What would you do if it were proven...?

[Candide_West]

Not sure what you mean here, Candide. Are you saying that atheists wouldn’t cease to behave morally if it could be proven that God exists?

Apologies for causing confusion. To be clear what I am saying is that a large number of theists appear to believe that if their beliefs changed then it would have a major negative affect on their lives.

Atheists on the other hand do not appear to believe it would negatively affect their lives. Ie they would continue to live happy, lives in accordance with morality, but with added consideration of whatever God had been proven to exist. In other words atheists do not appear to suffer from the conflict of interests in their assessment of evidence.

Regards

 

[Candide_West]

I would probably kill myself because what is the point anyway? We will all be gone without even our memories to take with us.

I’m sorry to hear that and glad that you’ve found a way to live your life through your religion.

Thanks for taking the time to write.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m sorry to hear that

Why are you sorry?

and glad that you’ve found a way to live your life through your religion.

Why are you glad?

 

[Candide_West]

Natural selection works:thumbsup:

HonestQuestions - I’m sure this was meant only as a joke but perhaps in a little bad taste given the obviously emotive nature of the subject to Roly.

In any case the wider consideration in terms of natural selection here is how it applies to the religion as a whole. Clearly for this person religion is a necessity for survival (a very useful trait for any meme in a competitive environment).

 

[Candide_West]

Why are you sorry?

If correct it means that Rolypoly has a limitation applied to his/her life. Ie he/she can only be Christian. I find all such limitations a little unfortunate as they restrict our freedom.

In addition if Rolypoly does ever lose his/her faith then suicide seems likely, which always seems like such a waste to me.

Why are you glad?

I find it a positive thing when people are able to live their lives (hopefully mostly happily).

Incidentally I’ve replied to one of your earlier posts. I’d be interested if you have any thoughts on my comments.

Regards.

 

[Rolypoly]

Let me clarify. I took the OP’s original question to mean: “what if it were somehow proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Lord did not exist,” not “what if I lost my faith.”

I don’t know what I would do if I lost faith but I can guess since I was agnostic before receiving the gift of faith. I think I would sleep a lot more and care a little less about being a good person in general, but I would still go to work and try to be a productive citizen and halfway decent. This is because no matter what there will always be that lingering doubt about whether or not there is an afterlife. I have to say that this lingering doubt was in the back of my mind as an agnostic as well.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If correct it means that Rolypoly has a limitation

Your subjective idea of a limitation

The end purpose of Christianity for me and presumably Rolyopoly is absolute freedom from all limitations concerning our moral dignity as living human persons.

applied to his/her life. Ie he/she can only be Christian. I find all such limitations a little unfortunate as they restrict our freedom.

Your subjective idea of freedom. Since you desire to be you own God insofar as defining your own purpose and meaning. This is whats pleasurable to you.

In addition if Rolypoly does ever lose his/her faith then suicide seems likely, which always seems like such a waste to me.

Not to me. It would be a waste for you to do so because you define your personal value as such that it would not fulfill you to die. It would not fulfill Rolypoly to be alive in the absence of God because he or she sees his or her fulfillment and dignity as a living being in God. You assume that being alive has some kind of significance as such that you apply that value judgment as a truth statement; as if it should hold meaning to everyone else. But existence has no objective significance if there is no objective God/Meaning/Moral Value/Purpose/Perfection. Significance is just a fantasy that human beings choose to indulge in collectively as a response to their emotions as dictated by their genes.

Rolypoly has done what he or she desired; you have no objective moral or rational right to call the actions of another person a “waste”; this would be deceptive since everybody defines their personal value and actions according to their subjective desires and whether or not they can fulfill them; as opposed to some objective standard.

Let me emphasize, its a waste to you in “your imagination”

Incidentally I’ve replied to one of your earlier posts. I’d be interested if you have any thoughts on my comments.

Most of it was a meaningless expression of a being that desires meaning and thus invents its own meaning and pretends that it has objective moral significance.

There was nothing truly meaningful to reply to.

 

[Betterave]

If correct it means that Rolypoly has a limitation applied to his/her life. Ie he/she can only be Christian. I find all such limitations a little unfortunate as they restrict our freedom.

Do you really want to claim that “restrictions on freedom,” simply as such, are bad?? Maybe you could explain what you mean by that?

In addition if Rolypoly does ever lose his/her faith then suicide seems likely, which always seems like such a waste to me.

Two points here:

1. Don’t you think it might be a little naive to take the statements of believers here about suicide as being simple statements of fact about what would actually occur if such and such situation were to obtain? That is, do you really think that Roly would go ahead and commit suicide if he became convinced that God doesn’t exist?
2. Admittedly your statement seems like it might be more an expression of how you feel than an assertion of a claim that you think is actually true, but if you were to claim that it is actually true that suicide is a “waste,” then it seems you would be saying that suicide constitutes an objective failure to fulfill some objective end. I would then be curious to know: what is this objective end, in light of which you judge suicide to be a “waste”?

 

[PRmerger]

If correct it means that Rolypoly has a limitation applied to his/her life. Ie he/she can only be Christian. I find all such limitations a little unfortunate as they restrict our freedom.

This is an interesting paradigm.

Do you feel that eating healthy is a limitation and restricts your freedom, Candide?

This question is not meant to be provocative; I ask it to consider the nature of your paradigm.

There are a multitude of limitations and restrictions to our freedom that are, essentially, good for us. (As well as some that are just to promote common decency. To wit: waiting in line is a limitation vs simply bursting into the DMV and announcing that it restricts your freedom to stand in line and you demand that you renew your driver’s license this minute. )

Examples of limitations and restrictions to our “freedom” that are good for us:
-not eating 2 bags of Easter candy
-not having sex at the moment the urge hits
-not pointing out our spouses’ spare tire (my honey has a 6 pack, BTW . )
-not sleeping in when it’s time to go to Mass
-not walking out on the rude client

etc etc etc.

Something to consider when one objects to “such limitations to his/her life”. ​

 

[PRmerger]

Apologies for causing confusion. To be clear what I am saying is that a large number of theists appear to believe that if their beliefs changed then it would have a major negative affect on their lives.

Ah, I think I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.

Atheists on the other hand do not appear to believe it would negatively affect their lives. Ie they would continue to live happy, lives in accordance with morality, but with added consideration of whatever God had been proven to exist. In other words atheists do not appear to suffer from the conflict of interests in their assessment of evidence.

Regards

This may be true, but it seems to highlight the paradigm that truth does not matter then to atheists? Is this a correct assumption based on your premise?

 

[MartinThinking]

I don’t know who was making the assertion with respects to evolution and the philisophical
platform of materialism…(mans consciousness …basically evolved)

The stance of a materialistic world , that being of course above suggestion of an emergence of consciousness out of evolution is understood to be in-coherrant .among even the most adamant of atheistic contemporary professional philosophers. Chalmers has basically addressed the issue of whats called the “Hard Problem” in his work which discuss’s the matter along with other implicating data.
The "world’… our creation is not…a non-conscious reality. We know there is “something” going on… In robotics the big deal is trying to create consciousness. The greatest minds in the world
(scientists ect) are working on this idea. The technology , equipment, funds available are without limit…yet each will agree, they really don’t even know where to start.
Consciousness is not a simple exploration and without question most uneducated to exclaim a consequence of evolution without a conscious reality within creation effecting …matter…In other words consciousness could evolve but…not without a conscious reality within creation. Something is out there…Materialism is old hat.

 

[Candide_West]

We gotta stop acting like it has not been proven already. We are just waiting for people to leave behind the insanity and get on track.

Hi Windfish,

I’m assuming from your stated religion that you believe that Gods existence has been proven? If so could you tell me how please? All the “proofs” I have encountered in both directions have been refuted in one way or another.

 

[Candide_West]

The end purpose of Christianity for me and presumably Rolyopoly is absolute freedom from all limitations concerning our moral dignity as living human persons.

Interesting, never heard the purpose of Christianity defined that way before.

Your subjective idea of freedom. Since you desire to be you own God insofar as defining your own purpose and meaning. This is whats pleasurable to you.

Yes indeed, My subjective idea of freedom. That’s what I wrote, and expressly why I wrote "I find… ". Giving you a response from my perspective seemed to make sense since you asked me a reason for my views.

To be clear though I don’t have any desire to be my own God. Not sure what you’re aiming at here or where you’re getting it from.

Not to me.

Not sure what you are saying here, are you saying that someone committing suicide doesn’t seem like a waste to you?

It would be a waste for you to do so because you define your personal value as such that it would not fulfill you to die. It would not fulfill Rolypoly to be alive in the absence of God because he or she sees his or her fulfillment and dignity as a living being in God.

Correct, it would not fulfull me to die. The rest of this is speaking for Rolypoly which I’m sure he / she is perfectly capable of doing so I don’t think it needs a reply.

You assume that being alive has some kind of significance as such that you apply that value judgment as a truth statement; as if it should hold meaning to everyone else.

I have done my best to be quite explicit in my assumtions ie with regards to value - something is valued if someone (or something) values it. As for applying it as a truth statement, not sure where I have done this except when talking about my perspective as in post 463. Could you specify?

But existence has no objective significance if there is no objective God/Meaning/Moral Value/Purpose/Perfection. Significance is just a fantasy that human beings choose to indulge in collectively as a response to their emotions as dictated by their genes.

True enough, if there is no truly “objective” perspective then there can be no truly “objective” value / significance. But that doesn’t mean that humans don’t have a practicably objective basis for value or morality etc. As per my previous posts, it is quite straightforwards to start from simple principles and work from there.

Rolypoly has done what he or she desired; you have no objective moral or rational right to call the actions of another person a “waste”; this would be deceptive since everybody defines their personal value and actions according to their subjective desires and whether or not they can fulfill them; as opposed to some objective standard.

True that I have no “objective” right to call anyone anything. I do not have an “objective” perspective, I am a human so I can’t. We seem to keep running into this point, let me be clear - my perspective is (by definition) subjective. So is yours.

Secondly I don’t define my personal values according to my subjective desires. As per my previous posts I define them from a “practicably objective” standard based on concepts such as happiness vs suffering.

Let me emphasize, its a waste to you in “your imagination”

Yes, well you asked me about my opinion so I gave it, emphasising that when I gave you my opinion I was only giving my opinion seems rather unnecessary.

Most of it was a meaningless expression of a being that desires meaning and thus invents its own meaning and pretends that it has objective moral significance.

No, I expressly do not believe that I have “objective moral significance”. I don’t believe in an “objective” perspective (I’m not even convinced such a thing is logically possible). Again I feel I was quite specific in saying practicably objective and explaining how practicably objective morals can be reached.

There was nothing truly meaningful to reply to.

Fair enough, I did my best. But I’m pretty new to all this, I know I’ve got a lot to learn.

Take care.

 

[Candide_West]

Welcome to the forum, Martin! You are right. The question presupposes a “proof” is possible but if we deny it is possible the onus is on the questioner to prove that it is - **and **provide it. Until a proof is forthcoming there are far more important questions which deserve our attention…

Hi,

The question is a hypothetical one. As it happens I don’t think God is even theoretically falsifiable as a concept but I think the hypothetical question is valuable since it puts people in a different perspective and hopefully aids understanding.

If you don’t agree then that’s fair enough.

Regards

 

[Candide_West]

Your example only showed you making a value judgment without explicitly adverting to a concept of ‘objective value’ - but I don’t think anyone would deny that that is possible. What I think is impossible is actually making a value judgment without making implicit reference to the concept of ‘objective value’ (i.e., I deny that you have ‘demonstrated’ yourself making a value judgment in the pure ‘absence’ of objective value).

Hmmm, interesting point but a difficult one to demonstrate either way if I’m following you correctly. It sounds as if you are saying that my subjective judgement of value makes some reference to a objective standard of value without my knowing it. Theoretically possible, but would you agree that within the bounds of my perspective there is no percievable difference between making an undetectable reference against an objective standard and my judgement being subjective?

I think, however, that your appeal to perspectivism in fact effectively precludes you from saying anything objective about ‘objective value,’ including making the statement “there is no objective value informing my subjective judgment of value.” My point is that you have assumed a perspective from which you claim not to see ‘objective value’; but your assumption of such a perspective is manifestly subjective and therefore not probative of (or evidential with respect to) any objective statement about ‘objective value’ (including, obviously, the one you have tried to make).

Indeed, I can’t say anything objective about “objective value”. As I’ve said before, I’m dubious that such a thing can even logically exist, since “value” seems to require a perspective (whether it be human, animal, God, other). Surely you can’t have an objective perspective?

But in any case you are correct, I can’t say I’m being anything other than subjective in saying that my judgement of value is subjective. I can only work from the perspective I have.

If necessary I’ll get back to addressing your objections to Rahner after you return from your trip. All the best.

I’d be interested in your thoughts on that one. And Julia’s for that matter if you see her around incidentally.

Kind regards.

 

[tonyrey]

No, it was some of the theists who said they might commit suicide bc objective morality/nonexistence of an afterlife. The atheists said things like “I’d want to know more about this God before I start worshipping Him” and other things along those lines.

Your sample is far too small to be significant.

 

[MishellaLee]

If God was proven he did not exsits… then i think I would be very confuzzled… I mean someone or something had to make this earth…this universe and everything beyond! But I would still have faith :] With no God then what is the point of life? I mean i respect all beliefs but…life wouldn’t make sense… like that saying about what athiesm believe…

“The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything “magically” reareanged itself for no reason what so ever into self replicating bits that turned themselves into creatures of some sort…makes perfect sense.”

Someone had to create all of this…the whole picture…earth…this universe…the other universes…and ect… I could go on…but yea…

lol if someone proved God didn’t exsist…i would all of a sudden be selective hearing and walk away…:] and pray hard that i wouldn’t throw a bible at that person. :}

 

[samiam1611]

Your sample is far too small to be significant.

Um, I know, I was just pointing out that you had it switched around, what Candide West said. She explained herself later anyway. ("…a large number of theists appear to believe that if their beliefs changed then it would have a major negative affect on their lives".)

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Um, I know, I was just pointing out that you had it switched around, what Candide West said. She explained herself later anyway. ("…a large number of theists appear to believe that if their beliefs changed then it would have a major negative affect on their lives".)

I’m pretty sure atheists regularly come up in stats as more suicidal than theists, so it’s hardly surprising - just realistic, surely?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Hi Windfish,

I’m assuming from your stated religion that you believe that Gods existence has been proven? If so could you tell me how please? All the “proofs” I have encountered in both directions have been refuted in one way or another.

refuted does not equate to disproven. Neither the cosmological nor teleological arguments have taken much of a battering in real terms for centuries. Which is more than can be said for any arguments for our existence occuring “by chance” or specifically “without God”, none of which generally last past lunchtime…

Still, there is very little that is provable, to an absolute level, so in an absolute degree, it’s just that we have no rational alternative to God as a possible exaplanation… (that lasts past lunchtime)