The Question

[PickelledEggs]

Who picked "nothing" as their answer?

I'm interested in what the reason for that is.

[dtq123]

I am the second person to choose nothing, (Sadly...) I wanted to be first

Ok, straight into the cesspool of criticism. I am fairly pragmatic about the belief in a god for the following reasons:

-God does not make me feel good about myself
-God of the bible is evil, as are most gods
-God gives me a purpose I do not wish to follow

I would spit in the face of truth itself if it showed me god exists. God's existence shows that someone is sitting there up in an outer realm and watching us suffer. Six things can come from that (as far as I know):

- A god enjoys pain of others and watches it with no interference
- A god doesn't enjoy pain of others and watches it with no interference

- A god enjoys pain of others and caused it
- A god doesn't enjoy pain of others and caused it

- A god causes evil and feels nothing
- A god doesn't cause evil and feel nothing

All the above provide a sort of anguish within me if it were to do true. Thus I will reject them based on emotional anguish and emotional attachment to "Rationality" in the rest of my life

...Now that I consider it while typing this, I might accept the new evidence into my life if it occurs, but it is very unlikely for me since most of my grievances often have a heavy dose of denial, and solving everything within that state. Should I take it in though, It wouldn't change my life much unless you all suddenly hated me or something.

Blah, Blah, Blah... My picture says it all   

[stromboli]

(Arthur C.) Clarke's Laws, for the unknowing:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

#3 is the one Trdsf referred to.

I think of the Cargo Cult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

A cargo cult is a Melanesian millenarian movement encompassing a diverse range of practices and occurring in the wake of contact with the commercial networks of colonizing societies. The name derives from the belief that various ritualistic acts will lead to a bestowing of material wealth ("cargo").

Any situation where a culture is visited with either largesse or destruction from a source outside of their comprehension or their sphere of understanding can be seen as a supernatural event. This is reinforced when some act or behavior by the culture sees a deliverance of either wealth or destruction. The Melanesians saw cargo and wealth delivered by various sources and developed rituals they believed brought about that delivery.

So it begs the question by example of what actually constitutes a miraculous or supernatural event. And since human imagination has generated everything from vampires to zombies to Godzilla and every form of space invader, to my mind an event or action created by a god would have to be so far outside of our ability to comprehend or imagine as to be all but indescribable. 

[Munch]

It's as I've kept saying, even if you could present me evidence of God, the real question is if he was real, why should I respect such a monstrous entity? I consider my own morals greater then any fictitious gods

[PickelledEggs]

I am the second person to choose nothing, (Sadly...) I wanted to be first

Ok, straight into the cesspool of criticism. I am fairly pragmatic about the belief in a god for the following reasons:

-God does not make me feel good about myself
-God of the bible is evil, as are most gods
-God gives me a purpose I do not wish to follow

I would spit in the face of truth itself if it showed me god exists. God's existence shows that someone is sitting there up in an outer realm and watching us suffer. Six things can come from that (as far as I know):

- A god enjoys pain of others and watches it with no interference
- A god doesn't enjoy pain of others and watches it with no interference

- A god enjoys pain of others and caused it
- A god doesn't enjoy pain of others and caused it

- A god causes evil and feels nothing
- A god doesn't cause evil and feel nothing

All the above provide a sort of anguish within me if it were to do true. Thus I will reject them based on emotional anguish and emotional attachment to "Rationality" in the rest of my life

...Now that I consider it while typing this, I might accept the new evidence into my life if it occurs, but it is very unlikely for me since most of my grievances often have a heavy dose of denial, and solving everything within that state. Should I take it in though, It wouldn't change my life much unless you all suddenly hated me or something.

Blah, Blah, Blah... My picture says it all   

So what you are saying is that even if the evidence presents its self, which I agree is a slim to none chance that it will, there is a chance you will deny the evidence, even if the evidence is of your standards because the personality of god makes you sick?

Just trying to understand what you meant by that... correct me if I interpreted it wrong.

Edit: btw. The question in the OP wasn't asking if you would worship such a god... just to acknowledge it exists if you didn't already (if evidence revealed that one does exist)

and vice/versa for people that do believe... what kind of evidence do believers of god/etc think will change their view about if god exists to shift them to not believing anymore

[trdsf]

I always forget about Clarke's other laws, thank you!

I think of the Cargo Cult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

A cargo cult is a Melanesian millenarian movement encompassing a diverse range of practices and occurring in the wake of contact with the commercial networks of colonizing societies. The name derives from the belief that various ritualistic acts will lead to a bestowing of material wealth ("cargo").

Any situation where a culture is visited with either largesse or destruction from a source outside of their comprehension or their sphere of understanding can be seen as a supernatural event. This is reinforced when some act or behavior by the culture sees a deliverance of either wealth or destruction. The Melanesians saw cargo and wealth delivered by various sources and developed rituals they believed brought about that delivery.

And it's worth noting that this is a living process, not a historical one -- the cult of 'John Frum' is probably less than 80 years old, and the Prince Philip Movement may date to within my own lifetime, and certainly no earlier than the 1950s.  We are a species that's very good on putting a supernatural spin on the perfectly natural.

[PickelledEggs]

It's as I've kept saying, even if you could present me evidence of God, the real question is if he was real, why should I respect such a monstrous entity? I consider my own morals greater then any fictitious gods

The question has nothing to do with respect or worship of the being, just simply acknowledging that it exists if the evidence presents its self, no matter how far fetched the idea of evidence for a god, especially the christian god is.

[dtq123]

So what you are saying is...  there is a chance you will deny the evidence, even if the evidence is of your standards because the personality of god makes you sick?

Just trying to understand what you meant by that... correct me if I interpreted it wrong.

Yep, It's a lame excuse isn't it? 

[PickelledEggs]

Yep, It's a lame excuse isn't it? 

Not really. It's a bit irrational, yes, but I hope you keep that in mind when you're criticizing believers...  Because even if they aren't saying that's why they believe, it's very possible that it's a huge factor of it.

Sent from your mom.

[dtq123]

Not really. It's a bit irrational, yes, but I hope you keep that in mind when you're criticizing believers...  Because even if they aren't saying that's why they believe, it's very possible that it's a huge factor of it.

Sent from your mom.

I do, and I actually get along quite well with my parents' religious community. Religion just wants to get recognition for good actions (Few and far in between, but it's there), while most atheists want to acknowledge the bad. As long as we can do both I think this world is decent (Not good, just decent)

Hi mom!

[Lategreatplanet]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause, and the cause is always greater than the effect (a fundamental principle of science).
 
Many have tried to impugn it, but it stands like the Rock of Gibraltar; now genuflect before it and be thankful.

[aitm]

and the cause is always greater than the effect
 

You will have to help me out with this as my science learning was poor. Is a seed larger than the "effect"?

[Sal1981]

Evidence. And what exactly the nature of that evidence would be; hell if I know, but I'm sure "god", whatever that may be, would know exactly what would convince my human mind.

[Solitary]

This question is the same as asking if something is assumed to exist with no evidence, and then evidence is found to exist, does it exist? It was assumed by the Greeks that atoms existed with no evidence for a very long time, and then evidence was found they do, so of course we believe they do. So if there is evidence for any god, or God, to exist I would believe they do. So what? If they do exist, then if it is found they do, nothing has changed. Why is it assumed that everything has to have a beginning, and not that some things just are?

[trdsf]

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause, and the cause is always greater than the effect (a fundamental principle of science).
 
Many have tried to impugn it, but it stands like the Rock of Gibraltar; now genuflect before it and be thankful.

Lot of interestingly inaccurate assumptions here.

1) Existence does not need a cause; that's the principle behind the spontaneous creation and annihilation of virtual pairs of particles in quantum theory, which have a real, measurable effect for all of being 'virtual'.

2) It has not been proven that the universe had a beginning, although that's currently the leading theory.  While Fred Hoyle's concept of the Steady State universe has been dispensed with, there are other theories that permit for cyclical creation and re-creation, and if the observable universe resides in higher-dimensional space, it hasn't been demonstrated that that space has a beginning.

3) Does not follow from your assumptions, since your input assumptions are both incorrect, as is your assertion that the cause is always greater than the effect -- if that were true, nuclear and thermonuclear bombs could not exist (cause: put two pieces of metal together; effect: obliterate several square miles).

You might also be interested to know that the Rock of Gibraltar is actually mostly empty space -- the size of the atomic nucleus inside the electron shell has been likened, with reasonable accuracy, to a single fly inside a cathedral...