Ah, the sweet, refreshing smell of Atheism in the morning

[Elok]

It's hard to envision any such proof, but presumptively I'd be looking for a new religion. Judaism, or some form of Taoism, perhaps? I have a certain fondness for what little I know of Taoism as a philosophy. Hard to say without it actually happening. I don't think I'd go out of my way to de-proselytize people (or whatever one wishes to call it), as it's hard to say whether it would do more good or harm.

[Kidlicious]

Ok, I thought there was quite a lot of debate about whether it should really have been added, what with it being a bit mental and sounding like the drunken ravings of a crazy person.

Never heard that one. Christians don't usually take parts of the Bible out that they don't like. They may interpret them wrong, but they don't remove them.

[Kidlicious]

Obviously enough people have bought in or we wouldn't be living in a civilized society.

I don't see that much different between code of law and moral code. While not exactly the same, there is considerable overlap.

Neither is worth two sense, but if you believe that God loves you enough to give his only son so that you may have eternal life you act better than you would otherwise.

[Kidlicious]

I'm very curious about something. I'm reading The Hydrogen Sonata (Iain M. Banks), and one of the themes is that a mature culture discovers that its holy book is a sham, and what happens (or does not happen) as a result - and whether it's even important. That made me think of some things that have been said in the last few days in this thread.

For those of you who are religious: Hypothetical time. Someone gives you truly conclusive proof that Jesus is not the son of God. Nothing else is necessarily wrong - perhaps everything happened as it said, except the facts of the resurrection and the immaculate conception (say he's really just Harry Houdini or something). This is proof that you, personally, accept as valid.

Does it matter? If it does matter, to what extent does it matter - and separately, does it matter to you versus to the religion at large? If you're the one person who is given the choice of either telling everyone else (showing them this conclusive proof) or not telling anyone else (or anyone in between), what do you do? Again, in this hypothetical, the proof is conclusive, and you believe it fully.

I would have no hope. I can't say what I would do.

[molly bloom]

Wezil, why do you want people to be atheists?

Because he'd rather they didn't waste their valuable time here on earth. What an altruist you are, Wezil. I commend you, heartily, sir.

[molly bloom]

No, it's not "new age bull****."

To believe in God without adhering to a religious institution's dogma and orthodoxy is to be spiritual. There probably have always been spiritual people.

I've met some pleasant Unitarians.

[molly bloom]

You're right (IMO), Christianity is a religion.

Amazing insight. You should go on 'Wheel Of Fortune', 'University Challenge' or 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire ?' .

Having faith in Jesus Christ saves you.

Ah. Jesus saves. But does Moses invest ?

[molly bloom]

No. no. You have no idea how much popular culture is influenced by the Bible.

I have a passing acquaintance with the influence of various editions of the two testaments in English on English literature and popular culture. But so what ? Good prose is good prose- just leave out the supernatural gobbledy-gook and the sociopathic and psychopathic wish fulfilment of bloodthirsty Israelites. And Puritans.

[molly bloom]

Then you have not had much experience with spiritual people. Many spiritual people are interested in dealing with tough questions about morality and life.

And atheists aren't ? You musn't know many atheists.

[giblets]

Refusing to use the multi-quote feature ought to be a bannable offense.

[molly bloom]

Well this is going to be fun if we can talk about Stalin and Mao's killing sprees

Not quite the same, since most of history up to and including the early 20th Century consisted of states and their rulers killing the inhabitants of other states who were either:

of the same religion and intolerable
of the same religion but a different variety and therefore intolerable
of a different religion but 'tolerated'
of a different religion and therefore 'intolerable'
of no particular 'organised' faith (pagan, animist, whatever) and so worthy of proselytization and enslavement or death.

World War I- you know, that war to end all wars- was at first little more than a squabble amongst closely related Christian monarchies.

Stalin and Mao hardly killed 'because' they were atheists. The kulaks and landlords weren't liquidated because they weren't atheists, or because they professed a particular faith. In fact, Mao and Stalin managed between them to kill more atheists than their opponents.

[molly bloom]

Refusing to use the multi-quote feature ought to be a bannable offense.

Eat my shorts.

[molly bloom]

We were not made for this earth. Our true home is in heaven, not here.

Hadn't you better be off then ? The neighbours might be wondering where you are. Think of all the post you've missed, and the milk deliveries, and the newspapers..... bet your lawn needs mowing too.

[Kidlicious]

Refusing to use the multi-quote feature ought to be a bannable offense.

No, that's why there is an ignore feature.

[Jon Miller]

Stalin and Mao hardly killed 'because' they were atheists. The kulaks and landlords weren't liquidated because they weren't atheists, or because they professed a particular faith. In fact, Mao and Stalin managed between them to kill more atheists than their opponents.

They did kill people for their religious faith.

I agree that most of those killed were killed for other reasons. But the same is true of the Crusades/etc.

JM