This is in no way an attack, I'm just curious. I'm not religious myself, but I'm not an athiest or really even agnostic. I mostly just don't care.


But what would you do if you found out that your particular god was not real? Like, there was undeniable proof that the Bible, Koran, and Torah were all fake? Or a big hoax or something? What would you do?

This is in no way an attack, I'm just curious. I'm not religious myself, but I'm not an athiest or really even agnostic. I mostly just don't care.


But what would you do if you found out that your particular god was not real? Like, there was undeniable proof that the Bible, Koran, and Torah were all fake? Or a big hoax or something? What would you do?

Theres the problem right there. Ain't no such thing as undeniable proof.

The truth and fact can always be denied if someone believes enough.

You think its been proved beyond doubt that the earth is round?

I know people who think its flat.

It doesn't matter, the evidence against the existence of any god is already huge.

But people only believe what they want to believe. So despite the overwhelming evidence, they just ignore it because the are happier in their religious bubble.

You said followers of ANY religion, not just judeo-christian, so go ahead and add astrology books, buddhist books, hindu books, scientology books, etc.

But what would you do if you found out that your particular god was not real?

I wouldn't 'find out', because if my God did not exist, nothing would. Especially me.

Existence would cease.

Edit - although, this thread may exclude me ... I don't belong to a religion.

the evidence against the existence of any god is already huge

Whats an example of evidence against the existence of my God?

Whats an example of evidence against the existence of my God?

Weed can't grow in a desert.

Weed can't grow in a desert.

True but peyote can...

Same desert, different god.

Which presents a problem, because if I claim the peyote god killed the weed god in some mythical desert-battle (of which there is no evidence) there's no way of refuting my claim. Hence Obbe can't refute my claim that his god no longer exists. At the same time I can't prove that my god really did kill his god.

Yah, you can argue all you want but you can't show me undeniable proof that a magical, invisible dragon isn't sitting in my garage right now. You'll never prove me wrong. Beside, why would knights and fire exist if there weren't dragons?

Exactly.

It doesn't matter, the evidence against the existence of any god is already huge.


I'll have to second Obbe, where is his huge amount of evidence aganst God?

Maybe he meant evidence against the judeo-christian-muslim god. There really can't exist POSITIVE evidence against a generalized invisible being. The only 'evidence' would be negative, ie there's no evidence for the positive affirmation of such a being and this is support that therefore it simply doesn't exist. Not that it is proof, just possible support.

I...I thought girls <19 was Proof? :(

True but peyote can...

well played good sir

but seriously, as it has been mentioned by pretty much everyone, no one can 'prove' that their god doesn't exist... although it may seem perfectly logical to you and everybody around you, they can always come up with an excuse such as "its a web of lies and deceit created by satan"... thats what hardcore christians say about dinosaur bones... no way to really come back at that now is there? you can say that their idea is just stupid and that there is no such thing as satan, but you can never change their mind and they will never change yours... curse people and being stubborn

Weed can't grow in a desert.

"Smoking weed" is not my ... ahem ... 'God'.

Although nice irrelevant shot at my drug and entheogen of choice.

Same desert, different god.

There is only one true God. And entheogens are not at all necessary for its recognition.

Hence Obbe can't refute my claim that his god no longer exists. At the same time I can't prove that my god really did kill his god.

Wow! More shit, straight from the Ass himself.

My post referred to the futility of arguing over the existence of a supreme being(s). It was not an attack on you personally, it was intended as a refutaution of Quageschi's comment regarding "huge evidence" against God. I was hoping you'd come back with the peyote remark - it was the obvious 'ethnobotanic' response. There would then have been a continuation of conversation, as opposed to the apparent lone stab in the dark at you.

Mr Ketch's interjection, your twitchy paranoia and my smartarse conversational overcomplications have unfortunately laid my plans to waste.

Oh well, moving on...

You think its been proved beyond doubt that the earth is round?

I know people who think its flat.

Beyond reasonable doubt.

It has been proven to me.

If you look at the horizon, and you see a ship coming from the distance, you will ALWAYS see the mast first. Not the whole ship, just the mast. And this slight curvature of the Earth occurs all over the world.

Also, you can go from London, to India, to the Pacific, to the US, back to London.

Thus proving the roundness of the Earth.

Beyond reasonable doubt.

It has been proven to me.

If you look at the horizon, and you see a ship coming from the distance, you will ALWAYS see the mast first. Not the whole ship, just the mast. And this slight curvature of the Earth occurs all over the world.

Also, you can go from London, to India, to the Pacific, to the US, back to London.

Thus proving the roundness of the Earth.

Or the curvature of the world. Not neccesarily round.

We could be like on this huge dish.... An upside down dish. Who knows what's under the dish.

You're arguing that it's reasonable to doubt the roundness of Earth.

What does it for me is satellites, circumnavigation and the science behind the seasons and day and night.

If I were born in the 18th century, before satellites and easily accessible evidence of the rest, and I wasn't taught orbital science in school, then I'd probably agree that it's reasonably doubtable.

Of course you are allowed to think it may not be round. You can think that it may not be round, but more than likely is and I'll be fine. It's if you start thinking that it's a serious theory that it isn't that I think you're insane, unless you have some convincing alternate theory for all the listed above, which makes as much or more sense.

Theres the problem right there. Ain't no such thing as undeniable proof.

You think its been proved beyond doubt that the earth is round?

I know people who think its flat.

Sorry jack... the earth is NOT round. It is shperical! Round is a two-dimensional concept. The earth is three dimensional, hence spherical.

Yet, it is not truly spherical, only quasi-spherical. For it to be a true sphere, it would have to be uniform in diameter along all axis, and, as anyone who has studied geography knows that from the ocean floors to the mountain range heights, the globe is not at all uniform in its diameter from the center. It is, in fact changing on a nearly daily basis.

But that is a digression from the point of this post.

You cannot prove a negative; neither scientifically nor philisophically.

I can say that I have proof that the NYPD does not eist, simply on solid evidence that they have NEVER appeared in my sothwest Florida backyard. Others might claim that Bigfoot does not exist because no one has ever produced credible photographic evidence. Yes, both of these examples may seem to be hyperbolic, but just because you have not personally seen or experienced a particular phenomenon does not constitute proof that something or someone does not exist.

The only things in life that can be proved are positive... that something, some activity, some entity actually exists. Either from factual physical proof or some other demonstration that some event, entitity or activity acutually took place. A lack of proof that such a thing did occur is NOT proof that it did not.

Sorry for the rant... I am a scientist at heart. While I do not subscribe to any established form of religion, I am neither atheitst nor agnostic. I do believe in god, and I have seen UFO's.

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

Sorry jack... the earth is NOT round. It is shperical! Round is a two-dimensional concept. The earth is three dimensional, hence spherical.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/round

5. spherical or globular, as a ball.

But the rest of your post I totally agree with.

Negatives are unprovable. That's why comparing god to a invisible pink unicorn works so well.

If you've witnessed something divine yourself, then good for you, but until there's proof, I'm calling you loopy.

Fact is, the basis of "true" empirical knowledge also relies upon the assumption (or rather the standard...) that one cannot ever arrive at true "fact". Studying patterns from evidence is all fine and dandy, and even if they seem to repeat ad infinitum, to make the jump to "this is how things are" requires something which is beyond the realms of logic. It requires faith.

Personally, I don't really believe in "God" in the conventional sense, I merely have..... my sense, which I cannot explain, and i'm not greatly interested in proving or disproving to anybody. Letting others know that they aint sussed out the truths of the universe is however.... something that gives me kicks ;)

If someone disproved my "God" to a degree that I could fully accept their proof.... in accordance with my first paragraph, i'd have to let 'em know they weren't actually speakin' empirical-based-fact. But just saying they were and that doing such a thing is even logically possible or coherent.... I guess I wouldn't be too fussed! I could still regard spirituality as a very real aspect of human beings, so ingrained in the psyche that the difference between actual existence and mere belief..... is rather blurry. Due to this, I guess I would still believe that as a fellow human being, they would be just as afflicted by the spirituality "falsehood", and thus despite their disprovement of God, they had failed to understand, or dominate the area of their psyche which "could" lead them to belief in "God". I guess that's a pretty long-winded way of saying that disproving God doesn't disprove the mechanism behind "God", which in terms of a shared belief in a species.... is arguably the most important thing..?

Ok, and if all that was disproved too, and I could be sitting fine and dandy with the knowledge that there's no "God", spirituality or anything in the physical world other than humans with over active imaginations? I guess i'd use my wonderous mind to day-dream into a lovely comfort zone where I could get celestial hugs and whatnot. After all, mr atheist officer sir, isn't that what all the religious "dummies" are doing... :rolleyes::p

Or maybe I just wouldn't care, and i'd still be pretty chuffed to be alive! That internal faith.... would suffice. Some might even call it godlike... :cool:

...

Excellent, IMO.

I was hoping you'd come back with the peyote remark

Then obviously, you understand nothing of my concept of God.

Then obviously, you understand nothing of my concept of God.

Whether your concept of god is that of a divine toker, or a dime-sized purple monkey orbiting Jupiter in an invisible teacup, is irrelevant. Re-read my post.

That entire off-shoot about weed and peyote 'Gods' is irrelevant. Your original comment, "Weed can't grow in a desert." is irrelevant to what you were responding to, "Whats an example of evidence against the existence of my God?"

Weed, or lack of, is not evidence against the existence of my concept of God. Do ... do you have some?

As I explained, I was trying to be a smartarse; I failed. Would you like to see it written for a third time, or will nothing less than using it as my signature satisfy you?

As I explained, I was trying to be a smartarse; I failed.

Yes, you failed ... because the attempt had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Through my expereince with you, it was quite blatantly an attempt at being a smartass. Thats all you ever seem to do.

Would you like to see it written for a third time, or will nothing less than using it as my signature satisfy you?

That would be hilarious. :D

Theres the problem right there. Ain't no such thing as undeniable proof.

The truth and fact can always be denied if someone believes enough.

You think its been proved beyond doubt that the earth is round?

I know people who think its flat.

So you would rather lie to yourself then if the truth was reveled?

The people who think the earth is flat are fucking dumb. And it seems you don't understand it either. The earth is not round, its spherical.

Things like this usually regard people with doctrinal axes to grind with their religious bigotry.

So you would rather lie to yourself then if the truth was reveled?

The people who think the earth is flat are fucking dumb. And it seems you don't understand it either. The earth is not round, its spherical.

Things like this usually regard people with doctrinal axes to grind with their religious bigotry.

Just because he didn't use the "scientifically correct" word doesn't mean he's wrong. Everybody knew what he was talking about without him having to say "spherical."

Fact is, the basis of "true" empirical knowledge also relies upon the assumption (or rather the standard...) that one cannot ever arrive at true "fact". Studying patterns from evidence is all fine and dandy, and even if they seem to repeat ad infinitum, to make the jump to "this is how things are" requires something which is beyond the realms of logic. It requires faith.

Yes, OK, to believe our senses requires "faith", in the 'belief that is not based on proof' sense. Enough with the solipsism.

That still doesn't justify adding on another layer of faith, which is believing in things beyond those senses.

Have an analogy: You're locked in a cabin with one window. You look outside and see miles of snowscape. You conclude that you're in a snowy area. That requires the faith that the window isn't some sort of illusion. However, being the only window, it's also logical, as the rest of the cabin is empty, and so you have no other option.

But then say "Well, I don't know whether this window shows me the real outside, I'm going to theorise that there's a bear outside."

There are people in the cabin with you. People would question the bear theory. You say "Ah, but how do you even know there's snow out there?"

They reply "Well just look through the window."

You say "But can you prove to me that the window shows the real outside?"

"No."

"Then there could be a bear outside, right?"

"Well yes, of course there could be a bear outside. But where's the evidence?"

"Well, the window may not show the real outside. How can you say it's snowy but not understand why I believe there's a bear out there?"

"There's no evidence for a bear!"

"Well there's no evidence for snow either!"

"Yes there is! Look through the window!"

"But the window could be lying!"

"But so what if it is? It still makes less sense to assume there's a bear!"