I'm with cj. I couldn't alter my ethics just because the biggest and baddest thing in existence is going to kick my ass otherwise. That's just basic terrorism. I got enough of it in my childhood that I'm liable to respond with violence.

On a lesser note I'm taking my family to a county fair/rodeo for their first time next week.

Crap, I haven't been to a rodeo since I was a teenager.  So over twenty years ago.

I'm actually kinda excited about it.  Bull riders, calf roping, they release sheep out in the ring and let all the kids ride them.   Plus they literally grease a pig, unlease it into the ring, let the kids chase it, whoever catches it well you are the new proud owner of a pig.

Rodeo clowns, side games, random animals walking around like various species of monkies an zorses.

I haven't seen a Zorse in FOREVER.

Maybe they'll have a Liger.   That would be fantastic.   Please have Ligers.

I'm just going to let that sink in for a second...

Assuming we have a fairly "classical" god, I'd have a whole bunch of questions for this god thing.  How does it violate locality?  How does it think and where is it located?  Stuff like that.

Questions about morality would have to wait until I had some kind of understanding about how this thing functioned.  I'm going to take Arthur Weasley's advice here and refuse to trust something that thinks for itself if I can't see where it keeps its brain.  I'd have to understand this god enough to think it reliable before I started trusting it.

Too bad. I think this is one of those questions they instinctively know they cannot answer honestly.

I too would love to hear about any other responses you've gotten. Would be neat to see.

In many arguments with theists, both on the streets and on the internet, I have sometimes concluded it, many times with :

If you can prove that I am wrong and you are right. If you can absolutely prove that to me. I will admit to being wrong and we will go from there.

IF, on the other hand, I can prove, beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubt. That I am RIGHT and you are wrong, what would you do ? They almost inevitably answer with : That is not going to happen. Or, I can not be proven wrong because god is real. Or, they evade the question altogether and try to throw at me a lot of double talk, circular arguments, and logical fallacies.

I remember the first time that I read George Orwell's 1984. (Orwell is one of my literary heros) I thought that while Orwell was writing about dictatorships and tyranny, he must have been thinking about religion when he came up with the expression of "doublethink".

I would accept excuses such as "I am not all powerful" or "I was unaware that lots of people die of starvation every day" or other excuses of the sort.  Then I might understand.  But I currently lack the ability to kiss the ass of jerks and don't see how I will gain that ability when I die.  It's not courage it's character.  The way I see it... I'm used to the type of torture God doles out.  Maybe I'm not taking this hypothetical seriously, probably because it's extremely far-fetched.

 

 

 

 The most common response I receive to this question is that it simply wouldn't matter.  It might make a slight difference (as one atheist on this thread suggested, he would become a priest of Bacchus and basically carry on as before).  Another variation that comes only from atheists is the "spit in God's eye" response followed by carry on as before which also showed up on this thread.

 

I have to admit, I find this response generally shocking when I hear it from atheists.  I don't mean to say that I think they answered "wrong" as this question doesn't really have a right or wrong answer, but it always surprises me to hear that anyone would ignore or disdain an all-powerful being who could grant them some variation on eternal happiness (or at least potential godhead for themselves if you are considering an ancient pantheon).  I just think it is shocking that someone could decide that now beats the crap out of eternity.  I have a feeling that many people would behave differently if the choice were not just conceptual, but I accept that there are others (a much smaller number, I think) who know themselves well enough to know that having to change in the now would be just too much to take for a shot at eternity.  I think that small number of people is owed some grudging respect as they know themselves much better then I know myself.

 

From a theist, this is far less shocking to me.  I have never met a theist (eh, I have met one, see the P.S.) who claims that God is talking in his head or that an angel has made an appearance or some other form of very direct contact (of course, anyone who claims this type of contact would have to declare themselves insane if it were proven no god existed).  I know plenty of theists who feel that God guides them through prayer; who feel that prayer is not a time for requests, but a centering sort of thing where one puts aside one's own desires; and/or who feel that God acts through some sort of thing that looks "natural" to everyone else, but is really intended for their (or other's) benefit (earthquakes, spontaneous meetings, etc).  As a result, the proven lack of a God makes these things good practices and nice coincidences instead of acts of God and they move on.  The theists I have known who answer this way feel that they are "doing the right thing" and they are guided by their religion but, in general, they have chosen their religion because it aligns with their sense of right and wrong as much as anything else.  These theists seem to be content with doing "the right thing" whether it is God driven or just "the right thing."  Their belief that "the right thing" aligns with their God's view of "the right thing" is a happy association that makes things even better, but if God is removed from the equation, they still feel compelled to do "the right thing."  It is comforting and slightly disconcerting for me when I run into this type of theist because I figure these folks would either be the ones who would be doing things like the Crusades without a God (they'd just have a different overt motive) or would be comfortable chalking things like the Crusades up to misguided, over zealous religious types and would not have participated.  In general, I find I have the best discussions about religion with these people because questioning religion is not usually offensive, rather it is an opportunity to have a healthy, growing discussion from which we both could benefit.

 

Next installment...Other Theist responses I have received.  I'm going to wait a day or two to allow for reaction to this post (if any).

 

P.S.--I just remembered, I did meet a theist who described very direct contact with demons.  He was the religious consultant behind "The Exorcist" (it is worth noting that the movie and the events that "inspired" it were quite different).  I thought to start asking this question a year or two after I met him (he was my guidance counselor in high school) and never got a chance to ask him.  His answer would probably be very interesting--he is a very scholarly man who takes this kind of question quite seriously.  If I happen to see him again (although this is quite unlikely as he is quite old), I will definitely ask him.

A being responsible for the world as we see it, who actually had done all the abominable acts in OT, would be an evil being, by any measure that makes sense to me.

I could not take the word of such a being that I was going to have a wonderful eternal life if I signed his contract.

He could not prove what his intentions 'really' were with regard to future actions, so it is a meaningless proposal to ask what I would do if the intentions or promises of such being were proven to be true, not just his existence.

At most, the existence of an immensely powerful being is all that could be 'proved'. No omni- or otherwise infinite qualities could be 'proved', or even demonstrated.

If it could be 'proved' that all of the things that contribute to the 'problem of evil' didn't happen or are in fact 'good', then all you have done is prove that reality is totally incomprehensible, 'good' and 'evil' are truly arbitrary labels, and that nothing can be taken as certain, which includes any apparent 'proof' of this being's very existence., at least in the apparent form he chooses to present to us...

 

I guess, in a sense, you are right--maybe I'm not taking all the perspectives into account.  An all-powerful god suddenly makes himself known to you and he has "A LOT of explaining to do" or what?  You won't worship him?  OK, cool, I get that, you wouldn't want to worship someone who did all this stuff or maybe even someone who just let it happen.  That is cool.  

However, I just don't see anyone muscling up on an all-powerful god, grabbing him by the collar, shaking him, and roaring, "Explain yourself!"  To my way of thinking doing that is a suicide mission, ESPECIALLY if that god is responsible for all the crap that needs to be explained.  My point is that when push comes to shove, if such a thing happens, I figure the number of people who have a heart attack from the sheer unbelievability of his arrival before they go grabbing for his collar are much higher.  I'm figuring that while lots of people would like to think they'd go over and hold an all-powerful god to account wouldn't actually do it when confronted with that god.  And, if you would, well, my friend, you have my respect.  Heck, I know a lot of people who wouldn't do that to a cop when a cop is doing something outright wrong and a cop is a lot less of an authority figure then an all-powerful god.

Regardless of the perspective, doesn't it seem to require a lot of hubris to think that any one individual has a right to walk up to an all-powerful god and hold him to account?  I don't have the brass ones for that, so I'm shocked whenever an atheist clanks over and tells me he'd spit in God's eye.  I don't think my shock is out of line.  On the bright side, I get over the shock .

<sigh>.  The fact that people tell rather outrageous stories when sitting around a dorm is no great surprise.  It is interesting that you have been exposed to such phenomena, but odd to me that it made so little impression on you that you would find them consistent with a world without a God.  Imagine, for a moment, that you were afflicted with stigmata and then you discovered that there was no God.  Wouldn't that be incredibly troubling?  Man, that would be on the very top of my list.  If the Arch-Angel Gabriel appeared to me and then I knew for sure there was no God, then I'd be incredibly freaked out and the first thing I'd do is check my own sanity.  I say this with complete confidence because I think I'd want to check out my own sanity regardless if something like an Angel showed up in my bedroom.

Any skeptic worth his salt will tell you that the reason these phenomena don't appear among skeptics is because, if they believe the phenomena, then they are no longer skeptics.  Right?  That is a pretty self-satisfying definition from where I sit.  So, my guess is that things that look like "phenomena" to some look like explainable reality to others.

You can go read his book (Fr. John J. Nicola) and check out what he believes (I have not read it, I get enough nightmares about other stuff), but what he told me about demons was chilling.  He believes 100% no ifs, ands, or buts.  It was kind of scary to talk to him about this stuff, because he was a guy who had a really commanding presence (not in a military sense, just a personal sense--he was the embodiment of getting someone's attention by whispering).  I met him just after I'd read the Amityville Horror (he wrote a preface for it, which should be a black mark on his reliability at this point as far as I understand it).  I didn't realize he was involved in this stuff until one day he came into the classroom and played a cassette tape from a session with someone whom he felt was possessed.  Geez.  It was Latin backwards, he made the whole class figure out what was being said by copying the tape to reel-to-reel, then running it backwards.  He seemed like the most honest guy in the world I've ever met, but even if it was faked, why play it for a group of kids?  Whatever the reason, it still gives me chills when I think back to it.  If the kid on that tape was just nuts, then he was waaaay scary nuts.

I'd be with you, cj.

 

For the apologist who says that we can't understand why an all powerful, loving god allows all this evil, but it is for our ultimate good, I say two words - stockholm syndrome.

I would rather be in hell with CJ and Bob ... and ... Mark Twain and John Lennon and apparently nearly everyone except a lunatic "remnant" ... It will be cooler than hell

Well, it would not be that much troubling. I have theories about the world that can explain such things with relatively few basic concepts. 
In fact, I have had such a being appear to me once, (if I don't count latter different incidents) I even touched its hand... But even if it would be Jesus himself, (who according to certain authority it was him) in my worldview it is not a problem, only confirmation of some of these principles. My worldview is logical and internally consistent, unlike religious dogma. The only problem is, that I depend on personal abilities to test it. There are some technical devices already, but I don't have access to them, they just confirm the basic ideas anyway.

Yes, I was freaked out later on other ocassions, but not because of God. It is enough a reason to freak out, if there are less than corporeal people, who come and go according to entirely different laws than solid walls and locked doors. And we have almost no way to tell who of them is benevolent, who isn't and who is benevolent only to get your trust and then misuse it. But fortunately, there are laws and if such encounters are anything, then they are rare exceptions from these laws. 

As for the religious God, somewhere in childhood I just realized that the world just doesn't work like that. The least we can do is to keep internally consistent. There is a lot more to do, like proving the thing objectively, but if something isn't internally consistent, then we can just ignore it. The doctrine of heaven and hell is just nonsense. The world is full of action and equal opposite reaction (minus loses) and infinite rewards or punishments are as real as perpetuum mobile. Similarly, God as a personality is nonsense. A personality is what happens when you take an animal and put a few million years of evolution on top of it. 
If there is any divine being, I can understand it better in terms of so-called extraordinary materialism. I have a great faith in the natural world, or consistency and ellegance of its laws. Inconsistent and illogical claims just strike me wrong. 
There are things that can scare me (irrationally?), they just need to keep some standard, something that is theoretically possible in my worldview. Finding any tangible evidence for it in my vicinity would give me chills. In such cases I try to reach into the reserves of skeptical block-mindedness.

I once believed many things, but I can tell a belief from a hands-on experience. If people say something is a hands-on experience, it is worthy of statistical comparison and pointing out the common traits. I can bring up some interesting evidence that way. I just don't like when people hide behind the vague definition of "hits and misses". We don't need a positive ratio of hits vs. misses (whatever the misses are) to start gathering data about the positive events and start analyzing them. The results may be still pretty impressive. Check out Ian Stevenson's website, he did a solid research on thousands cases of reincarnation claims. The books are really systematic, divided on cases in India, Europe, children, correlation of biologic markings and twenty exemplary cases. 

I have been in some scary shit myself, but nowhere near that bad. One series of incidents scared me retrospectively, because of its sneakiness and purposeful, deceptive malevolence, misuse of my trust, stupidity and wishes. 

Other than that, for a year I had a roommate who was an epileptic. Man, I had my clairvoyant friend say serious things about this guy, that he's a channel for evil miasma so low and putrid, that there is nothing sentient about it. I always felt restless, yet tired and passive after being in presence of his seizures, the clairvoyant said she had a tough work cleaning me out of it all. I had to learn some different thinking and techniques on how to deal with this stuff. 

Things like that made me appreciate the solid and safe reality of our daily life. When I think about it now, I probably shouldn't read the book either. My worldview makes me insensitive against religious claims, (also against a part of sci-fi and fantasy literature, unfortunately) but if something there will correlate with my experiences, then I'll have a hard time getting asleep.

Please excuse me for misunderstanding.  Your icon says that you are a theist (not atheist), but you say there is no "religious God."  That does not seem internally consistent.  What am I missing?

p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }

 

There aren't any. It has been tried a few times but they just don't do well in captivity outside of OZ. Apparently, the resources to set up the right enclosure and provide food that they will eat is really difficult to set up without local resources. Also, they can't handle disease very well away from home.

 

The estimated life span is about 5 years in the wild and 15 in captivity if the environment can be managed. Their needs are so specific that they tend to last about 2 years in NA or Europe.

 

When I was googling on the matter, I did stumble into one real hoot on the Straight Dope forums. One of the senior members made a dead straight post that they hunt by swimming clockwise around their prey. Apparently, in the northern hemisphere, they would have to swim counterclockwise and they just cant do that.

 

A few of the TSD crowd bought it before the joke was revealed.

Well, I would have to say that the first question I would have is which god was proven to exist. After that...I honestly don't know. If the god of the bible exists then I can't say with any kind of certainty that I would change to follow, morally speaking the bible is still horrific so I couldn't follow it in good conscience. If it was a different being I would study it and its teachings, try to figure out the best path, etc. The basic problem in this is that I'd have to know more about this new deity, to be honest if the god of Abraham exists and is as portrayed in the various holy texts then I would likely study the potential for deicide.

Thanks for following-through on that, bfish. Interesting responses. Can't say I'm very surprised, but it's useful to see them collected together like that as a response to the question you first posted. Kudos.

Wow, no option C huh?  These are your only options if faced with a reality that doesn't include god?  So without god you either "give up on life," or "do whatever you wanted to do."  I assume that means things you wouldn't normally do, "bad" things.  So your options are give up on life, or run amuck, kind of pathetic.  How about option C:  Suck it up, deal with reality, find meaning within yourself and your loved ones, be the best person you can and stay true to yourself, cherish every moment your alive. 

No?  This option is not for you, give up then, run amuck.

 

 

 

He was young and idealistic.  A couple of months later, he wrote me a note and thanked me for the question.  Shortly thereafter he left the priesthood.  Like you, I was pretty hard on him ("So you would abandon the morals you currently have and commit murder?" -- he viewed suicide as a form of murder).  I'm ashamed that I was so hard on him, but I was quite young (16) and he was my religion teacher.  His answer was a commentary on his faith in my opinion--that he was most comfortable blindly following that which he knew (when he lost that which he would follow he lost his will to live).  I'm ashamed because I really, truly blindsided this guy and pulled the rug out from under him which had given his life meaning.  I hope he is doing well and, like you, has found a way to adjust to his new life, but I always wonder what happened to him.  The point of the question has been to understand better why people do what they do, not really to change them.

I do plan on following up with this guy.  I see him fairly frequently.  I think he is unabashedly self-centered.  To see God (I never remember the rules on capitalization, but I'm thinking that since we are talking about the way he sees his "god" it is appropriate to capitalize) in his own image is no great surprise.  I don't want to be pushy, but I am curious to hear why he thinks God would pay ANY attention to his actions.  I have a feeling that he feels that way because there is a contractual commitment, but I'm not sure.

 

It's been a while since I've posted, but it feels good to be back.

If undeniable proof of God's existence was revealed, then my day to day life would change very little.

After reading some Dennet and Dawkins, I found myself agreeing with the reprehensibility of someone living their life "rightly" simply out of fear of being punished.

I try to live my life with the belief that right actions are inherently good, regardless of my personal theistic beliefs. Although a purely humanistic moral system is typically, how shall I say, shunned by believers, I find that its tenets are incredibly valuable because they cause self reflection within the individual about "Why am I doing this?" Is it simply for selfish gain? If so, then way to use your fellow man as merely a means to your end of personal worship (aka patting your own back).

I feel that I've strayed a bit from the focus of this question, but for the sake of clarity and respondibility, I will stop here. I always enjoying attempting to explain a conclusion following pointed questions, rather than going on and on with lists of likely irrelevant premises.

 

Bah. I didn't miss the point, I let a crucial typo escape my awareness. It should be the "undeniable proof that God does not exist."

Heh.

The Romans stole turning water into wine from the way wine was made at the time.  I'm currently in the process of turning water into beer (Baruch Ha'Shem!).

Study your wine making history, people -- water into wine is =easy=.