Religionists - If Your Deity Was Proven To Be Unreal, How Would You React?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, it's a great honor to know I am evil enough to merit an -ism. Now I have at last joined the illustrious ranks of Communism, McCarthyism, and Anachronism. Hooray.
Anyway, this is a pretty stupid question. God is the ultimate immeasurable quantity. To ask how we would react if we "knew" anything about him is like asking what we'd do if the sun turned into a giant apricot. Too hypothetical to bother with. With that said, I suppose I would continue living the same way I do now, but without church. I find a religious/ethical life makes me happier anyway.

Please read my first post.

If you cannot get away from the unprovable aspects of your creed for a moment, that is hardly my fault.

I merely pose a question.

And the lack of proof for any deity is just as compelling as the so-called proof in favour.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Too bad for you, sir.

Anyone who knows me will attest that my threads are always started with an honest demeanour.

I leave trolling to the young, foolish and ignorant.
And those who are unseemingly precious about the wording of thread titles.

It's about time you showed those religionists that you're better than them.

[curtsibling]

I merely want to make people think about what they claim to believe in.

[DaShi]

I get it. Then they'll see that you're right, and they're wrong. The losers.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by curtsibling
It's odd that religionists seek to bring atheism down to the level of the creed and dogma, in some kind of attempt to level their imagined 'playing field'.

It does not work this way.

It is suggested that a dictionary is employed here.
As atheism is an 'anti-belief, not a belief in itself.

You need a better dictionary. Believing there is no god is just as much a belief as believing there is one. Spare me the logical arguments about atheism - whether someone actually understands them (most apparently don't) still does not make them more than props used to support a chosen belief.

Originally posted by curtsibling

That smacks of fanatic thought.

So, how does being unattached to the herd make one 'useless'?

I am just as critical of those who mindlessly follow a mass organised religion without question as those who have no belief in anything. A lack of belief, religious or otherwise, implies an inability to aspire to any state and therefore a lack of motivation, hence 'useless'. Someone who is motivated to act with intent has a belief that their actions will bring about a result. Belief in one thing tends to bring about belief in other areas.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by CerberusIV You need a better dictionary. Believing there is no god is just as much a belief as believing there is one.

I have the best, the Oxford edition.

Your taciturn wording of the issue is true if looked at a certain way, but I am speaking of the actual foci of a belief system.

In this case the deity.

I seek not to discuss the meaning of a basic English language word that I suspect we both know the meaning of. Like any religionist, you seek to drag the argument into the realms of circumstantial minutae, something I stated was not the thread's actaul topic.

If you seek to ask if gods exist or not, be a good chap and start a thread on the matter, please.

Originally posted by CerberusIV Spare me the logical arguments about atheism -

You seem to have spared yourself all manner of logic, beforehand.

Originally posted by CerberusIV whether someone actually understands them (most apparently don't) still does not make them more than props used to support a chosen belief.

This is misleading, and you know it.
It seems that religionists cannot abide the notion that they are akin to a pariah figure, and seek to imbue all with their own herding instinct.

Originally posted by CerberusIV I am just as critical of those who mindlessly follow a mass organised religion without question as those who have no belief in anything. A lack of belief, religious or otherwise, implies an inability to aspire to any state and therefore a lack of motivation, hence 'useless'.

I could argue that those sheep who have no free will are useless.

Seems to me you are aiming at the sloths and losers of our societies, something I would indeed admire. But be aware that not every person bereft of belief is a addled hippy or lowlife.

A cleanly mind is an efficient one.

Originally posted by CerberusIV Someone who is motivated to act with intent has a belief that their actions will bring about a result. Belief in one thing tends to bring about belief in other areas.

Scorn for the flock is also a great motivator, and not the only one.

I suggest you could take that on board.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I merely want to make people think about what they claim to believe in so that I can prove that I'm right and they're wrong.

[curtsibling]

Zounds!

MrFun is taking liberties (and who isn't these days?) with quoted material, unless my eyes are tricked by some spell?


Where exactly have I raised a banner for or against any person's creed here?

[MrFun]

[curtsibling]

Care to tackle the thread question, MrFun?

[MrFun]

Re: Religionists - If Your Deity Was Proven To Be Unreal, How Would You React?

Originally posted by curtsibling
Well how would you?

Let us put aside the why, hows and whatfors...
Just imagine whatever deity/cosmic order you follow and all it's attendant dogma was proven to be unreal...

Exactly how would you react and what would you do?

I believe in God, and I also believe in Jesus Christ, who was the prophet of God (allegorically Son of God).

So if this was proven to be untrue, I would have to seriously reassess myself, and find some other meaningful basis for some of the values that I treasure.

Without question, Jesus Christ was one of the greatest of all people to have ever existed in the history of human history, and it's because of the way he taught the fundamental values, that if faithfully observed, would have greatly improved human society.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I seek not to discuss the meaning of a basic English language word that I suspect we both know the meaning of. Like any religionist, you seek to drag the argument into the realms of circumstantial minutae, something I stated was not the thread's actaul topic.

I have a number of objections to your post, not least the assumption that I am a religionist. More to the point your thread question is inevitably about the meaning of belief, something you now wish to avoid discussing.

I do not feel inclined to pursue a debate where you are redefining parameters as you go. I believe that to be pointless.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
You need a better dictionary. Believing there is no god is just as much a belief as believing there is one. Spare me the logical arguments about atheism - whether someone actually understands them (most apparently don't) still does not make them more than props used to support a chosen belief.

Actually, atheism is on firm logical ground until someone manages to prove it false. Just like the claim that "little unmeasurable green elves live on the surface of electrons" is false is also on firm logical ground. Atheism is merely the application of Occam's razor to religion - I see no compelling logical argument for the existence of a god, therefore there is no god.

[Rogan Josh]

Bullsh*t Skywalker and you know it. You cannot make an assumption and then use it to subsequently prove the assumption.

Edit: Hey - there is no autocensor of bullsh*t! Added my own * for the kiddies.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Anyone who knows me will attest that my threads are always started with an honest demeanour.

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.