atheists if you had evidence that showed the idea of god was man made but you were not to gain anything by...?

Question

revealing it to the world (no money, no success, no record on history books), would you display it publicly???
If religion brings comfort to some, would it be ok just to destry their hope and leave their empty?

that implies??? sorry i think the only one implying anything is you...like christians you are interpreting my question to your own interest

god is not spelled with a a capital g since it is just a sustantive and it is not a proper name, so leave it as it is and buy a grammar book

bad liberal, if i from the day i am born i have with me a cat (copnstantly with me) wouldnt i feel alone and empty when he dies??? does it mean that everyone who doesnt have a cat is empty???

Answer 1

The truth has value on its own. I would of course provide information, in the same way that I would tell a heroin addict that there are ways to achieve peace of mind without use of substances.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

You seem to be suggesting that delusion is preferable to informed reality. That sounds suspiciously like addictive behavior. Well, Karl Marx did say, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

Giving away the truth for free and without acknowledgement? That doesn't sound so awful, at least not as much as lying to keep people ignorant and happy. If life is terrible, the way to restore hope is to fix the problems. Too often religious doctrine is used to keep oppressed people from taking justice into their own hands. (After all, everything will be fixed in the NEXT "life".)

Real comfort comes in the form of food, warmth and adequate and honorable livelihood, not escapism into dreams. The drunk wakes up the next morning worse off than ever, and the rich and connected remain free to ignore him. If there were indisputable proof that there was no God, I'd show everyone possible, because the sooner we realize it's "just us", the sooner people will demand social justice.

Answer 3

You're implying that this isn't the case already, which it very much is. There is overwhelming evidence that religion was created as early attempts to understand the unknown. The fact that one particular god has survived while others have fallen doesn't prove anything.

However, the reason for trying to convince people of this is not to gain money, fame or success. It's condescending to let people believe something that isn't true. It's like telling them they aren't smart enough to believe it.

It's not the hope and faith that atheists don't like. It's the unmovable, stubborn belief in something that isn't there. When that kind of thinking creeps into other aspects of life, it becomes more than just annoying; it becomes dangerous.

Thousands of people die every year because they refuse to trust evidence that their "cures" aren't working. I'm not even talking about religion. Things like homeopathy or magnet therapy don't work. But because people are willing to have faith in something without evidence, con-artists are able to take advantage of people.

Answer 4

I think that even if clear evidence existed, to many people it would not matter a great deal if it was shared, because religion is based on faith, and people do not easily let go of their beliefs, no matter what arguments are posed to them. Particularly regarding Christianity, a very core part of the religion is that people must continue to cling to faith no matter what is put before them. There is no reason or logic involved.

There would not be a sudden awakening. There would be constant argument, continued warring, and people who totally ignored the evidence.

That said... I'm ambivalent about your question. On one hand, I believe in truth and reason, and feel that people should have the opportunity to discover these things, to improve their lives personally, and our lives as a society and world. I also believe that the world would be better off if people weren't driven to horrific acts based on what they perceive as divine righteousness.

On the other hand, I do realize that some people would really lose hope and the will to live if they discovered their religion was false. And I don't like to destroy people like that. Some people aren't as strong as others - we all need something to keep us going.

I used to argue religion with people. But at some point I realized that getting someone to be reasonable was not worth the sadness or despair that can result from doubt and questions of faith, even if that faith is totally baseless and ridiculous. So now I generally don't discuss religion or argue with people who are religious, unless they are doing something really damaging in the name of that religion. I'd rather they go along their lives in some semblance of happiness, rather than to live miserably because they can't accept reality. If they eventually come to their senses in their own way, that's great, but pushing the issue tends to have a negative impact.

I suppose in the end if I were to be shown incontrovertible evidence that no god existed, I'd quite likely just keep it to myself and possibly share it with certain people who I know could handle the knowledge. I don't think I'd publicize it personally, because it would hurt good but weak people, and in the end, I don't think it would make a dramatic difference in the world, because radicals will continue to ignore reason no matter what.

Answer 5

the respond lays in geography, history, ethics etc. Geography: > If any of the gods have been authentic then it may be predicted that concept in a god could be randomly or universally unfold. history: > the way a god is represented variations over the years, in accordance to the desires of the time. In WW1, the Christian god became into seen as a patriotic (by using all international places in contact) and a god of conflict, now, a international and of peace. Ethics: > each and every non secular team has its very own ethics. partly they are derived from their e book, in spite of the fact that, those are consistently cherry picked to slot the desires of the team on the time. the team will consistently say they have the authentic interpretation (or often times that there is not any interpretation. the main absurd declare ever), commonly a clean grouping will emerge with new interpretations to slot any new difficulty. To sum up: Religions all attempt to sell themselves as usually happening and undying. they are, however by using their very nature short and native. i think of the simplest summery is they are all in basic terms bo**oks.

Answer 6

Religion doesn't bring comfort to Israelis and Palestinians, it doesn't bring any comfort to people in Kashmir, and it doesn't bring any comfort to those in Iraq. In fact, it brings war and despair.

It might bring comfort and hope to some, and that's fine, (but it is a false hope). That's the personal religion of an ascetic or a Buddhist. The problem is with orginized religion - these people who want pseudo-science taught in schools, for homosexuals to be denied equal rights, and (in some countries) for women to be second class citizens.

But to answer your question - yes, I would do it. But it wouldn't matter. Why? Because they would continue on believing anyway. Evolution essentials kills creationism but they carry on anyway. There are thousands of religions out there, it is pretty obviously man made . . . and the Christian holds that most ARE man made anyway, but they still carry on

Answer 7

I don't believe we can have a single piece of damning evidence against the concept of god...

But lets say we did (so I can actually answer your question)...

I'd have to think long and hard about revealing it, because the repercussions of having a godless planet could be devastating... there are so many miserable people out there that only live for their god... we really can't foresee what might happen to society.

Answer 8

That implies that non-theists are empty and without hope. We're not. We're just without delusion.

And yes, I'd provide that evidence freely, and do.

==

If removing religion from Christians would be to leave them without hope and empty, then those of us without religion are presumably, by your logic, without hope, and empty. How is this NOT what you are implying?

===

Well there you go. The cat is a) at least real and b) was always going to die. It's theoretically possible to raise someone all their lives without ever revealing to them that the Easter Bunny isn't real. Do we do that person a favour perpetuating their delusion? Or is the kinder gift the one that enables them to acheive maturity?

Answer 9

I believe that truth will always make a person better or make a better person. I might not make them happier and it might take a while to set in but the overall long term effect is that truth will set you free.

Remember, a man's happier high on crack than not high on crack, the world might seem more beautiful and exciting when he's out of your head on meth and he'll never feel unloved as long as he keeps popping ecstasy but that won't change the fact that he's a crackhead.

Answer 10

For me religion causes war and greed and a number of (un-christian) reactions. I would definitely reveal my findings. People will always find comfort in something, its a survival instinct...........wow, Bad Liberal is really wiping the floor with your argument. If I wasnt a non-believer before I certainly would be now.

Answer 11

If I found compelling, incontrovertible evidence of the non-existence of God, I would reveal it slowly and piece by piece. To unleash that bombshell on society would lead to chaos and anarchy. Many formerly religious people whose faith was all that held them to the law would revert to animalism and the cities and suburbs would be awash with violence. So, I'd take about a hundred years of reinforcing ideas of morality without religion before opening Pandora's box.