Eternity...?

[Guest Godless]

In your post you state, "I normally don't like quoting [Dawkins]"...why? I'm just asking out of curiosity.

While I agree with him on many things, he tends to far too militant in his criticism of religion. Additionally, it's not his area of expertise. After reading The God Delusion, it seemed pretty clear to me that he doesn't know much about theology and cultural anthropology. Personally, I think he should stick to writing about biology and memology, which are areas in which he is far more knowledgeable.

[Dravin]

True, but I have thoroughly enjoyed the thought provoking posts and how nobody has resorted to being mean or ugly.

Oh, I agree. I hope nobody thought I was chastising anyone for being off topic, I'm the king of off topic. :) You pretty much nailed what I was trying to get at with my comments on rabid people, when you've got rabid people (atheists or theists) screaming that the other party is deluded with foam flecked lips it hurts understanding.

[Aesa]

I'm curious (and this is a general question to anyone), is there a hard line somewhere between atheist and agnostic? My understand was an agnostic was somebody who didn't know if there is a God or not. An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe there is a God.

This video: YouTube - The Atheism/Agnosticism Relationship describes Atheism vs. Theism very well

[ztodd]

Don't ya ever feel like there's something more to it?

Feelings aren't really an appropriate measure of what is reality.

Then what is? You seem to trust the scientific method- but that's only because it's pleasing to your mind. That's also based on a feeling. If it didn't feel good to you to trust in logic, then you wouldn't do it.

I admit that it can be difficult to trust your feelings if they are leading you to believe in something you cannot see with your physical eyes, or prove by physical observation. It does require faith.

But you accept and believe many things by faith as well, I'm sure. Things from history, or certain parts of the world that you haven't been to yet, things of science that you can't observe directly; things like that which you accept based just on the testimony of others.

But what's the point in living a good life if there is no after life?

One might be: the well-being of the human species and all the inhabitants of the Earth?

That's a wonderful, unselfish desire to have. But what drives you to have that kind of desire?

But where does someone who doesn't believe in God think that happiness comes from? Why do certain things make us happy, and other things miserable?

Well I hold that it's entirely subjective. Happiness is not something that everyone will find in the same place, and that's why certain people have certain preferences. Why do they have certain preferences? Because we're all conditioned slightly differently in our environment, and this plays a major role in determining our likes and dislikes (which are, subjective).

People like Iris Murdoch, for example, espoused that happiness comes from overcoming our 'selfish ego' and 'joining the world as it is' rather than fighting in our own interests, etc,.

I'm not familiar with Iris Murdoch, but she sounds very wise. So if you believe as Iris Murdoch does, then I'm wondering how we get happiness from those things, if you do not believe we were given that from a Creator?

You say we have different preferences because we are all conditioned slightly differently in our environment. I agree with that. But when it all comes down to it, we all still can gain happiness from the same basic things- love, peace, feeling wanted / needed, etc. So why is this? And how does this happiness come to us? That there is a God who made it so seems a very logical explanation. :)

Suppose He would be nothing but merciful and loving to you, and forgive all your sins;

You'd have to have faith in God to believe in sin in the first place, wouldn't you?

Yes, I guess this is all just part of a hypothetical question to someone who doesn't yet believe in God. Since we're supposing God exists, then we're also supposing that there is righteousness and there is sin.

[ztodd]

Then you haven't studied the LDS faith enough yet!

18 years of indoctrination didn't do much for me, so I'm pretty confident with my position.

18 years of indoctrination? There must be more to the story than that. :)

Serving God equates to serving others- family, friends, career, etc. I don't know how they can be separated, unless a person does not understand what it means to serve God.

They don't have to be separated, but they can certainly compliment each other, as you said. The extreme cases that I'm referring to are the people who would disown their children for straying from the family faith, and the ones who only befriend people outside of their faith for the sole purpose of trying to convert them. Monks and nuns would also fall into this category. They basically isolate themselves from everything and everyone in the secular world in order to dedicate themselves 100% to God. While I admire their dedication, I find it difficult to see how their God could condone such a lifestyle, especially given the fact that Christ himself is said to have spent most of his time in the company of sinners.

I agree those things are probably a little off the mark from what we should be doing.

Don't ya ever feel like there's something more to it?

No. I neither need nor want more from life than what this current state of mortality gives me. My worldview makes perfect sense to me without the concepts of God, the soul, and an afterlife interwoven into it.

Ok, I can let ya be if that's where you're at. :) I hope later on you might be more open to the idea, and see how much greater our potential is once we can see glimpses of an eternal perspective.

But what's the point in living a good life if there is no after life?

It's all about making this life count, even though it may be meaningless in the grand scheme of things. When I die, I don't want any sort of eternal reward or celestial glory. I just want people to be able to look back on my life and say that I was a good person. I want to be able to sit on my deathbed and be proud of the things I've done and the man I was. That alone is enough to give my life plenty of meaning and purpose.

That is very noble. But why does it matter to you if people look back on you as a good person, if you don't even exist anymore?

I do agree with you that leaving a good legacy behind can give your life plenty of meaning and purpose, but if you keep pondering on that- why is that? Where does that feeling of satisfaction with life come from?

I'd like to think I would still live a good life even if I didn't have any hope of God or of an after life- but it's kind of hard for me to imagine. What would be the point?

Your faith in God is what gives your life meaning. I respect that completely. I would never try to convince my religious friends to give up their faith in God and live solely for this life alone because I know how hard it would be for them to do that. If your faith in God brings you happiness, then that's all that really matters.

I really appreciate this gesture. I respect your choice of what to believe just as much. I really do. But I remain quite curious about how folks find meaning in life if they do not even hope for existence to continue after death.

I guess one would still live a good life if that was what would bring him / her happiness in life. And it does do that.

Exactly right. Some people find happiness in their faith, others find just as much happiness without it. Either way though, the promise of happiness is what drives us as a species.

The promise from who?

Yes, we can all find happiness whether we know / believe the whole story or not. But the potential of greater joy is there once we do know the whole story!

Now I don't think a person can be happier following a path of wickedness like that, but that's all based on my belief in God and His laws. Our consciences, The moral lights within us, come from God. But where does someone who doesn't believe in God think that happiness comes from? Why do certain things make us happy, and other things miserable?

My work, my hobbies, my friends, and my family all bring happiness into my life. As you mentioned, these things to you equate to serving God. You define your happiness by serving God through the things you do and the people you associate with here on this earth. The main difference between you and I is that I take God out of the equation. But those things of the world are still there.

Also, Aesa hit the nail on the head when he said that happiness is subjective. We all find different ways of pursuing and obtaining it. There may be some common denominators like friends and family, but we still have different ways of determining how these things should define our happiness. I could find happiness in spending as much time as I can with friends and family and having lots of interpersonal interaction. Another person may find happiness through living alone as a hermit in the middle of the Appalachians. Which one of us is right? Both of us are, because we are defining happiness on our own subjective terms. Your idea of happiness includes serving God and living by his commandments. Who am I to tell you that you're wrong? Just because your model of happiness would never work for me doesn't mean that it doesn't work perfectly for you.

Yes, happiness is subjective in part. But the kind of joy that surpasses all understanding is only possible through Christ. I have had small tastes of it, and I hold fast to those experiences. It is amazing and wonderful.

Happiness is also relative. We may think we are perfectly happy with where we are, so we do not bother to seek for more. But once we reach a higher state of happiness, we wonder why we didn't reach for it earlier!

Do you have even a tiny hope that there is a God and a life after this one? Perhaps hope in God would depend on whether you would fear or look forward to meeting Him... Suppose He would be nothing but merciful and loving to you, and forgive all your sins; would you then hope for God to be real?

No. I accept, not hope, that there's a small chance that God may exist. Neither of our worldviews can be proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, though I am just as confident of the validity of mine as you are with the validity of yours. If by some chance I'm wrong, and God does exist, then I suppose I'll have some explaining to do after I die. But I find that to be highly improbable, so I don't make a point of worrying over it.

I know this might not mean much to you, but I am not simply "confident of the validity" of my viewpoint. I know that God is real, that He lives. I know by experience. Spiritual experiences- personal witnesses from God Himself- have come to me and have convinced me, so that I do not doubt.

I know these experiences are personal, and cannot convince others in the way they have convinced me, though I hope they might help to bring hope or assurance to others. But the only way for you or anyone else to obtain that personal testimony of your own is to seek for it, to exercise faith, to study, to pray, and to live for it.

I've done my share of back-sliding, so I don't condemn anyone for that. There is always hope, always the chance to do an about-turn, to do as many as we need to throughout our lives. Father never gives up on us.

[Aesa]

I want to thank-you ztodd for replying to me and Godless separately. Things could have got confusing.

Then what is? You seem to trust the scientific method- but that's only because it's pleasing to your mind. That's also based on a feeling. If it didn't feel good to you to trust in logic, then you wouldn't do it.

I admit that it can be difficult to trust your feelings if they are leading you to believe in something you cannot see with your physical eyes, or prove by physical observation. It does require faith.

But you accept and believe many things by faith as well, I'm sure. Things from history, or certain parts of the world that you haven't been to yet, things of science that you can't observe directly; things like that which you accept based just on the testimony of others.

The Scientific Method is not 'pleasing' to my mind in that it gives me emotional solace like believing in feelings as the measure of truth in one's life would. Trusting in logic is an objective matter, for the most part, ofcourse your interpretation of logic certainly can be subjective due to semantic interpretation.

There is little to nothing that comes under the scope of science with requires faith, this is what differentiates it from all the 'older systems'. Science is bound by things that are testable; repetable and observable. Not faith, and not subjectivity. Not opinions, but a finding.

That's a wonderful, unselfish desire to have. But what drives you to have that kind of desire?

Survival is inherent within the human species, as with most species on this planet. You have two choices, in the present day (maybe more, but two that most would consider): (1) continue on in a competitive environment (something bred into us) and keeping fighting (working) against one another in order to survive; or (2) give science and technology it's rightful place in a new social system to eliminate poverty; war and politics -- not eliminate as in 'kill' those people but make those systems irrelevant by fulfilling their function without need for them so for example if you use high technology to create an abundance for everyone then no one will fight over food any more and there will be no nutritional poverty.

I think that this inherent survival, can be redirected by a change in our culture to make it entirely natural for all human beings to behave and think in an altruistic way naturally.

I'm not familiar with Iris Murdoch, but she sounds very wise. So if you believe as Iris Murdoch does, then I'm wondering how we get happiness from those things, if you do not believe we were given that from a Creator?

You say we have different preferences because we are all conditioned slightly differently in our environment. I agree with that. But when it all comes down to it, we all still can gain happiness from the same basic things- love, peace, feeling wanted / needed, etc. So why is this? And how does this happiness come to us? That there is a God who made it so seems a very logical explanation.

I don't 'believe' as Iris Murdoch does, specifically, I merely gave notation to her because I'm presently studying her in Philosophy and some of the things she has said seemed quite relevant to the discussion.

We cannot get happiness from the same basic things because in reality 'love' and 'feeling wanted and needed' and 'peace' don't exist. Now when I say that I'm saying that they don't exist as 'forms', in other words if you ask 100,000 people to define those terms they'd each have different concepts of what they are. So there really is no 'love' per se, it's just that we all identify a certain emotional state with the same words ... but it doesn't mean we're experiencing the same thing.

A good example here, I suppose, is the concept of God. Most spiritual traditions all over the world espouse some form of belief in a deity. They identify with the same terminology, but they certainly don't mean the same thing.

And, on top of that I'd say that every person within a define religion (e.g., Latter-day Saints) each have a slightly different concept of what God is, etc,.

Yes, I guess this is all just part of a hypothetical question to someone who doesn't yet believe in God. Since we're supposing God exists, then we're also supposing that there is righteousness and there is sin.

Well, I know this is a Christian forum but...

Considering my notions above, you'd have to be able to arrive at some sort of 'operational definition' or objective understanding of what God is to define his existence and then also prove that He needs to be righteous per se and that sin actually exists, etc,.

[JohnnyRudick]

18 years of indoctrination? There must be more to the story than that. :)

I agree those things are probably a little off the mark from what we should be doing.

Ok, I can let ya be if that's where you're at. :) I hope later on you might be more open to the idea, and see how much greater our potential is once we can see glimpses of an eternal perspective.

That is very noble. But why does it matter to you if people look back on you as a good person, if you don't even exist anymore?

I do agree with you that leaving a good legacy behind can give your life plenty of meaning and purpose, but if you keep pondering on that- why is that? Where does that feeling of satisfaction with life come from?

I really appreciate this gesture. I respect your choice of what to believe just as much. I really do. But I remain quite curious about how folks find meaning in life if they do not even hope for existence to continue after death.

The promise from who?

Yes, we can all find happiness whether we know / believe the whole story or not. But the potential of greater joy is there once we do know the whole story!

Yes, happiness is subjective in part. But the kind of joy that surpasses all understanding is only possible through Christ. I have had small tastes of it, and I hold fast to those experiences. It is amazing and wonderful.

Happiness is also relative. We may think we are perfectly happy with where we are, so we do not bother to seek for more. But once we reach a higher state of happiness, we wonder why we didn't reach for it earlier!

I know this might not mean much to you, but I am not simply "confident of the validity" of my viewpoint. I know that God is real, that He lives. I know by experience. Spiritual experiences- personal witnesses from God Himself- have come to me and have convinced me, so that I do not doubt.

I know these experiences are personal, and cannot convince others in the way they have convinced me, though I hope they might help to bring hope or assurance to others. But the only way for you or anyone else to obtain that personal testimony of your own is to seek for it, to exercise faith, to study, to pray, and to live for it.

I've done my share of back-sliding, so I don't condemn anyone for that. There is always hope, always the chance to do an about-turn, to do as many as we need to throughout our lives. Father never gives up on us.

As I read all of his posts I can't get away from the feeling that his parents must have really hurt him is some way even he may not realize.

He turned to his teachers in school for direction and reference materials suggested by some that went contrary to his parents direction out of spite and has continued in that same direction.

I really feel for him and pray for him.

Bro. Rudick

[Guest Godless]

18 years of indoctrination? There must be more to the story than that. :)

Point being, I gave the LDS church a fair chance. I still have a great deal of love and respect for its members, but I can't bring myself to embrace the doctrines and teachings of the Church. When the time came for me to form my own testimony, I couldn't. I just didn't see what made the LDS church any more unique or any less superficial than the others, and I still don't.

But why does it matter to you if people look back on you as a good person, if you don't even exist anymore?

I hate the mentality that I need not do anything important or memorable in this life simply because it won't matter to me in the long run. I that were the case, then why not just kill myself now? True, I won't be around to see what sort of legacy (if any) I leave behind, but I still feel a need to do the best I can to live a good life and leave some sort of impact on the generations that will follow me. Why? Because I'm human. We are hardwired with a level of consciousness and self-awareness that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Simply eating, sleeping, and breeding isn't good enough for us the way it is for other animals. We feel a need to justify our existence somehow. It is this mentality that drove our more primitive ancestors to create the God concept. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, that concept has evolved as we have evolved as a species.

But how does one justify his/her existence in the absence of religion? The answer: however you wish. We create our own destiny. We create our own purpose. We create our own meaning. It may not allow for eternal rewards and such, but what good are those things if you don't believe in eternity? For me, this mortal life is as far as my purpose goes. I may be thinking on a smaller scale than theists do, but does that make the things I do in this life any less significant? I tend to think not. In my view, the theists are on the same playing field as I am. There is no grand eternity waiting for them. So with that in mind, the only thing that matters when you die is what you do here in this life. It won't matter to you because you'll be dead, but it will probably matter quite a bit to those who live on after you.

Now flip the coin around, for the sake of perspective. You believe that I'm wrong. You believe that I will have to answer for the things I do in this life after I'm dead. The fact that I don't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have no quarrel with that view, but keep in mind that I have a similar view. Just because you believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that it exists. It's always good to take a look at the opposing view for the sake of perspective.

I do agree with you that leaving a good legacy behind can give your life plenty of meaning and purpose, but if you keep pondering on that- why is that? Where does that feeling of satisfaction with life come from?

It comes from our conscious minds. As I said, we humans have an innate need for fulfillment of some sort. Otherwise, we're just wasting our highly evolved brains. It is for this reason that people start families and pursue careers. These things give us a sense of satisfaction and purpose.

I remain quite curious about how folks find meaning in life if they do not even hope for existence to continue after death.

The things that I do in this life makes it meaningful. As both a military brat and an Army reservist, I have seen more of the world in 23 years than many people will in their entire lifetimes. The things I've seen and experienced (good and bad) will stay with me for the rest of my life. I've learned things from them and will do my best to let those lessons guide my life and decisions as I grow older. From where I sit, there is plenty of meaning to be drawn from all of that. Other people don't have the same experiences to draw from, but they do have experiences and life lessons of their own that I may not be able to relate to. They draw their meaning from that. Oftentimes that meaning is supplemental to what they view as a greater purpose that comes from God, but the things of this life are still very relevant.

Exactly right. Some people find happiness in their faith, others find just as much happiness without it. Either way though, the promise of happiness is what drives us as a species.

The promise from who?

Not who, what. The what is life. Life holds a great deal of potential for happiness. It also holds a lot of potential for sorrow, but that's what makes life so exciting. If you can focus on the good things and make the most of the bad, then you're on the right track.

Yes, happiness is subjective in part. But the kind of joy that surpasses all understanding is only possible through Christ. I have had small tastes of it, and I hold fast to those experiences. It is amazing and wonderful.

This goes back to what I was saying about personal experiences defining who we are. Your experiences point to Christ and the promise of eternal rewards. I can't refute that because I haven't had those experiences. Happiness through Christ is a foreign concept to me, which is why I don't pursue it. You've had a taste of it, which is why you pursue it. Technically, neither of us are wrong.

[Dawnforge]

if you're an omnipotent being you can just switch your brain to "eternal bliss" mode when you get bored. Problem solved.

[Aesa]

Not if you're also Omniscient, because then you'd be infinite; and thus unable and without need to change in such a way.

[ztodd]

if you're an omnipotent being you can just switch your brain to "eternal bliss" mode when you get bored. Problem solved.

Hmm- without getting too philosophical- this would be impossible for God to do. If He were able to just tune out out of reality and be in constant eternal bliss regardless of what's happening in the universe, then He would no longer continue to be God.

[Aesa]

Hmm- without getting too philosophical- this would be impossible for God to do. If He were able to just tune out out of reality and be in constant eternal bliss regardless of what's happening in the universe, then He would no longer continue to be God.

He would become a Deistic God. Creator of the Universe but not intervening in human affairs. Now if the God of the Bible really is true, by comparison THAT would be bliss for us!

[ztodd]

He would become a Deistic God. Creator of the Universe but not intervening in human affairs. Now if the God of the Bible really is true, by comparison THAT would be bliss for us!

It just seems to me to be quite impossible and absurd to suppose a being could have automatic eternal bliss without actually doing something to bring that about. What would be the point of existence at all, if your actions have no bearing whatsoever on your state of happiness? How is it even logical that an eternal blissful state could continue without something causing that to happen?

[Romanytony]

My goodness, this has gone deep. It's times like this that I am so thankful that I am not an academic, if being one means that I have to rely on other academics thoughts to guide me.

I have a personal knowledge (not belief) of an afterlife, or at least a sphere that exists beyond our physical world.

I also have felt the promptings of the spirit to enlarge my understanding on issues. I am far from having a perfect knowledge of all things but have enough evidence to base the rest on faith, what I don't know I will accept on good faith.

The gospel is simple. Don't be afraid to have the humility to test it.

[pam]

It just seems to me to be quite impossible and absurd to suppose a being could have automatic eternal bliss without actually doing something to bring that about. What would be the point of existence at all, if your actions have no bearing whatsoever on your state of happiness? How is it even logical that an eternal blissful state could continue without something causing that to happen?

Thank you thank ztodd. I've been trying to get that same thought out on another thread. Thank you.

[CraziCrow]

This thread seems based on the fact that your your thoughts and feelings, how you perceive the things and even what your doing is similar to what it is now, which i would very much doubt.

Everything you are will be changed, you will feel diferently about time, what is boring, what isn't. Its impossible to comprehend what it would be like (as the scriptures say) and so you cant judge it too harshly yet.

The celestial kingdom is also said to come with a complete 'fulness of joy'. That means you wouldn't be bored, whatever it is that happens, you will love it for all eternity =)

[FunkyTown]

I hate the mentality that I need not do anything important or memorable in this life simply because it won't matter to me in the long run. I that were the case, then why not just kill myself now? True, I won't be around to see what sort of legacy (if any) I leave behind, but I still feel a need to do the best I can to live a good life and leave some sort of impact on the generations that will follow me. Why? Because I'm human. We are hardwired with a level of consciousness and self-awareness that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Simply eating, sleeping, and breeding isn't good enough for us the way it is for other animals. We feel a need to justify our existence somehow. It is this mentality that drove our more primitive ancestors to create the God concept. And as I mentioned earlier in this thread, that concept has evolved as we have evolved as a species.

Now flip the coin around, for the sake of perspective. You believe that I'm wrong. You believe that I will have to answer for the things I do in this life after I'm dead. The fact that I don't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have no quarrel with that view, but keep in mind that I have a similar view. Just because you believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that it exists. It's always good to take a look at the opposing view for the sake of perspective.

This goes back to what I was saying about personal experiences defining who we are. Your experiences point to Christ and the promise of eternal rewards. I can't refute that because I haven't had those experiences. Happiness through Christ is a foreign concept to me, which is why I don't pursue it. You've had a taste of it, which is why you pursue it. Technically, neither of us are wrong.

I've cut out a lot of what you said because it was superfluous to what I had intended.

"Creating the God concept." "Experiences define who we are.".

I have noticed several things about your posts and, in order to have a more meaningful dialogue, I would like to ask a few questions:

1) It sounds like you are a proponent of science as the answer to most things. This is reasonable as it's the application of logic to observable repeatable phenomenon. Would you agree this is important to you and that this definition is fair?

2) You have stated that there are certain things 'Hardwired' in to the human psyche. Would you say that the fulfillment of those wishes are good? Bad? Irrelevant? To what extent should these drives push you?

[Guest Godless]

I've cut out a lot of what you said because it was superfluous to what I had intended.

"Creating the God concept." "Experiences define who we are.".

I have noticed several things about your posts and, in order to have a more meaningful dialogue, I would like to ask a few questions:

1) It sounds like you are a proponent of science as the answer to most things. This is reasonable as it's the application of logic to observable repeatable phenomenon. Would you agree this is important to you and that this definition is fair?

Yes. I see no room for supernatural concepts in my definition of reality.

2) You have stated that there are certain things 'Hardwired' in to the human psyche. Would you say that the fulfillment of those wishes are good? Bad? Irrelevant? To what extent should these drives push you?

If you're referring to my mention of the God concept, I'd say it's generally more bad than good. As I mentioned in a previous post, people have committed horrendous atrocities in the name of religion. Personally, I can think of few words more frightening than "God is on our side".

I don't, however, wish to downplay the potential for good that religion possesses. For some people, faith in God is the only thing that gets them through the day. I have no problem with that. Nor do I take issue with theists who draw their moral integrity from their faith. I do, however, become uncomfortable when I hear people say that they wouldn't be able to live moral lives if they stopped believing in God. If your faith is the only keeping you from being a bad person, then perhaps you should rethink your values. So to answer your second question, I believe that faith should drive people only to the extent that they are using it to supplement their values rather than defining their values completely by their dogmatic principles.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Godless

[Moksha]

...so we have religion to tell us that there's a glorious kingdom waiting for us if we believe x, y, and z.

And you could add that we be reunited with our loved ones. Those items certainly make me feel better.

Like John Doe said, we have a "very limited understanding of what life in the Kingdoms of Heaven will be like". With that in mind, we might as well believe is something hopeful. It makes going gently or boldly into that dark night worthwhile.

:)

[Hemidakota]

Most have a limited knowledge what life is like in the Celestial Kingdom but only a few do know what life is really like behind the veil of light.

When we reach the state of trust from GOD and given true science in this world, our journey will begin into the deepest recess of the Universe and will finally unlock the answer where man made fabrication currently holds our academic community hostage.

[FunkyTown]

Now, that's an important distinction: Do you see no room for supernatural concepts in your definition of reality because you believe in science, or because you disbelieve in religion? That's a subtle difference, but very distinct. One who believes in Science can be swayed by evidence. One who disbelieves in religion can not be swayed by any arguments because the very idea of a world beyond not just his control and knowledge, but beyond his potential for control and knowledge offends him.

Yes. I see no room for supernatural concepts in my definition of reality.

If you're referring to my mention of the God concept, I'd say it's generally more bad than good. As I mentioned in a previous post, people have committed horrendous atrocities in the name of religion. Personally, I can think of few words more frightening than "God is on our side".

I don't, however, wish to downplay the potential for good that religion possesses. For some people, faith in God is the only thing that gets them through the day. I have no problem with that. Nor do I take issue with theists who draw their moral integrity from their faith. I do, however, become uncomfortable when I hear people say that they wouldn't be able to live moral lives if they stopped believing in God. If your faith is the only keeping you from being a bad person, then perhaps you should rethink your values. So to answer your second question, I believe that faith should drive people only to the extent that they are using it to supplement their values rather than defining their values completely by their dogmatic principles.

[Guest Godless]

Now, that's an important distinction: Do you see no room for supernatural concepts in your definition of reality because you believe in science, or because you disbelieve in religion? That's a subtle difference, but very distinct. One who believes in Science can be swayed by evidence. One who disbelieves in religion can not be swayed by any arguments because the very idea of a world beyond not just his control and knowledge, but beyond his potential for control and knowledge offends him.

It's a matter of science. If objective evidence were ever provided to support the existence of God, or anything currently considered supernatural for that matter, then I would willingly rethink my worldview.

[Hemidakota]

ADDING HERE...there is a distinct differences of science described by honorable men of this world and what is true science of those reside in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Hemidakota]

It's a matter of science. If objective evidence were ever provided to support the existence of God, or anything currently considered supernatural for that matter, then I would willingly rethink my worldview.

Neither can one use physical binding laws and seek to explained away higher laws used in the Celestial kingdom. One exist over the other and supersedes the lesser. A demonstration of such is the deluge itself. It was not only done by our physical law but was superseded by an higher law to ensure it happen as stated by GOD.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Hemidakota

[FunkyTown]

It's a matter of science. If objective evidence were ever provided to support the existence of God, or anything currently considered supernatural for that matter, then I would willingly rethink my worldview.

That is perfect, Godless!

Now: What would you consider to be proof? There are different types of proof:

There are historical proofs, such as first hand accounts and third hand accounts. Generally, these are accepted for historical occurences.

There is the Scientific Method. The scientific method requires recreating something in a controlled environment. Dove Soap floats. We know this because someone once pushed the Dove bar down in to a tank of water, pulled back, watched it rise and made a checkmark. Then, that person repeated that again and again. Obviously, one cannot recreate the life, birth and death of Jesus Christ in a controlled environment. However, by that token, we can not prove the existence and/or events in any persons life.

There is logical proof: Many concepts of mathematics and modern living can be attributed to recreateable inductive proofs. Pi, for instance, or soft sciences such as archeology, paleontology or psychology.

What would you consider proof, Godless? First hand accounts? Logical continuations? A big fire burning in the sky saying 'God exists'?