If you had proof that God does not exist, would you publish your findings?

[Aureol]

If I hypothetically found this evidence, I would give the evidence to my closest atheist friend and proceed to commit suicide.

 

[Sneeze]

I'd post it on 4chan and let nature take its course.

 

[.little monster]

If I hypothetically found this evidence, I would give the evidence to my closest atheist friend and proceed to commit suicide.

That's rather pathetic.

:|

Actually, it's just pure pathetic.

 

[Aureol]

That's rather pathetic.

:|

Actually, it's just pure pathetic.

Eh, life isn't so sweet for me that I'm willing to live for something that'll eventually end. It's like reading a mediocre book that I will forget promptly when I finish it: pointless. There may be parts that I will enjoy along the way, but there are too many difficulties in life for me to live it just for the sake of living. I'm young enough to where nobody relies on me, so it'd ultimately only affect me (although my family may be upset by it).

There are many factors that would cause me to stay alive:
-If people depended on me, I'd live, but right now I'm not necessary to anyone's wellbeing (yes, I'm a major loner IRL).
-If life was extremely easy, I'd live it, because it'd be fun to live. Life is too cruel to live without a purpose: take in deaths, hunger, illness, work and the knowledge that it all ultimately ends, taking any value from enduring such hardships.
-The only real reason I'm staying alive in this world is my belief that I have work here to do from God. If I was raised an atheist, trust me, I would've committed suicide when I graduated a year ago.

Call it pathetic, but as far as I see it, without a higher purpose, I'm just wasting other people's resources. Obviously, others have different opinions on life (you, I assume, since you disagree with me), but that's my view on an existence without a supreme being.

 

[Flipnotic]

There is no need to publish, as any logical and intelligent person can work out for themselves that there is not a big guy watching our every move and going to welcome us to his cloudy afterlife when we die.

God doesn't exist. Ok?

agreed..
couldn't have said it any better LOL

 

[Sneeze]

I don't see how so many people can say there DEFIANTLY is no god, surely that requires just as much faith and belief as people who say there defiantly is a god? Either way you're being blind towards the other side of the argument.

And yes, if you hadn't guessed I'm agnostic.

 

[Zeph.]

I don't see how so many people can say there DEFIANTLY is no god, surely that requires just as much faith and belief as people who say there defiantly is a god? Either way you're being blind towards the other side of the argument.

And yes, if you hadn't guessed I'm agnostic.

True, but the vast majority of people don't deliberately abuse and haggle people telling them there is no God: they simply live without believing.

And on a further note: maybe you should spell your capitalised words correctly ;)

 

[Yuukihime]

I don't think I would. Disproving religion is impossible, because as long as people still believe in it then those findings would be useless. :/ There will always be people who believe in things disproven or not.

(Sorry for any typos. My keyboard is being wacky.)

 

[twocows]

I don't see how so many people can say there DEFIANTLY is no god, surely that requires just as much faith and belief as people who say there defiantly is a god? Either way you're being blind towards the other side of the argument.

And yes, if you hadn't guessed I'm agnostic.

I don't see how so many people can say there DEFINITELY is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, surely that requires just as much faith and belief as people who say there definitely is a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Either way you're being blind toward the other side of the argument.

I'm fine with people believing whatever they want to believe, but if you ask me why I'm atheist, I'll be happy to tell you. If someone suggests a theory that contradicts standard logic, the burden of proof rests on them. If someone drops a ball and says "magic is pulling it down," his or her position violates very basic laws of physics. He or she must provide very compelling evidence for his or her position to even be considered, let alone accepted. I do not need to disprove a theory (especially one that I don't see any logic in), rather the proponents of the theory need to provide evidence that their theory is reasonable. If I see a guy walking down the street shouting nonsense and banging his head on the wall, I do not need to prove that he is insane for that position to be accepted, but he does need to prove that he isn't for the converse to be accepted.

 

[Zeph.]

^ You are awesome :D

I don't think we can disprove it with a click of our fingers. The main reason being - religion is slowly being disproven more and more.

Time and time again, what Religion has told us has been proven false by our ability to understand our world better. Cenuries ago, humanity believed there was a place above called heaven, and an abyss below called hell. Years later, we discover that the earth is infact round and is floating through space. We discover the bones and fossils of prehistoric creatures that the bible fails to mention. You see what I'm getting at here? Science continues to disprove religion.

The main problem in trying to do so, however, is that religion is so old. So old that it has become second nature to millions of us around the world who accept it because that's just how it has been for centuries.

So to sum up - we are already disproving religion, bit by bit.

 

[Yuukihime]

^ You are awesome :D

I don't think we can disprove it with a click of our fingers. The main reason being - religion is slowly being disproven more and more.

Time and time again, what Religion has told us has been proven false by our ability to understand our world better. Cenuries ago, humanity believed there was a place above called heaven, and an abyss below called hell. Years later, we discover that the earth is infact round and is floating through space. We discover the bones and fossils of prehistoric creatures that the bible fails to mention. You see what I'm getting at here? Science continues to disprove religion.

The main problem in trying to do so, however, is that religion is so old. So old that it has become second nature to millions of us around the world who accept it because that's just how it has been for centuries.

So to sum up - we are already disproving religion, bit by bit.

I don't think we can disprove religion altogether. While it is true that we did discover earth is round and IS floating through space that doesn't mean Heaven and Hell don't exist to some degree. heaven and Hell have been more of a spiritual matter. A place for souls to go after they die. It doesn't have a physical form here on earth. And how can we prove disprove these don't exist? Can a scientist go die come back and say there is no heaven or hell? :O

Discovering bones and fossils of animals that were never mentioned in the Bible? I don't read the Bible a whole lot but to some of the chapters I have read they don't go into deal Job taming a Tyranosaurs Rex xD.

I'm going to quote what my friend says on the matter. Word for Word this is what she said.

Dyanna the Kitsune says:
science EXPLAINS religion....religion says what,...science says how.

^
|

I think this, to some degree could actually be true. Am I denying the big bang ever happened? No. But I do think there is a higher being controlling everything because I highly doubt that everything happened by chance. The fact that we landed in exactly the right place away from the sun to have the ability to grow life per random chance? The chances of that happening are over 1 in quintillion.

And before people start ragging me saying I'm crazy, I'm not saying science could totally disprove religion altogether but to some degree science can logically explain many of the events that happen in religion. ;<

I have my own religious beliefs but not a set religion. So I am still open to the idea that each religion and even science could hold a bit of truth to them. I honestly don't think there is one set truth for things like this. :>

 

[TheUltimateSacrifice]

No; ignorance is bliss - as is evident by a staggering amount of posts in this thread.

 

[ILoveDragonite]

No, i'm not a fan of mass chaos.

 

[Timbjerr]

since this thread has kinda evolved onto the topic, I agree with yuukihime. I don't think science disproves religion as a whole. It may disprove many of the minor metaphors found throughout the Bible, but there has been no explanation for how life came to exist other than "a long string of coincidences." The purpose of a religion isn't to belive mythology as hard fact but rather to have faith in whatever higher powers exist.

I heard a quote a while back...I think it was attributed to Galileo, but I could be wrong..."Science is not the quest to overthrow God, but rather the quest to fully understand Him."

 

[twocows]

I don't think we can disprove religion altogether. While it is true that we did discover earth is round and IS floating through space that doesn't mean Heaven and Hell don't exist to some degree. heaven and Hell have been more of a spiritual matter. A place for souls to go after they die. It doesn't have a physical form here on earth. And how can we prove disprove these don't exist? Can a scientist go die come back and say there is no heaven or hell? :O

Discovering bones and fossils of animals that were never mentioned in the Bible? I don't read the Bible a whole lot but to some of the chapters I have read they don't go into deal Job taming a Tyranosaurs Rex xD.

I'm going to quote what my friend says on the matter. Word for Word this is what she said.

Dyanna the Kitsune says:
science EXPLAINS religion....religion says what,...science says how.

^
|

I think this, to some degree could actually be true. Am I denying the big bang ever happened? No. But I do think there is a higher being controlling everything because I highly doubt that everything happened by chance. The fact that we landed in exactly the right place away from the sun to have the ability to grow life per random chance? The chances of that happening are over 1 in quintillion.

And before people start ragging me saying I'm crazy, I'm not saying science could totally disprove religion altogether but to some degree science can logically explain many of the events that happen in religion. ;<

I have my own religious beliefs but not a set religion. So I am still open to the idea that each religion and even science could hold a bit of truth to them. I honestly don't think there is one set truth for things like this. :>

Of course you can't "disprove" religion; that statement is more or less irrelevant. If I say "I am omnipotent, but I choose not to use it so as to let mankind take its course," you can't disprove that either, but do you really need to? As a theory, I don't really think religion holds most ground, but it's something a lot of people find very important. I'm not about to go out and say we should get rid of something that brings people together and motivates them to do good. People have done great things in the name of religion; many charity and rescue organizations are also religious organizations, or at least formed by religious people. I highly doubt the peoples' lives they affect really care what motivated them to do it. In the end, most religious people don't need or want proof anyway, either for or against. Most religions have some sort of tenant about faith, and it wouldn't exactly be faith if you had proof.

 

[Sneeze]

And on a further note: maybe you should spell your capitalised words correctly ;)

Oops.. :embarrass >.< My bad. Lol.

I don't see how so many people can say there DEFINITELY is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, surely that requires just as much faith and belief as people who say there definitely is a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Either way you're being blind toward the other side of the argument.

I'm fine with people believing whatever they want to believe, but if you ask me why I'm atheist, I'll be happy to tell you. If someone suggests a theory that contradicts standard logic, the burden of proof rests on them. If someone drops a ball and says "magic is pulling it down," his or her position violates very basic laws of physics. He or she must provide very compelling evidence for his or her position to even be considered, let alone accepted. I do not need to disprove a theory (especially one that I don't see any logic in), rather the proponents of the theory need to provide evidence that their theory is reasonable. If I see a guy walking down the street shouting nonsense and banging his head on the wall, I do not need to prove that he is insane for that position to be accepted, but he does need to prove that he isn't for the converse to be accepted.

Fair point, but, just as there's no proof there isn't a god, there's no proof there is so until some evidence crops up pointing either way I won't make a this or that decision. Just my two cents is all.

 

[sgspacemonkey]

I don't know if I'd announce it or not. I don't know if I believe in God or not – I guess I'd like to but there's a logical voice in my head telling me I can't. I think I just want to believe because it makes certain aspects of life easier to take on - even though I'm mostly not comfortable around religion, I can understand its uses for bringing hope to people. For that reason you could argue it being a bad idea to disprove the existence of God. Ignorance can be bliss after all.
On the other hand, religion causes way too many debates, which I would quite happily see the back of. There are too many extremists out there and I'm tired of having my interests ripped to shreds just because they can't handle people seeing things in a different light. (For example, disapproving Avatar just because it has nature worship in it is a little bit touchy.)
I don't sit around thinking about these things anyway, there's no proof either way, I'd just prefer not to address the issue and to simply get on with life...

 

[bendrawslife]

It is logically impossible to disprove the existence of anything. To make it easier, try imagining disproving the existence of dragons. They could exist anywhere in the universe at any point in time. We can't be everywhere at once, and they could defy our sensory perception in some manner that makes them unavailable to us.
I'm probably putting way too much thought into this, but to answer the question:
If I could, I probably would, but nobody that has faith would believe it anyway. That's kind of the point of religion. To have faith in something, doesn't matter what it really is. Why do you think there are so many different gods that people believe in? It's not because people have any actual evidence of their existence, it's because some people "need" them.