Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!

[RDK]

Your "humans thinking like humans" reasoning isn't valid. When you were a child, you thought like a child. When you became an adult, you knew things you yourself as a child did not know. You were able to see reasons for things you never understood before. Your sense of right and wrong became more developed. In the same way, the wisest man on earth is a fool compared to God. We just have to accept that.

Yes, but it's kind of hard to grasp something like a completely, absolutely all-powerful being. It just goes against our understanding of current science. And I'm not saying that our current understanding of science is perfect--in some cases, it's even horribly flawed. But you're basing all of this on something that you can't see--something you can't tangibly see, or test. And something that has no proof of existing isn't something I'm going to devote my entire life to following.

I think I've had this conversation with you alread about the whole Adam and Eve thing.

Lol, yeah, we did have our rounds on this. I posted my last response mainly to see what other Christians in this had to say about it. I try and get as many opinions as possible.

God is not unloving for creating humans when He knew they were going to fall. He is more loving because of it. People get married even when they know without question there will be hard times. Couples have children even though the child will eventually rebel against them.

So then God created just for the sake of creating? It just seems odd that an eternal being craved a connection with created beings, and imperfect ones at that.

Parents and children =/= God and creation. God's relationship to creation is one of an all-powerful entity and a fallen universe. This can't be effectively applied to human interactions.

I've always been surprised whenever people use the Bible to give examples of why God is unloving. Did they not read the part where Jesus descended from Heaven, became a mere man, lived life with the temptations man has for 33 years, and died the most horrible deth for us? Was he not rejected, tempted, abused, mistreated, and mocked? All this done for humans so undeserving.

But again--there would have been no need for this if God had never created in the first place. It is He who created the whole concept of "free will" and its interpretations.

I think this kind of debate gets a little cloudy / fuzzy, due to the fact that it's based on "what if's" and a lot of empty speculation and theology.

 

[Aesir]

CommonYoshi.

Have you ever actually read the bible?

 

[Dave the Perspicacious]

Always the cause for much debate, but fairly interesting anyway.

I haven't read through much of the thread. Just a couple of points, that you probably are already aware of.

- Trying to understand God (whether you believe or not) is impossible. We cannot understand that which can't be understood (by our own logic). You can however understand, that you can't understand. To comprehend that you cannot comprehend God.

- God would exist out with time and space. So the laws of the universe do not apply to God in anyway. Nothing is impossible for God at all.

- By our logic, God can exist with science perfectly. Evident because the debate is never ceasing. Every little miracle, that may have happened, could very well be explained by science entirely, this does not make it any less of a miracle.

- Say you were to ask something of God in a prayer. Some people would say it was coincidence if you got what you received. However because God exists out of time, there is the distinct possibility, that the entirety of time and the universe, was shaped out to answer your question from the beginning, even though, your request was made at a specific time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that you cannot disprove God at all. No amount of worldly brilliant logic can. Which is why atheists strike me as rather odd. Surely, it is more logical to be agnostic.

The debate is generally at the point of, how do you know what do believe? How can you prove your religion is right? Right?

That is extremely tough to answer, and I doubt you will get anywhere near to resolving it, when the worlds best theologians are still at it. It takes a lifetime, to even nearly begin to understand any amount of a religion. I wish you luck anyway ^_^ If there's anything I can chime in with, I will attempt to be coherent and answer.

Dave

 

[Tryptomine]

EDIT: I shall strive to read the whole thread in order to contribute further.

Not worth it, the whole thing is more or less the same three or for pages repeated about ten times over.

 

[AltF4]

There's something I've been wondering. Was the "big bang" the cause of the physical universe, or the cause of the universe and matter?

Eor called me out on something like this. You're simply working backwards to say that there "was no momment of the big bang" because there's no explanation for it.

Now this is getting really far into physics, but I'll try to keep it succinct so as not to get too far away from the topic at hand.


One of the very first things that you think about when you hear the bing bang theory is: "Well, that's all fine and good. But what happened before the big bang? And what caused it to bang?" These are important questions, because the answer is not at all obvious.

The Big Bang says that everything in the universe began with one huge explosion. Our progress thus far in physics has been extremely successful in describing the universe in the moments after the big bang. But when you talk about the actual moment of creation, things break down. At that moment, energy seemingly popped out of nowhere. At that moment, all kinds of stuff happened that we can't explain.

The problem is with what is called the "boundary condition". That is, if someone asks you: "What is the boundary of time?" they are asking: "Did time continue infinitely before us? Or did it begin at some point?" The solution to these problems was developed by Stephen Hawking. He proposed the "No Boundary" boundary condition.

Let's not think of time for a moment and think of space. Is space infinite? If it is not infinite, then does it have a wall? What would happen if you ran into the edge of space? These are all problems that have to do with the boundary condition of space.

As it turns out, space can be curved. It is possible that space is curved in such a way that there is no boundary to space. Think of it like the surface of earth. The Earth is curved such that it has no boundary. Ie: You cannot walk off the edge of the earth.

But space and time are not separate. They are one entity called spacetime. It is possible that time is curved in such a way that there was no moment of creation. Think of the graph of the line 1/x. The curvature of time continues toward the moment of creation and approaches it, but never reaches. Thus we have no boundary, and no contradictions that come from them.

Make any sense? Remember: your ability to rationalize the science is not relevant. What matters is that the math works out. Many very odd things happen in science that defy common sense. (ALL of Quantum Mechanics) But as long as it works on paper, it works.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

I asked Gamer4Fire to explain his views on radiometric dating and its relationship to the origins of man earlier, but he either ignored my post or didn't see it.

Sorry I must have missed it. Other than the fact that its a tool to determine about when something happened in human history, I don't know what else you could think about it. *shrugs*

Not worth it, the whole thing is more or less the same three or for pages repeated about ten times over.

Just read the last page or two and you should be fine.

 

[RDK]

Let's not think of time for a moment and think of space. Is space infinite? If it is not infinite, then does it have a wall? What would happen if you ran into the edge of space? These are all problems that have to do with the boundary condition of space.

As it turns out, space can be curved. It is possible that space is curved in such a way that there is no boundary to space. Think of it like the surface of earth. The Earth is curved such that it has no boundary. Ie: You cannot walk off the edge of the earth.

But space and time are not separate. They are one entity called spacetime. It is possible that time is curved in such a way that there was no moment of creation. Think of the graph of the line 1/x. The curvature of time continues toward the moment of creation and approaches it, but never reaches. Thus we have no boundary, and no contradictions that come from them.

That's really interesting--I've never thought of it that way. So spacetime effectively has no boundary, or outer limit? There's nothing beyond the probable curvature of spacetime? I'm not too well-versed in Stephen Hawking theory, so maybe I should check out some of his writing.

Sorry I must have missed it. Other than the fact that its a tool to determine about when something happened in human history, I don't know what else you could think about it. *shrugs*

Well basically, from what I've read, radiometric / carbon-14 dating is not very accurate or consistent--multiple datings of the same material / fossils garner mixed results, sometimes ranging in the thousands to millions of years.

And supposedly link fossils such as Australopithecus Afarensus, Africanus, etc. were put together using bones from different areas, and sometimes even different rock strata.

 

[Aesir]

The fact that energy cannot be created nor destoryed only coverted helps the big bang theory as well.

Furthermore the farther you look out into space the father back in time you're seeing.

Example if we looked at a star 1 billion light years a way, we would be looking at the star was it was 1 billion years ago. Because of this we can see certain parts of the universe as they were still forming which solidifies the big bang theory or rather the after math of the bang.

 

[RDK]

The fact that energy cannot be created nor destoryed only coverted helps the big bang theory as well.

Furthermore the farther you look out into space the father back in time you're seeing.

Example if we looked at a star 1 billion light years a way, we would be looking at the star was it was 1 billion years ago. Because of this we can see certain parts of the universe as they were still forming which solidifies the big bang theory or rather the after math of the bang.

I'm not sure if you're referring to space's time-lag, but disambiguation or redshifts kind of cover the same thing about spacetime being curved.

 

[AltF4]

That's really interesting--I've never thought of it that way. So spacetime effectively has no boundary, or outer limit? There's nothing beyond the probable curvature of spacetime? I'm not too well-versed in Stephen Hawking theory, so maybe I should check out some of his writing.

I should have said this originally more clearly, maybe I'll edit that post:

It has not been proven that our universe possesses the curvature described in the Hawking's math. So don't think that IS how our universe works.

What he did show was a possible solution to the boundary condition problem. Until that point, nobody had the foggiest clue how to get rid of the contradictions.

What is significant about the "No Boundary" condition is that it's a fully scientific explanation for those nagging questions that come about when speaking of the big bang. It proved that science CAN solve those problems that some claim were unsolveable.


But essentially: Yes. It is possible that space is curved in such a way that if you got into a spaceship and launched away from the north pole and kept going perfectly straight, that you'd wind up returning to Earth at the south pole.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Well basically, from what I've read, radiometric / carbon-14 dating is not very accurate or consistent--multiple datings of the same material / fossils garner mixed results, sometimes ranging in the thousands to millions of years.

And supposedly link fossils such as Australopithecus Afarensus, Africanus, etc. were put together using bones from different areas, and sometimes even different rock strata.

Please don't tell me you read this on a creationist arguments page and actually had a reliable source.

 

[Aesir]

I'm not sure if you're referring to space's time-lag, but disambiguation or redshifts kind of cover the same thing about spacetime being curved.

I think I am talking about lag, I'm doing multiple things at once so yeah.

It's the same reason why the suns location int he sky is delayed 8-10 minutes for us.

 

[commonyoshi]

This is the second time you've done the "parents raising a kid" scenario.

Point taken. I'll try not to use it in this context again.

Third, please don't tell me you think being bigoted against for 33 years is equal to being tortured for all eternity. Jesus did die a pretty bad death. Hundreds of millions of others have died worse. This is also several thousand years after humans have been in existence, meaning that every human born before then was ****ed, as God knew, and he waited for no reason before he would rescue them. Moses was ****ed, John the baptist was ****ed (he died before jesus, correct?), every person in the Old Testement was ****ed before Jesus, yet God did not care. If he did, he would have changed it.

Every human that existed in past, present, and future is redeemed through Jesus' death. Jesus said, "If you had known my Father, you would have known me" when the Pharisees were against him. I think it was in Romans where Paul clearly states that people who came before Jesus' death were saved, but I remember in our Leviticus debate that you wont take Paul or the disciple's word for it because Jesus never said it so it isn't part of his ministry, and there's no Holy Spirit which means you aren't going to take their words for it either. I'll be sure to look up on this later for a more comprehensive arguement. It was never something which had my attention.

I don't think I can sway you, you have the trump card in any argument. Your position is right, and when something contradicts it, the answer is no different from Magic. When things directly contradict what you believe (Exodus), you literally pull things out of thin air and then hold to them because you are so far down your belief that you cannot be wrong.

If you're talking about the Isrealites never settling in Egypt thing then have you considered that there are no records of Jesus in the Roman writings as well? You would probably argue that he was a mythical figure, but seeing how the gospel of Jesus was spread at that time, it is most probable that Jesus did actually exist. Then why are there no records of him? The most likely answer would be that Emperor Nero, while he was going on a genocide against Christians, destroyed all records of Jesus. I'm applying what happened there to Egypt.

But you are completely right when you accuse me of pulling things out of nowhere as possible explanations for contradictions. I will not attempt to argue against this. But, seeing as how you looked for God in a time in need, and you didn't feel God answer you, what if archeologists found the Ark? What if they found the Ark of the Covenant, and it was proven that who ever touched it died instantly? Would you believe or would you say that a boat fitting the description of the one in the Bible to perfection and had animal "remains" did not proove God saved Noah? Would you say that the Ark of the Covenant was laced with some sort of super poison? Your beliefs do hold fast in crazy situations.

Edit: Also, my main problem with Christianity is the idea of original sin. It teaches that we where created by God with a planned imperfection.

Free will was that "imperfection". It was never planned that we would fall. It was planned that we could fall, but we weren't supposed to.

I think this kind of debate gets a little cloudy / fuzzy, due to the fact that it's based on "what if's" and a lot of empty speculation and theology.

Agreed. This debate cant go on because I argue that we can never understand God's will, and that there are things outside our physical universe. I wont budge. You wont budge. This cant go any further.

 

[Jammer]

This post goes back to something a few pages back, so I'm just gonna have to stick it in here...

Hey, Zink (and other Catholics): I don't think it's true that any person alive today is inspired by God.

There were 14 people in the Bible who were allowed to teach doctrine as the Word of God. Their teachings were put into the Bible. They were Jesus, the 12 Apostles, and Paul. How do we know those are the inspired ones? Well, Jesus handpicked the 12 Apostles and specifically gave them the authority to teach and do miracles. Paul saw Jesus in a vision, where Jesus told him to repent from persecuting Christians and teach, which Paul did.

All those people were able to perform miracles. Paul, for example, was stoned. At the end, he got up and walked away.

Nobody alive today can do anything like that. Miracles are over with. People inspired by God no longer exist. The inspired teachings can only be found in the Bible, not from a Pope or anyone else.

 

[Jammer]

Seriously, this double post is not my fault. It almost feels like every once in a while, the servers decide they want to reboot or something.

 

[AltF4]

what if archeologists found the Ark? What if they found the Ark of the Covenant, and it was proven that who ever touched it died instantly? Would you believe or would you say that a boat fitting the description of the one in the Bible to perfection and had animal "remains" did not proove God saved Noah?

I think that's in interesting proposition. Ignore the details for now, this is a hypothetical question:

If it were proven that god exists, would you as an atheist believe in god, then? Don't worry about the details of how. Just suppose someone manages to prove it. It's all over the news and everything, people are converting left and right. Would it sway you?

(I said this earlier, but for me, yes.)

Similarly, if someone proved that god does not exist, would you as a theist become an atheist? Again, it's all over the news, people converting everywhere, the proof is solid. Would you give up your faith?

 

[RDK]

I think that's in interesting proposition. Ignore the details for now, this is a hypothetical question:

If it were proven that god exists, would you as an atheist believe in god, then? Don't worry about the details of how. Just suppose someone manages to prove it. It's all over the news and everything, people are converting left and right. Would it sway you?

(I said this earlier, but for me, yes.)

Similarly, if someone proved that god does not exist, would you as a theist become an atheist? Again, it's all over the news, people converting everywhere, the proof is solid. Would you give up your faith?

If the extenuating circumstances proves it to a reasonable doubt, then I don't see why you would still cling to your belief system, be it theism or atheism, except that you're either incredibly stubborn or still misguided.

 

[commonyoshi]

Sorry, but I have to paint a picture for myself here to answer this question.

That's actually a hard question for me to answer seeing as how I have felt God's "presence" (for lack of a better term), and I've seen what some would consider to be miracles as well. Any evidence which PROOVED God did not exist would have to destroy that knowledge in some way.

But if I suddenly woke up from my current state with some doctor was standing over me saying I had been in a coma and everything I had dreamt was not real, and the world outside was much different than the one I had known before, then I'd still probably search for the God I had known while in a coma. If nothing happened in my prayers/life I'd probably just forget about the whole religion thing.

 

[AltF4]

(ToRedKirby): Precisely, but I'm willing to bet that most people (I'm not going to argue proportions of each side) are completely unwilling to change their mind, no matter the circumstance.

The question is tantamount to "Is there ANYTHING that can change your convictions?"

For me, yes. I could list the things that would make me not an atheist, if only they were true.

 

[commonyoshi]

The post I just made was difficult. I wouldn't want God to be disproven, but if the time ever came I know what choice I would make. It's like a superficial guy admitting to his girlfriend he'd dump her as soon as she got fat. He doesn't want to admit it, but we all know what's going to happen. ^_^

What would crush my belief in Christianity?
-If Israel was nuked into oblivion or if all the Jews died off.
I dont say thing because it's a near impossibility. I'm saying this because there was a prophecy about them.

This one is a maybe... I dont know how tricky demons are.
-If Satan and all his demons came up to earth, and started laughing at us, saying the whole Jesus thing was an elaborate joke for lols, and the humans were all screwed. But only if the demons confirmed this statement by saying, "Jesus died for our sins and we believe". (There's a verse somewhere about testing the spirits. Demons aren't supposed to say this.)

Hmm... This is a hard one. I'll get back on this.

 

[~N9NE~]

Seeking proof for God is part of human nature. We live in times where everything is examined from a scientific approach, where we seek to establish concrete ‘proof’ through scientific testing and analysis. We seek to establish scientific reasoning behind the existence of everything, we seek to establish the essence of human nature through psychological and scientific experiments. We scrutinise, we analysis and whatever fails our scientific reasoning we dismiss as invalid or anomalous.

However, seeking concrete proof for the existence of God, in all truth, is impossible. I wish they were concrete proof for God's existence, so that all may believe. However, God is not a participant you can submit to psychological testing, you cannot take a sample of God’s DNA and examine his genetic makeup. The difference between those who believe in God and those who don’t ultimately relies on one thing; faith. Faith itself cannot be measured, cannot be forced on one, cannot be administered. It is the deciding factor in whether you believe in God or not. We could discuss the greatest theological arguments that strive to prove God's existence, but this alone cannot convert one to believe in God.

 

[igotHYRULEbannedatTOYWIZwitmarth]

Humans have an ingrown need for living, and despite the conformists who are against immortality research, in reality they want it just as bad as the researchers of stem cells. They want an afterlife (immortality), and to continue on. However, if there was some way of convincing them that they need to focus on the things in front of them rather than what lays beyond, and may not even exist, we could succeed in convincing that those beliefs are wrong, and unending life is the same concept, but real. Quote - me, the atheist

 

[AltF4]

~N9NE~: ...but you didn't answer the question.

Guy with really long name: What exactly are you trying to argue? Something about stem cells? Who's talking about stem cells here?

 

[~N9NE~]

Sorry, which question are you refering to? The question posed by the OP?

 

[AltF4]

The question to which it appeared you were responding. Mine a couple posts back:

I think that's in interesting proposition. Ignore the details for now, this is a hypothetical question:

If it were proven that god exists, would you as an atheist believe in god, then? Don't worry about the details of how. Just suppose someone manages to prove it. It's all over the news and everything, people are converting left and right. Would it sway you?

(I said this earlier, but for me, yes.)

Similarly, if someone proved that god does not exist, would you as a theist become an atheist? Again, it's all over the news, people converting everywhere, the proof is solid. Would you give up your faith?

or equivalently:

The question is tantamount to "Is there ANYTHING that can change your convictions?"

 

[Teebs]

Well, if I remember correctly, atheists know that there is a god, but they choose not to believe in it. An agnostic is the type that doesn't believe in a god, or mostly anything for that matter.

If there was solid proof that there was not a god, and everyone took it in so that it is true, then everyone that had a God-believing religion (e.g. Catholics, Protestants, etc.) would just have to go to another religion, although I would find it that even the most devout believers in the faith would still find all findings of a non-existant God and still believe in God. It would basically take mainly all God believers to make the decision of there being a non-existant God. If everyone would change like that, then it would be true. Atheists and agnostics make up about 5% of the world's population, maybe less/more. 5% isn't too convincing of a non-existant God. One person alone cannot change the minds of billions of people, but it will get people talking and discussing, such as we are doing at this time.

 

[Dave the Perspicacious]

Well, if I remember correctly, atheists know that there is a god, but they choose not to believe in it. An agnostic is the type that doesn't believe in a god, or mostly anything for that matter.

Atheist - Someone who denies the existence of god, or does not believe in God.

Agnostic - Someone who claims he is unable to know if God exists, or someone that does not know whether or not God exists.

I think those are correct definitions, correct me if I am mistaken.

Dave

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Well, if I remember correctly, atheists know that there is a god, but they choose not to believe in it. An agnostic is the type that doesn't believe in a god, or mostly anything for that matter.

An atheist doesn't believe gods exist, an agnostic doesn't know if gods exist. Neither assumes the existance of gods.

 

[~N9NE~]

If it were to be undeniably proved that God did not exist, the first reaction would be one of profound loss, I imagine it would be like the emotion after the death of a relative. To have believed in something my entire life and for it to be easily dismissed would be extremely unsettling.

As to whether it would lead me to become an atheist I am uncertain. I imagine part of me would be extremely stubborn and refuse to believe what was in front of me, even if it was foolproof. I would find it very hard to let go of my religion. In the past, I have been approached and people have attempted to convert me and I've find that such experiences have actually served to strengthen my faith. I think that I would be in denial of the new proof, irrespective of its validity.

I know I should never say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will change my religious perspective because some unkown event could occur to me in the future that could have a profound effect on my religious perspective. However, I honestly believe that I will not change my religon even in the circumstances you mention. What would undoubtedly happen though, is that my faith and my belief would be severely diminshed.

What would be interesting, if God were proven not to exist, would be the effect on wider society. Would the Church collapse? I think it would have an extremely negative influence on the stability of socety.

 

[Dave the Perspicacious]

If it were to be undeniably proved that God did not exist, the first reaction would be one of profound loss, I imagine it would be like the emotion after the death of a relative. To have believed in something my entire life and for it to be easily dismissed would be extremely unsettling.

As to whether it would lead me to become an atheist I am uncertain. I imagine part of me would be extremely stubborn and refuse to believe what was in front of me, even if it was foolproof. I would find it very hard to let go of my religion. In the past, I have been approached and people have attempted to convert me and I've find that such experiences have actually served to strengthen my faith. I think that I would be in denial of the new proof, irrespective of its validity.

I know I should never say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING will change my religious perspective because some unkown event could occur to me in the future that could have a profound effect on my religious perspective. However, I honestly believe that I will not change my religon even in the circumstances you mention. What would undoubtedly happen though, is that my faith and my belief would be severely diminshed.

What would be interesting, if God were proven not to exist, would be the effect on wider society. Would the Church collapse? I think it would have an extremely negative influence on the stability of socety.

The problem with this, is that it is completely impossible to prove that God does not exist. There is no way, and will never be a way to prove this, ever. It is a logical impossibility, by any standard to prove that God does not exist, so assuming or speculating on a scenario that is entirely impossible, is entirely foolish, and pointless.

Disproving a religion is one thing, but disproving God is impossible.

Dave

 

[~N9NE~]

I completely agree with you Dave. As I stated in the first post of this page, the difference between people who believe in God and those that don't is whether they have faith, since there is no undeniable proof for God's existence or his non existence.

I was merely answering AltF4's hypothetical question examining whether IF God were somehow disproven, would it have an influence on my religious perspective.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Although not impossible, it would be extremely difficult to disprove Russell's teapot. This does not mean that either exists.

 

[Dave the Perspicacious]

I completely agree with you Dave. As I stated in the first post of this page, the difference between people who believe in God and those that don't is whether they have faith, since there is no undeniable proof for God's existence or his non existence.

I was merely answering AltF4's hypothetical question examining whether IF God were somehow disproven, would it have an influence on my religious perspective.

Indeed, in which case AltF4's hypothetical question is logically flawed. Instead, it should be:

"If your religion were somehow dis proven, would it have an influence on your religious perspective?"

That's fine, and an incredibly tough question to answer. The problem is people have faith so great, that this may not even be a possibility to them. Their faith and heart tells them; "I cannot answer such a hypothetical question, because I know in my heart, that my faith is correct. I can't even possibly fathom such a situation."

Incredibly tough question, one that I know, that I couldn't even perceive or comprehend an answer to.

Dave

 

[AltF4]

To have believed in something my entire life and for it to be easily dismissed would be extremely unsettling.

You mean like like how you used to believe in Santa, but it turned out to be a lie. A conspiracy constructed by adults?



The details of the hypothetical are irrelevant.

The question at hand is essentially "What would it take for you to change your mind about your beliefs?"

If the answer is "Absolutely nothing. No matter what happens, I will never change my mind.", well, then that's just about as ignorant as can be imagined. You're saying that even if god himself came to you and told you that you're the new messiah, you wouldn't believe him because it would go against *whatever you believe in*.

I personally love the prospect of being wrong, of having my entire basis in belief shattered. Isn't it exciting?

 

[~N9NE~]

Santa is hardly a conspiracy. I doubt the idea of Santa was constructed with any malice and the intention of deceiving millions of children into believing a false ideology.

Someone not choosing to change their religion does not equate ignorance. An individual's faith can be so strong, that even in extreme circumstances, they opt to stand firm to their beliefs.

 

[Dave the Perspicacious]

Santa is hardly a conspiracy. I doubt the idea of Santa was constructed with any malice.

Someone not choosing to change their religion does not equate ignorance.

I think in his (assuming altf4 is a guy ) hypothetical situation, it does. He's saying, that if there was undeniable proof that your religion was entirely wrong, and you don't change it, that is ignorance. I think, from a logical perspective, that is correct.

After all, if you believed the world was flat, yet found it out to be round, but continued to believe it was flat, despite any contrary evidence, you would be ignorant.

I think the most common answer to this particular hypothetical situation, is "I honestly do not know, sorry."

Dave

 

[AltF4]

I never said Santa was malicious, just that the concepts of disillusionment with finding Santa doesn't exist is similar to that of god. When you were a kid, you believed in Santa. Everyone said he existed and he did magical things. Despite being completely convinced of his existence, you turned out to be wrong.

If you were asked as a child "Is there anything that would make you not believe in Santa?" you'd probably answer "No! I saw him myself at the mall! I told him what I wanted for Christmas and then he brought to my house!"

Why is it so difficult then to suppose that even though you currently believe in god, that you might be wrong. Why is it so difficult to imagine that just like Santa, god might not exist even though you're completely convinced of it now.


Also, yes, refusing to even accept the fact that you might be wrong is ignorant. If not, then what is? What is ignorant if not plugging your ears and eyes to everything in front of you and blindly continuing to believe as you always have?

 

[~N9NE~]

I acknowledge that my religion may be wrong, I never stated otherwise. That possibility is undeniable.

All I'm stating is that even if my religion is hypothetically proven wrong, I would find it very hard to merely abandon my beliefs, which I have carried my entire life, at once. I guess that does make me ignorant.

 

[commonyoshi]

I promised Eor I would look for a passage in which God or Jesus promises to save the righteous, even those who died before Jesus' death. I wasn't even looking for such a verse, but I stumbled across one anyways. It's Malachi 3:16-18.

16 Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name.

17 "They will be mine," says the LORD Almighty, "in the day when I make up my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as in compassion a man spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not.

This wasn't a verse where God outright says He will save the righteous. It's even better because it is an example of Him doing so. If you want to understand the whole context, I recommend reading Malachi 2:10-4:6.

 

[Burning Lava]

First you must realize what you're asking, because I don't know if you even really know yourself. Religion is a set of beliefs, and those beliefs can be just about anything, so... I don't see your point. What do I get out of believing in something? Well... I get the realization that something is a certain way. I don't have to live in denial. Or perhaps if I have a false religion, I will get nothing. If you're trying to discuss the matters of God, uh... start a new topic with a better question. I'd be glad to give my thoughts.