they'd somehow been ruled out as well, in that case I'd either off myself or find a really hot girlfriend and make out etc absolutely all the time.

But of course this is all very hypothetical since I can't be convinced that there is no God through debate or evidence because I've already considered the evidence and debates and have made up my mind. I don't expect to surprise you by saying this, but I want to say it anyway.

 

[judasmachine]

go about my life, and not give a sh|t.

 

[Kanalua]

I love this hypothetical. Assume what would destroy a main tenet of your existence. Now, react.

Reminds me of a guy at school who is on a Moot COurt team with me. At practice one day he asks me to assume a premise that would destroy the main justification for my "clients" actions. I replied, that isn't a justification for our arguments, and proceeded to spell out the justifications for meeting a compelling interest test. Later he came back against asking to assume his compelling interest, and how we would justify its least restrictive means to the facts. I again explained that the compelling interest posited is not the justification for the actions. and went on with my arguments. Again a third time he came back, this time pissed that I wouldn't take his bait, and against demanded that I assume his compelling interest. He was so pissed that I wouldn't take his bait. Still is pissed. What a dork...

 

[toolboxolio]

gloat

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: loic2003

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
Because what reason is there to live a life abstaining from alcohol and keeping one woman and doing all that is good if there is no God? Tell me where the morals that you keep in your conscience have originated from. Why shouldn't we kill? We're only animals after all, there is no sanctity of life among them. What about adultery, homosexuality, and incest? The animals do it and I am one of them, correct? What am I rewarded for living a clean life on earth if God is dead? Nothing. I might as well enjoy myself for the very short time I'm on the planet and live out my worldly desires.

Listen to this nutter!

You think 'the animals' are living by rape and murder all the time? Are you freaking *BLIND*? Just look at the social structures of pack animals: dolphins, elephants, kookaburras, meerkats, apes, etc etc etc etc etc.... they all live together working as a team and don't go around murdering each other. They show compassion (yes, tests have shown that many animals display empathy) and altruistic behaviour. Are you fvcking crazy? you think the *only* thing that stops you from going out and raping a baby is that you believe there's a god watching you? Dude.... you are fvcked up. Go seek help, for the safety of those around you. Please!

Hey, I don't believe in god, yet for years I've been volunteering at local youth projects in the evenings, because it feels good to give something back (if you have your own computer, chances are you're in the top ~1% richest people on the planet). I don't do it because it'll get me into a magical afterlife world, and would hate to feel that the only reason I do good things are to suck up and please some magical feller, who returns people's good deeds with famines and tsunamis.

Start thinking, dude.

Nowhere did I say animals are living by rape and murder, that should be painfully obvious. What I was attempting to accentuate was the very lack of morals in the animal kingdom. And while animals will, at times, exhibit emotional reflexes, the point is there is no guilt of conscience in them when they do something that would be utterly appalling to us; the ultimate idea being that we are much more than highly evolved animals.

I should mention that I am speaking purely hypothetically on this matter, because it is my very strong belief that God created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27). Of course I also oppose the doctrine of evolution: that we have evolved from lesser beings to what we are today. Therefore, I know that God is not dead and that whether you believe in him or not, the conscience and inherent morality of mankind is not a result of evolutionary processes but an attribute given us by God. I can then safely say that had God not existed and had we evolved from nothingness, that man should not carry those virtues which we clearly possess. Accordingly, the only thing that would be separating us from our supposed predecessors would be a greater capacity to survive along with higher intelligence.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: Kanalua
I love this hypothetical. Assume what would destroy a main tenet of your existence. Now, react.

Reminds me of a guy at school who is on a Moot COurt team with me. At practice one day he asks me to assume a premise that would destroy the main justification for my "clients" actions. I replied, that isn't a justification for our arguments, and proceeded to spell out the justifications for meeting a compelling interest test. Later he came back against asking to assume his compelling interest, and how we would justify its least restrictive means to the facts. I again explained that the compelling interest posited is not the justification for the actions. and went on with my arguments. Again a third time he came back, this time pissed that I wouldn't take his bait, and against demanded that I assume his compelling interest. He was so pissed that I wouldn't take his bait. Still is pissed. What a dork...

A similar question would be "what would you do, if your legs had been removed?" It's highly possible, and it would change how you would go aboutu in terms of business, your everyday commute, etc.. It's interesting that you personalize the question in this way though and refuse to go about with an actual answer, but your response nevertheless gives information, thank you for the input.