RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Deep Topics religious? prove it!

if you somehow were able to prove that religion was a complete sham, completely faked -- to prove god (or GOD) did not exist...

would you share the information?

No.

I am a pretty religious person, and a fairly observant Catholic. I think half the benefit of religion is the miracle of faith, and how it makes people from a poor man to Mother Theresa do great good for the world. Even if it is only an illusion (and I don't believe it is), it is one that benefots us all and makes folks happy.

I think of the one idea of wondering if God exists: act as if he does. If you are wrong, you've lost nothing (i.e., there is no afterlife), but if there is a God, then living well will mean a damn fine time in heaven.

In heaven, there is no flood control.

i believe their flood control was a 40 day limit. ...ill get back to you on that.

my take:

personally? im not too sure on religion. id love to believe in it. i've just had trouble, specifically recently.

i can be pretty argumentative. i enjoy debates. and, i guess, im just looking for more of a "proof" sorta thing when it comes to religion. i have so many questions about it, and no one can really gimme an answer. its frustrating, cuz, id honestly LIKE to know the questions -- im not looking to make people who believe look foolish cuz they dont know the answers... thats not any part of me. rather, i'd like to strive for the answers to help better myself and perhaps find a stronger committment to religion. unfortunately, i've yet to find that.

however, were i given some magical final answer, proving once and for all that god was man's creation... would i share it? certainly not.

there are a few things in this world that are just bigger than us.

for starters, i'd have billions (literally) of people on my ass, ridiculing me, some making assassination attempts, etc, etc. id be worse than hitler, as far as the world was concerned. so, for self-preservation reasons, i DEFINITELY would not share my findings.

however, even if looked at in a more "beneficial" light -- as if to say my sharing this information may benefit people... i still dont think id tell people.

remember your first christmas (not you, roy), when you found out about santa? that shit sucked!! it was like "oooh... presents... and clothes, i guess..." but, just 1 year prior, it was THE most important day in the history of your life. the only difference was whether or not you had that faith.

no way would i wanna ruin that feeling for anyone, let alone everyone.

Oh, Rob! Christmas has aways been special to me...even after I found out that their is no bearded fat man flying in his sled on Christmas Eve.

I've mentioned this briefly last night at the manor. One Christmas my wife and I were both out of work and she was expecting our third child. If not for the contribution of an anoynymus benefactor at church my children would not have had a Christmas. Now this is what religion and Christmas are all about, Robbie! It's all structured on faith and asking for proof just means you just are not getting it at all! Now that would make for one haunting childhood memory. I, myself, didn't get anything for Christmas BUT my kids did! It actually turned out to be a great Christmas after all!

We were still struggling the next Christmas but we would be able to have a very little something for the kids. Not anywhere near what I like to indulge in on my favorite holiday of the year, but it wasn't going to be a total wipeout as the year before had been. The insurance company where I worked intervened and adopted my family for Christmas and what would have been a pretty uneventful Christmas for the kids suddenly became much nicer! Faith in people, Robbie. They are not always trying to do something bad to one another. We have to be there for one another when we need help. The next Christmas my wife and I contributed greatly to our company cause for Christmas and helped organize and distributed the Christmas gifts we had gathered for the Women's shelter. We received help when we needed it. It was time to give some of it back. The women's shelter is comprised of women and their children who had no hope of giving their child any kind of Christmas. When you're completely down and out it's surprising how important it is all of a sudden that your kids have a good Christmas.

there was a roseanne christmas-time episode once that had this really great line.

the setup: roseanne and her mom were constantly bickering over roseanne's childhood and how ideas like jesus were forced upon her. her mom was defeding the notion of christianity and how it helped raise her, so she used it for her kids. the argument was increasing and getting more and more intense, both were at each others throats, when, suddenly, roseanne's sister jackie jumps between the two --

"stop it, stop it! for one night, no more religion talk -- its christmas!"

heh

well, llance, i can't completely relate with your scenario, as im just a youngin'. i have been the kid in a situation VERY similar to yours, tho, so i do see your point.

however, much like the wise sage "jackie" mentioned above... sometimes, to me, it just seems like its more the idea of the holiday and man's good will, rather than relating to god or religion at all.

am i a dumbass for wanting proof? probably. i know im not the only one, but i've heard the arguments before. if god really IS there, why the hell would he prove himself to me? he'd have to do it for EVERYone. it'd probably just get annoying for him.

bottom line, i aint got no frickin clue. i'd never shit on anyone for their religion and/or religious choices, cuz thats not cool at all. and, like my childhood christmas' faith, and the happiness it brought me, id NEVER wanna be sucha dick that i'd go and ruin that for someone else, even if it were possible that i "knew" the answer was opposite to their beliefs.

I remember that Roseanne episode. It was a very good scene. hee.

I see where you're coming from, Rob and I'm not going to try to convert you. You have questions and you want answers. You'll come to your own conclusions as your life proceeds. I am glad you wouldn't ruin the whole religion thing for everybody else if you were to find out it was all a big sham. In return, I won't laugh at you when you're burning in Hell and I'm living the good life up in heaven.

another good tv moment. from the simpons. the setup: reverend lovejoy, dismayed after a horrible evening at the simpson household, storms out the front door, but gets in a good last word right before he leaves.

"see you in hell!" the reverend screams as the door slams... then, quickly, it re-opens "...from heaven!"

hey, hopefully i will find some answers. life is definitely a lot more comforting with that extra bit o' faith.

My take on religion is I hate religion, organized religion that is...

I was brought up very religious and then I found the hypocracy of the religion...

VOW OF POVERTY: Sure while the Vatican sits on a mound of valuable artworks and other treasures others are starving.

A friend of mine went to three differnet churches after having gone on a mission in Mexico. He asked the parishes if he could talk and maybe take up a second collection for the village he visited and knowing they may think he was gonna swipe the money he told them the info of the priest he was witht there (whom they already knew). None allowed it instead two of the three he asked instead took up asecond collection for some million dollar artwork (literally ONE MILLION DOLLARS) they wanted to purchase for the vestibule!

I am very spiritual just hate the oraganized religions although I have seen many individuals and the Church itself do some good work... the hypocracy overwhelms....

Not to mention one day while being taught in a seventh grade Catholic School a teacher informed the class that she believed all gays and lesbians should be put on an island and blown up! Love thy neighbor eh? When I told my parents (recognizing the insanity of this even at a young age) they said she was entitled to her opinion!

BACK TO THE QUESTION AT HAND

No I would not although many use the "word of God" to benefit themselves I would not tell others whose faith in God helps them through every day of pain and misery that their savor does not really exist and that this shit life they've had is all they got.

Franta, don't let "THE MAN" get you down. I've found in my life, that even thought there aren't many police officers I could trust, I shouldn't judge the concept of "The Police" on that. Just because you don't trust a lot of the people in the church (Hey, the Pastor of my church was indicted for being a pedophile last year!), doesn't mean that you should just give up on it. I've found that I feel better off being religious and spiritual in my own way and using the church as mainly an occasional (i dunno...) place that I can sometimes float in and out of when I need the extra boost. Otherwise, I pretty much go it on my own...

Did that make any sense at all?

I am skeptical in religious matters. The only church I can imagine myself joining is Kurt Vonnegut's Church of God the Utterly Indifferent, whose motto is, "Let the people take care of themselves, and God will take care of himself."

I feel ya rufie....

I dont automatically believe those involved in religion to be evil, as there could be no basis to say that absolutely....

However I can say that the few times I have gone to Church since my younger days all that was talked about was raising money for some frivolous item (ie statues, paintings and such) and it kills me that those material items are overshadowing the poor and hungry....

reference, if you feel so inclined, a lil diddy i wrote in my web log about fr. martin (two relatively long passages, sometime in early-mid june of this year).

in short, this guy is one of the greatest people i know. were there more like him, religion wouldnt be a problem in our country, but rather, a benefit.

he sees past all the political bull shit. he sees past differences between existing religions and church vs. state. he's not about that. he doesnt protest or fight or nit pick. all the negative stigmas and aspects of religion escape him. he just breaks things down to their spiritual core, makes spirituality a necessity, but not an obligation.

he's good people, 1000%

only wish that all those who choose the vocation were as such....

Especially those running it.

C'mon get with the times Pope, birth control, divorce, celibacy for priests... all outdated thoughts....

Outdated to believe they are sins...

SO what if you take the pill...
We had one patient who had 13 siblings, its no wonder they all had problems you cant possible adeqately care for all those children and offer the emotional support they need...which was this patient's very problem...the mother didnt really know her at all.

Divorce, so if a woman mistakenly marries a physical or mental abuser... the Church cant excuse her? Is that really the priest's place to judge?

And maybe if we allowed priests to marry we would get more to follow the vocation, and probably have less controversal priests....(see rufie's post)

my main problem with the church is just that... like i said before and in the web log, there's nothing religious about it.

on record, theres been a legal speraration of church and state. unfortuantely, in reality, that created an almagamation of church and state, and a separation of church and spritituality.

church is based on the bible, and the bible is based on man. men seek power. thats about the sum of it!

You lads sound as though you could use some intellectual stimulation. Following are some typically trenchant observations by Bertrand Russell on religious matters.

***

I observe that a very large portion of the human race does not believe in God and suffers no visible punishment in consequence. And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt his existence.

***

Although we are taught the Copernican astronomy in our textbooks, it has not yet penetrated to our religion or our morals, and has not even succeeded in destroying belief in astrology. People still think that the Divine Plan has special reference to human beings, and that a special Providence not only looks after the good, but also punishes the wicked. I am sometimes shocked by the blasphemies of those who think themselves pious -- for instance, the nuns who never take a bath without wearing a bathrobe all the time. When asked why, since no man can see them, they reply: 'Oh, but you forget the good God.' Apparently they conceive of the Deity as a Peeping Tom, whose omnipotence enables Him to see through bathroom walls, but who is foiled by bathrobes. This view strikes me as curious.

***

The Church attacked the habit of the bath on the ground that everything which makes the body more attractive tends towards sin Dirt was praised and the odor of sanctity became more and more penetrating. 'The purity of the body and its garments,' said St. Paula, 'means the impurity of the soul.' ( Havelock Ellis, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Vol. IV, p. 31.) Lice were called the pearls of God, and to be covered with them was an indispensable mark of a holy man.

***

Christians hold that their faith does good, but other faiths do harm. At any rate, they hold this about the Communist faith. What I wish to maintain is that all faiths do harm. We may define 'faith' as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith.' We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.

***

Since evolution became fashionable, the glorification of Man has taken a new form. We are told that evolution has been guided by one great Purpose: through the millions of years when there were only slime, or trilobites, throughout the ages of dinosaurs and giant ferns, of bees and wild flowers, God was preparing the Great Climax. At last, in the fullness of time, He produced Man, including such specimens as Nero and Caligula, Hitler and Mussolini, whose transcendent glory justified the long painful process. For my part, I find even eternal damnation less incredible, certainly less ridiculous, than this lame and impotent conclusion which we are asked to admire as the supreme effort of Omnipotence.

***

Mankind . . . are a mistake. The universe would be sweeter and fresher without them. When the morning dew sparkles like diamonds in the rising sun of a September morning, there is beauty and exquisite purity in each blade of grass, and it is dreadful to think of this beauty being beheld by sinful eyes, which smirch its loveliness with their sordid and cruel ambitions. I cannot understand how God, who sees this loveliness, can have tolerated so long the baseness of those who boast blasphemously that they have been made in His image. Perhaps . . . it may yet fall to my lot to be the more thoroughgoing instrument of the Divine Purpose which was carried out half-heartedly in the days of Noah.

***

It is not by prayer and humility that you cause things to go as you wish, but by acquiring a knowledge of natural laws. The power you acquire in this way is much greater and more reliable than that formerly supposed to be acquired by prayer, because you never could tell whether your prayer would be favorably heard in Heaven. The power of prayer, moreover, had recognized limits; it would have been impious to ask too much. But the power of science has no known limits. We were told that faith could remove mountains, but no one believed it; we are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone believes it.

***

I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy homelike comfort of a fenced dogmatic creed? To this the answer is many-sided. In the first place, I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be obtained by the abdication of reason. I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be obtained from drink or drugs or amassing great wealth by swindling widows and orphans. It is not the happiness of the individual convert that concerns me; it is the happiness of mankind. If you genuinely desire the happiness of mankind, certain forms of ignoble personal happiness are not open to you. If your child is ill, and you are a conscientious parent, you accept medical diagnosis, however doubtful and discouraging; if you accept the cheerful opinion of a quack and your child consequently dies, you are not excused by the pleasantness of belief in the quack while it lasted.

***

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Indian's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, 'How about the tortoise?' the Indian said, 'Suppose we change the subject.' The argument is really no better than that.

***

The agnostic is not quite so certain as some Christians are as to what is good and what is evil. He does not hold, as most Christians in the past held, that people who disagree with the Government on abstruse points of theology ought to suffer a painful death. He is against persecution, and rather chary of moral condemnation.As for 'sin,' he thinks it not a useful notion. He admits, of course, that some kinds of conduct are desirable and some undesirable, but he holds that the punishment of undesirable kinds is only to be commended when it is deterrent or reformatory, not when it is inflicted because it is thought a good thing on its own account that the wicked should suffer. It was this belief in vindictive punishment that made men accept hell. This is part of the harm done by the notion of 'sin.'

***

It was geology, Darwin, and the doctrine of evolution, that first upset the faith of British men of science. If man was evolved by insensible gradations from lower forms of life, a number of things became very difficult to understand. At what moment in evolution did our ancestors acquire free will? At what stage in the long journey from the ameba did they begin to have immortal souls? When did they first become capable of the kinds of wickedness that would justify a benevolent Creator in sending them into eternal torment? Most people felt that such punishment would be hard on monkeys, in spite of their propensity for throwing coconuts at the heads of Europeans. But how about Pithecanthropus Erectus? Was it really he who ate the apple? Or was it Homo Pekiniensis?

***

There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.

***

What Galileo and Newton had done for astronomy Darwin did for biology. The adaptations of animals and plants to their environments were a favorite theme of pious naturalists in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. These adaptations were explained by the Divine Purpose. It is we that the explanation was sometimes a little odd. If rabbits were theologians, they might think the exquisite adaptation of weasels to the killing of rabbits hardly a matter for thankfulness. And there was a conspiracy of silence about the tapeworm.

***

I do not understand where the 'beauty' and 'harmony' of nature are supposed to be found. Throughout the animal kingdom, animals ruthlessly prey upon each other. Most of them are either cruelly killed by other animals or slowly die of hunger. For my part, I am unable to see any very great beauty or harmony in the tapeworm. Let it not be said that this creature is sent as a punishment for our sins, for it is more prevalent among animals than among humans.I suppose what is meant by this 'beauty' and 'harmony' are such things as the beauty of the starry heavens. But one should remember that the stars every now and again explode and reduce everything in their neighborhood to a vague mist.

***

The raw fruits of the earth were made for human sustenance. Even the white tails of rabbits, according to some theologians, have a purpose, namely to make it easier for sportsmen to shoot them. There are, it is I true, some inconveniences: lions and tigers are too l fierce, the summer is too hot, and the winter too cold. But these things only began after Adam ate the apple; I before that, all animals were vegetarians, and the season was always spring. If only Adam had been content with peaches and nectarines, grapes and pears and pineapples, these blessings would still be ours.

***

One occasion for theological intervention to prevent the mitigation of human suffering was the discovery of anesthetics. Simpson, in 1847, recommended their use in childbirth, and was immediately reminded by the clergy that God said to Eve: 'In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children' (Gen. id. 16). And how could she sorrow if she was under the influence of chloroform? Simpson succeeded in proving that there was no harm in giving anesthetics to men, because God put Adam into a deep sleep when He extracted his rib. But male ecclesiastics remained unconvinced as regards the sufferings of women, at any rate in childbirth.

***

The conception of purpose is a natural one to apply to a human artificer A man who desires a house cannot, except in the Arabian Nights, have it rise before him as a result of his mere wish; time and labor must be expended before his wish can be gratified. But Omnipotence is subject to no such limitations. If God really thinks well of the human race-an unplausible hypothesis, as it seems to me-why not proceed, as in Genesis, to create man at once? What was the point of the ichthyosaurs, dinosaurs, diplodochi, mastodons, and so on? Dr. Barnes himself confesses, somewhere, that the purpose of the tapeworm is a mystery What useful purpose is served by rabies and hydro phobia? It is no answer to say that the laws of nature inevitably produce evil as well as good, for God decreed the laws of nature. The evil which is due to sin may be explained as the result of our free will, but the problem of evil in the pre-human world remains. I hardly think Dr. Barnes will accept the solution offered by William Gillespie, that the bodies of beasts of prey were inhabited by devils, whose first sins antedated the brute creation; yet it is difficult to see what other logically satisfying answer can be suggested. The difficulty is old, but none the less real. An omnipotent Being who created a world containing evil not due to sin must Himself be at least partially evil.

***

Belief in God and a future life makes it possible to go through life with less of stoic courage than is needed by skeptics. A great many young people lose faith in these dogmas at an age at which despair is easy, and thus have to face a much more intense unhappiness than that which falls to the lot of those who have never had a religious upbringing. Christianity offers reasons for not fearing death or the universe, and in so doing it fails to teach adequately the virtue of courage. The craving for religious faith being largely an outcome of fear, the advocates of faith tend to think that certain kinds of fear are not to be deprecated. In this, to my mind, they are gravely mistaken. To allow oneself to entertain pleasant beliefs as a means of avoiding fear is not to live in the best way. In so far as religion makes its appeal to fear, it is lowering to human dignity.

***

The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.

***

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.... Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look round for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the Churches in all these centuries have made it.

***

I do not believe that a decay of dogmatic belief can do anything but good. I admit at once that new systems of dogma, such as those of the Nazis and the Communists, are even worse than the old systems, but they could never have acquired a hold over men's minds if orthodox dogmatic habits had not been instilled in youth. Stalin's language is full of reminiscences of the theological seminary in which he received his training. What the world needs is not dogma, but an attitude of scientific inquiry, combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.

my original question,

if you could prove god didnt exist, would you tell others...

does this include the scientists and doctors who reveal that, when people have near death experiences, the "tunnel of light" is actually the brain shutting down?

is that information that (if they are correct) they should keep to themselves?

So hard to say. I'm religous, but from everything I have learned, the power of it comes in the faith. So, in all honesty, I don't think I could reveal my proof either way. If there was NO God, then I'd live my life the exact same way I always have. If I had certain proof that he WAS there, I am not sure hoe much I would change so much. I might try harder, which probably reflects poorly on my current relationship with God.

Tangent: How I discovered there was no Santa! As a curious child, I looked up "reindeer" in the Encyclopedia. The main listing included no indication of flight. I then cross referenced "Santa Claus". The word "Mythological" was included in the first sentence of his entry. Unfortunately, I had a good vocabulary and the myth was spoiled forever.