If it's proven there's no god

Originally posted by Suzianne
'Civil discourse' usually doesn't include "hypothesizing" that our beliefs are false. Maybe your idea of civility is different than mine.

You call us liars (or at best, deluded) to our faces and then ask that we participate in 'civil discourse', which [b]of course, starts out by fantasizing that our beliefs are, again, false. Oh, please. How about ...[text shortened]... list" Christian views are just as fantastical and ridiculous as the idea that God doesn't exist.[/b]

I beg your pardon. It was ME who said you were all deluded. Let's be clear on that🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why don't we ask YOU what YOU would do if God was proved real? What are all the atheists going to do at Judgement? I mean except thinking, "well, &%$#, those theists were right after all. WHY didn't they MAKE me listen?!?"

"well, &%$#, those theists were right after all. WHY didn't they MAKE me listen?!?"

If you think that, after spending all this time here, you are off your noodle.

Stephen Fry on God | The Meaning Of Life | RTÉ One
YouTube&hd=1

THAT is the kind of response I would give... Although less eloquently, or politely.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you are criticising somebody, saying they should show you and your beliefs respect.....then a few lines later you call YEC's beliefs fantastical and ridiculous...shouldnt you be showing them some respect?

You seem to forget that these fundamentalists are still Christians. They believe in God and they believe that Christ died for their sins. My only beef is with their rather cultish claims that show God to be something he's not. They don't do mainstream Christianity any favors, and here that results in the atheists jumping on ALL Christians for their offshoot beliefs. Calling them out as fantastical and ridiculous is basically *our* business. Atheists just think we're ALL nuts, and therefore we're ALL "fantastical and ridiculous".

And, in case you missed it, just like googlefudge missed it when I first brought it up in this thread, the respect I'm asking for is not respect for our beliefs, it is simple human respect that we have beliefs and that we should be able to discuss these beliefs without being labeled as "crazy", "foolish", or "deluded", or that we are "immoral" or "sadistic", or yes, even "dangerous", for having them.

Christians should be able to respect other Christians "for their beliefs". But when their beliefs fly in the face of fact, like claiming the earth is only 6,000 years old, I should be able to tell my Christian brother that, yes, by believing that one thing, they're being "ridiculous". And yes, that does not prevent me from jumping on my soapbox and defending their belief that Christ died for their sins against the atheist who is claiming that belief is "stupid".

So yes, there's a big difference between chiding my brother for saying one ridiculous thing versus being attacked from without by the atheist with a chip on his shoulder about our entire religion.

Originally posted by stellspalfie

good question, although i suspect you are not really interested in the answer.

Takes one to know one, maybe ?

Go ahead, I'm interested in your answer.

my life would not change, if i do not exist then i cannot alter the fact.

lol.

That's a good one.

"I don't exist ? Well, there's nothing I can do about that."

Maybe God would have to say the same things?
"Oh, you proved that I don't exist? I don't know what you want me to do about that."

i am happy with my state of non-existence..what ever that is.

Now, let's get a grip here.

If they "proved" that you do not exist yet it is still not the truth, then you're still here to be "happy with my state of non-existence .. whatever that is."

You have to exist to be happy with your state ... regardless of anyone's alledged "proof" that you don't exist.

Am I missing something doc?

If you really don't exist then you don't have any state. You don't have anything. There is no you to have anything.

That is unless someone's "proof" is simply not true.
Is it possible that someone's "proof" could not really represent reality ?
I think we may have to consider that scenario.

And if someone's "proof" is nevertheless not representative of reality, then we have to go on something else that informs us of what the real truth is.

Maybe ... for lack of a better word ... we could call that "something else" .. Faith. Or it is something LIKE faith.

At any rate, so far from your reaction, it seems to refute anyone's "proof." Logically consistent arguments of your non-existence, though well thought out, well arranged, well presented, may in fact not represent reality.

i would continue to live my non-existence the same way i did when i thought i existed.

But this is absurd.
What this must mean is that the "proof" is refuted by your experience.

You have to go back to the person with the brilliantly arranged argument of the "proof" that you do not exist, and tell them that there is something wrong somewhere with their proof. That is because "I think, therefore I am."

You do more than think. You can go up to the prover and object that reality is that you do exist.

i would also be intrigued to find out more about the conditions of my non-existence. i would like to know what else doesn't exist and what does.

Don't you see that thinking like an Atheist, after awhile, can kind of warp your reasoning process?

Going back to the existence of God. I would agree with RC Sproul, who probably was not the first to say it.

If ANYTHING exists, then God MUST exist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You seem to forget that these fundamentalists are still Christians. They believe in God and they believe that Christ died for their sins. My only beef is with their rather cultish claims that show God to be something he's not. They don't do mainstream Christianity any favors, and here that results in the atheists jumping on ALL Christians for their offsh ...[text shortened]... eing attacked from without by the atheist with a chip on his shoulder about our entire religion.

from my perspective i see many of your beliefs just as nuts as the beliefs of YEC's. i totally respect your more scientific approach to some aspects of your religion and your often liberal take on human rights......but then you will often start talking about the 'end times' and to me (and i suspect most atheists) is just as nuts as the crap the YEC's come out with. you seem to be expecting some sort of special treatment because not all of your views are as extreme as theirs.

edit: just seen your edit, it would appear the truth is that its okay for a christian to call a christian crazy because they share similar beliefs...but not okay for an atheist to call a christian crazy because we do not share similar beliefs........do this rule only apply to religion or other walks of life?

Originally posted by Suzianne
'Civil discourse' usually doesn't include "hypothesizing" that our beliefs are false. Maybe your idea of civility is different than mine.

You call us liars (or at best, deluded) to our faces and then ask that we participate in 'civil discourse', which [b]of course, starts out by fantasizing that our beliefs are, again, false. Oh, please. How about ...[text shortened]... list" Christian views are just as fantastical and ridiculous as the idea that God doesn't exist.[/b]

If I said something like "let's imagine your husband is cheating on you", I could understand your offense, especially since there's no basis (on my part) for it. However, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to doubt Christianity; you yourself even said that fundamentalist claims are "fantastical". Even Jews, who the Christian bible refers to as God's chosen people, or the "apple" of God's eye, doubt that Jesus is god (like Christians believe).

For these reasons, and many others, this is a legitimate hypothetical.

Originally posted by sonship

good question, although i suspect you are not really interested in the answer.

Takes one to know one, maybe ?

Go ahead, I'm interested in your answer.

my life would not change, if i do not exist then i cannot alter the fact.

lol.

That's a good one.

"I don't exist ? Well, there's nothing I can ...[text shortened]... C Sproul, who probably was not the first to say it.

If ANYTHING exists, then God MUST exist.

you are making many assumptions about my non-existence. i answered a difficult question, in which not many parameters or conditions were set. i imagined that i were nothing more than somebody else's dream (i would say this is a form of non existence)....i imagined the person that i had been during the dream, then thought how that person would likely respond within the dream when told they were the imaginings of another person.

the reply may not be sufficient for you, but the point is, i took the question seriously and tried to answer the best i could. i didnt run away from a difficult hypothetical like so many theists tend to do.

Originally posted by vivify
If I said something like "let's imagine your husband is cheating on you", I could understand your offense,

I on the other hand would not. I find nothing offensive about hypotheticals of that nature. A hypothetical does not imply that something is so, it only asks what the implications would be if something was so.
I for example take no offence whatsoever to being asked 'what if God exists' or 'what if astrology were true', or 'what if the moon is made of cheese'. I may even be willing to try and give the best answer I can to them. I find it interesting that theists seem very unwilling to give an answer to the OP.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I on the other hand would not. I find nothing offensive about hypotheticals of that nature. A hypothetical does not imply that something is so, it only asks what the implications would be if something was so.
I for example take no offence whatsoever to being asked 'what if God exists' or 'what if astrology were true', or 'what if the moon is made of chee ...[text shortened]... can to them. I find it interesting that theists seem very unwilling to give an answer to the OP.

Suzianne believes that there's a sinister implication behind the hypothetical. Like if your child had a bruise in their diaper region, and I asked "let's imagine this child was molested by a parent". In that case, it could be perceived as an attack rather than a legitimate thought experiment. That's what Suze thinks I'm doing with her faith, and she's wrong.

She has succeeded in completely derailing this thread, however. I wonder if she's proud of herself.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you are making many assumptions about my non-existence. i answered a difficult question, in which not many parameters or conditions were set. i imagined that i were nothing more than somebody else's dream (i would say this is a form of non existence)....i imagined the person that i had been during the dream, then thought how that person would likely res ...[text shortened]... he best i could. i didnt run away from a difficult hypothetical like so many theists tend to do.

you are making many assumptions about my non-existence.

No not really. I am making an assumption that someone actually believes he has "PROOF" of your non-existence. The "PROOF" being not representative of real reality, regardless of how well laid out to you.

Isn't that what I am assuming? I know you do exists as well as you do.

i answered a difficult question, in which not many parameters or conditions were set. i imagined that i were nothing more than somebody else's dream (i would say this is a form of non existence)....i imagined the person that i had been during the dream, then thought how that person would likely respond within the dream when told they were the imaginings of another person.

the reply may not be sufficient for you, but the point is, i took the question seriously and tried to answer the best i could. i didnt run away from a difficult hypothetical like so many theists tend to do.

You're better huh ?
I guess you're just too good for us.

Well, it this is the case I owe you a reply:
(Although I did give the original poster(?) a reply).

So what if someone proves to me that God does not exist?

I suspect there must be something wrong with his proof.
For my definition of what God is, if anything exists then a Ultimate Cause of the existing things must exist.

You see I would also discriminate between two proposals:

1.) I don't LIKE God.
2.) God doesn't exist.

Some elegant proofs of God supposedly not existing amount to me to be a statement of "But I just don't like the idea of God."

If anything exists there must be something that has existed ETERNALLY.

The hypothetical makes no sense as claims about the supernatural cannot be proven or disproved using any method involving empirical science. If another method is used, then what is the meaning of "proof"?

Originally posted by sonship

you are making many assumptions about my non-existence.

No not really. I am making an assumption that someone actually believes he has "PROOF" of your non-existence. The "PROOF" being not representative of real reality, regardless of how well laid out to you.

Isn't that what I am assuming? I know you do exists as well as you do.

[ ...[text shortened]... dea of God."

If anything exists there must be something that has existed ETERNALLY.

Isn't that what I am assuming? I know you do exists as well as you do.

I suspect there must be something wrong with his proof.

the idea of answering hypothetical questions is to accept the premise of the hypothetical is correct then answer the question, not to immediately question the plausibility of the premise. if we did that it would make all hypothetical questions pointless.

so, the question would be - if proven that god does not exist, what would you do. - you cannot question the proof, because the premise is that it is proven beyond doubt for you. what would you do then?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The hypothetical makes no sense as claims about the supernatural cannot be proven or disproved using any method involving empirical science. If another method is used, then what is the meaning of "proof"?

The supernatural can be proven if the supernatural entity performs miracles in plain sight, and takes reasonable steps to show it exists.

Claims about the supernatural can be disproved, such as the claim of a global flood. Since the only account of such claims are from people who claim God is real, disproving the claims about their god is enough to reasonably say there's enough evidence that their god didn't exist.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The hypothetical makes no sense as claims about the supernatural cannot be proven or disproved using any method involving empirical science. If another method is used, then what is the meaning of "proof"?

God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
by Victor J. Stenger

Since this book does exist your argument falls. It is a good read.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The hypothetical makes no sense as claims about the supernatural cannot be proven or disproved using any method involving empirical science. If another method is used, then what is the meaning of "proof"?

I think 'proven' was the wrong word. It is better to ask, "if you were convinced there was no god ...?"
I must point out though that I find many claims about god figures to be self contradictory or in other ways incoherent and I would say that demonstrating that is essentially proof of the non existence of an entity matching the given description. Although I have talked to theists that do not think incoherence is a problem for God. Some story about him not being subject to the rules of logic .....

Of course to truly find out what theists would think if they were convinced that God didn't exist: ask an atheist who was formerly theist.