If you had proof that God didn't exsist, would you show the world?
- Thread starter thomasronan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't understand. What does it mean?MariusLecter said:
I guess I would tell the world. Not to crush the spirit of all religious people, but mainly to end the amount of crap that religious beliefs cause. Not that I have anything against God (in fact, I'd be incredibly surprised to find out that god doesn't exist), but getting rid of all scandal and butchery of modern religion would be worth officially disproving God. And I think, that after saving all those lives, that would certainly get you into heaven.
Oh wait, since God is dead, there is no heaven. Then whats the point?
The basis of the question is unsound, because you can't prove a negative except within strictly limited conditions.
So what I would do is assess the evidence I had and work out what it actually meant before forming a positive hypothesis and attempting to publish that instead.
So what I would do is assess the evidence I had and work out what it actually meant before forming a positive hypothesis and attempting to publish that instead.
Very true. People that believe will believe still. Faith is just an odd thing that I dont have soo...I suppose one that tells might get people that are borderline faith and not.Frank_Sinatra_ said:
And you would be attacked, maybe a burning at the stake? or burning in oil perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)Bright_Raven said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha%C5%82_Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Conway_Morris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
You know you anti-religious bigots are so dumb it is almost unbelievable.
Actually, the history of scientific enquiry coming from the clergy is rather more that they were the only ones who actually had time to do any science. Members of the clergy were educated by the church (everyone else was lucky if they were formally educated at all), were provided for by stipends from the church as they lived in their parish, so didn't have to actually work to live, so they had plenty of time on their hands to notice things that were happening in the world, and from their perspective increase man's understanding of the Creation, which could only possibly be one of the greatest undertakings, because why else would God have put it there except for us to find out about?Bright_Raven said:
It was only in outlying cases like that of Galileio where they actually got into a snit about it.
It's only relatively recently that the power of the church has been on the wane due to rising general levels of education and material comfort, so they've needed to cast out at something that threatened their authority.
I would do the following: Write a book where the narrator is explaining each part of the proof and why it's true, in a book where the narrator is explaining, etc, who is captured by agents of the Vatican and killed after years of interrogation.
I would label it my autobiography, get it published as a fantasy novel, and pull an L. Ron Hubbard.
I would label it my autobiography, get it published as a fantasy novel, and pull an L. Ron Hubbard.
Twilight does not disprove the existence of God, merely thatDebatra said:
a) The Mormons are mostly right.
b) Contrary to previous thought, God is actually a 14 year old girl.
Depends on what the evidence consists of. It's almost impossible to "prove" that something "doesn't" or "can't" exist. If we're talking some kind of incontrovertible evidence (like I found all of the purely physical explanations for existence, and can tell with certainty where it all came from), I would. Anything that leaves a grey area for people to say "but it could still be god" would be me jumping up and down a lot for no real gains.thomasronan said:
What?Bright_Raven said:
Who said anything about creationism or "magical sky wizzards"? (Wizard has one 'Z' by the way).
You first implied that there were no religious scientists. The gentleman informed you that you were mistaken. You then said that those were scientists who were all retarded because they are from way-back-when. I then provided you with a list of contemporary scientists who are religious and have actually made very valuble contributions to science.
Now you are going on about sky wizzards and "creationisum"? Where is the stability?
Why do you always attack people who theorize over the possibility of the non-existence of God? These people are simply wondering what the implications of that are. I understand your frustration over zealous secularists, but those people aren't actual atheists. Additionally, there's a very distinct difference between religion and faith in God, and most current-day believers glaze over that point.cuddly_tomato said:
Would people knowing the truth be for better or for worse? It can only extend as far as opinion and hypothesis, as no one has the facts for one way or another. But why go out of your way to perpetrate the stereotype that all atheists automatically are against God, too?
Only an omnipotent being can disprove the existence of any kind of God, because only such a person could be in every place that a possible God could be, and only such a person could have access to all the potential knowledge and science that has and will ever exist.
And at that point, the searcher would himself become a God (having all possible knowledge and the ability to be everywhere at the same time and such). In my opinion, it's impossible to disprove the existence of a God. By that logic, such irrefutable evidence could not possibly exist, even in theory.
But for the sake of argument, I'd probably cover up the evidence. Atheists don't need anything to make them more smug, and it's not like suddenly the world would become magical and great. This wouldn't even get rid of religion, since there are plenty of religions that don't believe in an omnipotent God. Besides, I like the idea of playing the role of an evil X-Files-esque "Cigarette Man" conspirator with plans to deceive people for selfish personal gains.
And at that point, the searcher would himself become a God (having all possible knowledge and the ability to be everywhere at the same time and such). In my opinion, it's impossible to disprove the existence of a God. By that logic, such irrefutable evidence could not possibly exist, even in theory.
But for the sake of argument, I'd probably cover up the evidence. Atheists don't need anything to make them more smug, and it's not like suddenly the world would become magical and great. This wouldn't even get rid of religion, since there are plenty of religions that don't believe in an omnipotent God. Besides, I like the idea of playing the role of an evil X-Files-esque "Cigarette Man" conspirator with plans to deceive people for selfish personal gains.
No. I attack those who are evangelical atheists.RebelRising said:
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD! Understand? But because of this insane fundamentalist atheist movement, people like me are being given a very bad name.
I never attack those who are "simply wondering", I take issue with those who state that they have all the answers and anyone who disagrees is retarded. They aren't "simply wondering", they are doing the exact same shit that Jehovas Witnesses are doing when they come knocking at your door, and they are doing it in a considerably more aggressive and less respectful fashion.