Well initially there will be lots of denial - people will not accept it, they will try to poke holes in the proof, make personal attacks against the authors, and come up with pseudo science.
Some opportunistic people would use this excuse to loot and steal and destroy religious places even if they were useful to general society and provide services. They will avenge personal vendettas. Boost their egos by hurting clergy and priests, who tried to subdue them for so long. All the good principles and ideas brought about by religion will try to be destroyed - so no one can claim to be equal under the eyes of god or claim to have equal rights. This will be a new excuse to subdue people and enslave them and treat them badly
Over time new forms of spirituality will be created. This is because people are always looking for cultural and moral and spiritual advice. Everyone needs a compass, because no one knows everything and no one understands everything. Everyone needs constant reassurance in this daily mess and stress of life. New types of relgions will crop up now, having different types of entities at their head. New logic and new brainwashing. New age gurus will invite ppl to become their own personal gods etc. Everything will go full circle - paganism to englightenment to real religion to spirituality to new age and back to paganism.
2007-02-15 07:01:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by sam 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends on how far you want to take the concept. "God" is a feature of some religions, but many more have a broadened theory of 'high power(s)' and others would likely accommodate this thinking with their theories if a singular deity was proven not to exist.
Religion and spirituality serve people in various ways. People tend to make choices of taste, convenience, etc; we normally attach to something we can reconcile as rationale *and* 'desirable' or 'acceptable,' soooooooooo the reactions would likely take some transition time.
I do suspect there would be some suicides - eg, from people who have devoted time thinking only of positive ends related to a singular deity and the meaning of having a 'father figure,' so to speak.
Likewise, some would go through depression; others might go thrugh the reverse as a sense of guilt was eased (sadly, some have taken on religion of their forebears, and this often means inheriting the guilt associated with things some religions unquestioningly denounce/forbid.
In other words, people would likely experience some transition periods but 'be themselves,' ultimately, and find other reasons for the 'same' things they do - or use the 'news' as a new ground for personal change, good or bad. It's kind of like when a major law changes (think of a change in speed limit) --- people react but then make compromises and rationalize the ensuing behaviors.
No, I'm not minimizing the views or importance of monotheism. It's a valued and valuable concept which helps many focus - many of them positively. But humans have certain behaviors and a limited range of ways to show 'em ... With 'luck,' a mourning period and transition time would be understood and appreciated, not a time of going off the deep end; then, people could heal from their dismay and move forward.
Taygrin is correct that many religions would be in denial, and this would add to the confusions and chaos that different religious beliefs now nurture - so in a sense, that wouldn't change much!
(And no, I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic.)
2007-02-15 05:35:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by truehartc 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that this paradox will be completely avoided by everybody.
#1, if someone had proof, they must have done something pretty bloody smart to get it, and therefore would probably reason that not telling everybody would be the best course of action
OR
#2 The person tells everyone, is counted as a madman, and no one believes him. If he provided conclusive proof, major religions would discount it, or disprove it with some sort of fallacy or claim of fackery.
taygrin
2007-02-15 05:27:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
For some people, even the slightest proof is enough, whether it's inconclusive rhetoric or not. People who look for proof that God doesn't exist will often settle for any piece of evidence that says God MIGHT not exist and then call that enough to say that He doesn't.
2007-02-15 05:27:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by D.L. Miller 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's probably entities lined up to be worshiped. We would have a huge Beer Bust and elect another entity. Why do you think the Hebrew God is a jealous God and doesn't want us to mess around with any other entities that want to be called by the human label "God."
2007-02-15 05:31:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Terry 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think the world would change one way or the other, because the faithful that believe would only be more feverent in
their prayers because they'd say the"PROOF WAS JUST A TRICK OF THE DEVIL, and that God was still in charge of things!!!
2007-02-15 05:31:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by peachiepie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There will be no thing to proof if God not exist, because all things and universe is created by God,
There is no God except Allah and Muhammad (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) is his Rasool.
2007-02-15 15:17:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Erum Mishkat 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think people would believe it. People need something to believe in and I'm sure the proof will be followed by a new theory of "what happend" to the proof that he did exist.
2007-02-15 05:27:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Mass denial, more likely. Churches would claim it's just a test of their faith; that's how my Sunday School teachers explained away dinosaurs when I was growing up as a Mormon.
2007-02-15 05:28:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by kena2mi 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
All of the above except enlightenment but to some it would be considered a good thing, but to most it would be davastating.
2007-02-15 05:27:49
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋