Do you see the usefulness in disproving God's existence?

Ekancone

I don't, and im an atheist. I have got involved in the debate in the Christianity forum just for the craic, but in all honesty i think people should be free to believe what they want. I think disproving God would lead to a lot of chaos, yes, even more than it creates.

Your opinions?

Hivemind187

daithifleming wrote:

I don't, and im an atheist. I have got involved in the debate in the Christianity forum just for the craic, but in all honesty i think people should be free to believe what they want. I think disproving God would lead to a lot of chaos, yes, even more than it creates.

Your opinions?

Disprove God and you remove the requirement for Religion, which, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest "drag factors" on the evolution of thought and progression of science in the world today.

See: Stem cell research, genetic engineering ... ok so mainly biology.

Ekancone

Hivemind187 wrote:

Disprove God and you remove the requirement for Religion, which, in my humble opinion, is one of the greatest "drag factors" on the evolution of thought and progression of science in the world today.

See: Stem cell research, genetic engineering ... ok so mainly biology.

So you presume that the 'right to life' campaign is strictly a Christian thing? Without which there would be no campaign of its sort?

robindch

Firstly, one can't disprove the existence of god without a cast iron definition of what god is, and what the properties of the deity are. Only then, can you go looking for what's described and then conclude, if you don't find such a thing, that god, as described, doesn't exist. But that doesn't preclude the existience of another god with different properties, or indeed, the existence of anything at all really. Proving that things don't exist is devilishly difficult; about the only thing you can do is demonstrate that they do, or appear to.

daithifleming wrote:

I think disproving God would lead to a lot of chaos, yes, even more than it creates.

You seem to have bought into Chesterton's line (wasn't it?) that if a you don't believe in something then you will believe in anything. The logical non-sequitur is grating and denies the fact that communities can self-organize without a malevolent sky deity, or the threat of one, hanging over them.

Tim Robbins

daithifleming wrote:

I don't, and im an atheist. I have got involved in the debate in the Christianity forum just for the craic, but in all honesty i think people should be free to believe what they want. I think disproving God would lead to a lot of chaos, yes, even more than it creates.

Your opinions?

No of course not. I am liberal first, atheist second. Let them belief, they could actually be right and I could actually be right. I doubt it but it is logically possible.

Anyway, it's impossible to disproof something unless you have a testable hypotheisis, there is none for God anyway.

I would prefer if I had the skill to make people question what they think rather than tell them what to think anyday.

Hivemind187

daithifleming wrote:

So you presume that the 'right to life' campaign is strictly a Christian thing? Without which there would be no campaign of its sort?

No, but it would be greatly diminished.

I have had a blazing row about this one already wherein I iterated my pov on the issue of abortion and stem cells and life itself.

When you remove the concept that life in inherently "sacred" then a lot of this nonsesne starts to fall away.

Dades

Disproof involves evidence - belief in God(s) is based on faith.

Good luck getting around that one.

Fallen Seraph

As has been said before, trying to prove or disprove the god hypothesis is wild goose chasing of the highest magnitude. It's just not falsifiable.

However, I also think that if one were to magic up some genuine evidence for the non-existence of god that it wouldn't cause much chaos. It just wouldn't be accepted by a lot of people.

MooseJam

Fallen Seraph wrote:

However, I also think that if one were to magic up some genuine evidence for the non-existence of god that it wouldn't cause much chaos. It just wouldn't be accepted by a lot of people.

exactly, how much genuine proof is there on evolution and sure we know what the creationists think of that

Zillah

You're really asking several questions here. The first "Would disproving God be a good thing?" is fairly irrelevant (assuming that such a thing is possible). Some guy on his own in a lab who proves it is irrelevant. A better question is "Would convincing everyone in the world that God doesn't exist be a good thing?" In that case, I would say no.

The vast majority of true believers have built their world view, including their morality, around the notion of an objectively just God. If you take that away then a very large number of them would essentially become sociopaths that would burn out horribly.

However, the question I would propose is "Would convincing every human being born from this instant and in the future that God does not exist be a good thing?" My answer would be "Hell yes!" I think it'd be one of the greatest things we could possibly do for the future success and happiness of our species.

The reasons for this are manifold, but primarily it is the notion of rational debate. If there was no religion then people in the Middle East would still engage in bloody war with the West because its mostly about oil, politics and international meddling. But the influence of hardline Islam makes rational debate on the topic impossible. If there was no religion then there would stil be people who are so-called "pro-life" and people who disagree with stem cell research. But once again, without the influence of God's dictates we can once again engage in rational debate on the topics, we can convince each other of our positions and reach a resolution.

As things stand now we are faced with someone who says "Abortion is evil", and they mean it in the most implacable and objective sense. There is no argument, no reasoning, no possible change in approach or methods that can convince this person to change their position as long as they have an objectively just God telling them what to do. And this terrible reality only compounds when you have two people, both of whom believe they have an objectively just God telling them to do mutually exclusive things.

This post has been brought to you primarily due to the influence of the great thinker Sam Harris.

Ekancone

Hivemind187 wrote:

No, but it would be greatly diminished.

I have had a blazing row about this one already wherein I iterated my pov on the issue of abortion and stem cells and life itself.

When you remove the concept that life in inherently "sacred" then a lot of this nonsesne starts to fall away.

But isn't this thinking the basis for forming human rights? That human life is worth something more than an animals, who have no rights?

pinksoir

Animals do have rights. But obviously we would be biased towards the protection of humans over animals if such a scenario arose. But the ethical treatment of animals is, in my opinion anyway, as important as the rights of humans.

Sangre

Hivemind187 wrote:

No, but it would be greatly diminished.

I have had a blazing row about this one already wherein I iterated my pov on the issue of abortion and stem cells and life itself.

When you remove the concept that life in inherently "sacred" then a lot of this nonsesne starts to fall away.

Indeed, hurrah for the death penalty!

MooseJam

Zillah wrote:

The vast majority of true believers have built their world view, including their morality, around the notion of an objectively just God. If you take that away then a very large number of them would essentially become sociopaths that would burn out horribly.

how about giving humanity the benefit of the doubt, you think every second Joe bloggs is going to pick up a machete and start lopping heads off, I don't think so, I am sure the vast majority would just take a little time to re-adjust to the new notion and would go on leading their life just as before

KdjaCL

daithifleming wrote:

So you presume that the 'right to life' campaign is strictly a Christian thing? Without which there would be no campaign of its sort?

Thats a moral thing not strictly religous, as a non god believer i believe that abortion is wrong.

Disproving god is impossible as its based on faith, altho technically easy as science can prove that what is alleged to be created by god is actual evolution or geo forming, even religous people can read that and still choose to believe in god.


kdjac

Zillah

MooseJam wrote:

how about giving humanity the benefit of the doubt, you think every second Joe bloggs is going to pick up a machete and start lopping heads off

I specified "true believer". Joe Bloggs does not count as a true believer, Joe Bloggs is vaguely spiritual in a fairly meaningless wishy washy sense.

I am sure the vast majority would just take a little time to re-adjust to the new notion and would go on leading their life just as before

And I'm sure there would be tens of millions who would become depressed and apathetic, millions who would turn to drugs/alcohol and destroy themselves, and thousands who would go berserk and start raping and murdering.

rockbeer

daithifleming wrote:

But isn't this thinking the basis for forming human rights? That human life is worth something more than an animals, who have no rights?

What?? you're a self-confessed atheist... and I imagine that you respect human rights without recourse to the supernatural (let's leave animals out of it for now).

Are you superior to other humans in this respect? Or to put it another way, if you can manage it why can't the rest of us?

Ekancone

rockbeer wrote:

What?? you're a self-confessed atheist... and I imagine that you respect human rights without recourse to the supernatural (let's leave animals out of it for now).

Are you superior to other humans in this respect? Or to put it another way, if you can manage it why can't the rest of us?

No, how did you think i was suggesting that?

rockbeer

daithifleming wrote:

No, how did you think i was suggesting that?

You argued in post #11 that a 'sacred' view of human life is necessary for the formation of human rights despite, as an atheist, not subscribing to such a view yourself.

Ekancone

rockbeer wrote:

You argued in post #11 that a 'sacred' view of human life is necessary for the formation of human rights despite, as an atheist, not subscribing to such a view yourself.

Well what i meant was the belief that humans are somehow 'special' and deserve a higher place in the world than animals, as if we are divine beings. Even some atheists would hold this view.

Dades

I'm not sure any atheist would consider humans as "special", as that implies a purpose, or something other than evolution that separates us from animals. However, no doubt some non-believers would consider humans as superior to other animals - not sure if that's what you meant.

Ekancone

The Atheist wrote:

I'm not sure any atheist would consider humans as "special", as that implies a purpose, or something other than evolution that separates us from animals. However, no doubt some non-believers would consider humans as superior to other animals - not sure if that's what you meant.

Yeah, pretty much, im hungover so i may have trouble getting my points across today!

rockbeer

I would suggest that an atheist who believes humans "deserve a higher place in the world than animals, as if we are divine beings" is deeply confused

It's funny you should say that though, as I tend to view that sense of superiority you're talking about as stemming pretty much directly from the Abrahimic faiths. Most other cultures seem to have developed a firmer grasp of their place within and as part of the natural world rather than separate from and somehow superior to it.

To get back somewhere near ot, one of the direct benefits I would expect to see from pursuading large numbers of people of god's non-existence would be a reduction in our over-inflated sense of self-importance.

This idea of us being god's chosen people is not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense, particularly if you happen not to be human.

BTW, animals do have rights.

Tar.Aldarion

rockbeer wrote:

I would suggest that an atheist who believes humans "deserve a higher place in the world than animals, as if we are divine beings" is deeply confused

.

It's funny you should say that though, as I tend to view that sense of superiority you're talking about as stemming pretty much directly from the Abrahimic faiths.

I know that it may be a big cause, maybe the only, but I'm sure that even without religion people would have to come along a bit in the 'path to enlighentenment', as it were, before all stopped feeling superior.
Look at all the people who have broken away from religion for generations but still have the feeling that they are superior to other animals instilled in them as they grow up. People are more affected by things than they think.

Most other cultures seem to have developed a firmer grasp of their place within and as part of the natural world rather than separate from and somehow superior to it.

To get back somewhere near ot, one of the direct benefits I would expect to see from pursuading large numbers of people of god's non-existence would be a reduction in our over-inflated sense of self-importance.

This idea of us being god's chosen people is not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense, particularly if you happen not to be human.

I agree. Just as if you are part of any group that is prejudiced against in any religion.

jhegarty

Why do people think that abortion is only a religion thing...

Its simple , everyone thinks murder is wrong ... some people think abortion is murder , some don't... .just because the church campaigns on issue does not make it only a religious one....


the church is usually into feeding the poor, does that mean that would stop too if you could disprove God ?

Tar.Aldarion

People who think that abortion is solely a 'religion thing' are mistaken. However, numbers of people against abortion would drop if, say, a country was not strongly catholic.

Hivemind187

daithifleming wrote:

But isn't this thinking the basis for forming human rights? That human life is worth something more than an animals, who have no rights?

No the basis for forming human rights is the basic level of existance we should expect to be respected by one another as a matter of principal.

Life is not a sacred thing in any way shape or form, taken to logical extremes walking on grass or breathing air (which contains bacteria AND the protochemical components of life) should be a sin.

The issue regarding human rights is an aesthetic one (eliminating that which is abhorent), a rational one (it is right to provide basic rights and expect the same in retun) and an ethical one (we should all have the same basic rights).

jhegarty

jhegarty wrote:

Why do people think that abortion is only a religion thing...

Its simple , everyone thinks murder is wrong ... some people think abortion is murder , some don't... .just because the church campaigns on issue does not make it only a religious one....

People think illegal killing is wrong because it's illegal...

I think anyone who goes around trying to prove god doesn't exist is an idiot anyway
it's not like you can test it or measure it and we all know about proving negatives anyway I'm sure
waste of time

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote:

I would suggest that an atheist who believes humans "deserve a higher place in the world than animals, as if we are divine beings" is deeply confused

So you would be a vegan then? U would disagree with keeping animals as slaves? Actually, would that make you a fruitarian? If all life is the same, then even the plants are our equals?

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote:

So you would be a vegan then? U would disagree with keeping animals as slaves? Actually, would that make you a fruitarian? If all life is the same, then even the plants are our equals?

I think you missed the "atheist" and "divine" point

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

If all life is the same, then even the plants are our equals?

Sure.

JimiTime wrote:

So you would be a vegan then? U would disagree with keeping animals as slaves? Actually, would that make you a fruitarian?

In general, I just feel bad about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw