If You Knew There Were No Gods, Would You Still Follow Your Religion?

[ThePainefulTruth]

buddhism is a religion that doesn't require embracing a god concept.

many religions possess useful moral codes, even if their god concepts become a mere afterthought.

It's the other way around. It come up with a god and then piles on it's self-serving (not reasonably arrived at) "morality". It just so happens that most religions have a version of the Golden Rule, but it's inevitably a footnote to the reams and reams of law and socially mandated conformity to its norms and taboos.

 

[asier9]

Yes, because if there was no God then I would have to reject the notion of objective truth altogether and as it turns out what I believe is in my estimation the best of all possible beliefs even in a world where nothing were strictly true in an objective sense--I will add that is by a long shot. My academic background is in Western philosophy (epistemology and the philosophy of science) additionally I spent two decades studying Mahayana Buddhism through various Tibetan schools, along with the general religious context in which Buddhism arose, as well as being a declared, if not always committed, Baha'i (until Catholicism I never had a firm faith in God. I declared with the knowledge of the world I then held in which I concluded that it was most probable that Baha'u'llah was telling the truth about his experience. Consequently I cycled through at various stages believing in materialism, a Buddhist worldview, and attempting to sincerely accept the theism of the Baha'i Faith).

I am a Catholic not just by conviction, but also, as it turns out, by default.

 

[Laika]

Voted other, as an atheist.

Bonus Question for Atheists: If you knew for certain there were no gods, would you still live a life of moral debauchery just to spite them?

hell, yes. it's not about pissing off god. it's about pissing off people who claim to speak for god.

 

[garbonzo607]

We can see that the common thread in this thread is that everyone believes it's their religion that gives them their morality and way of living in life. Everyone has mostly the same morals and way of life however. So we can see that one religion doesn't have the monopoly on this. If ALL religions have this in common, then there would be no difference if you didn't have a religion at all. The only legitimate reason to stick with a religion, in my opinion of course, are those that are in a religion due to cultural reasons, but even then, if you are only in it for the culture, does that really mean you are religious? Is that what religion is for?

Bonus Question for Atheists: If you knew for certain there were no gods, would you still live a life of moral debauchery just to spite them?

What is that supposed to mean? Why assume that atheists live a life of moral debauchery? I want to assume that you didn't mean that, but I don't believe there is another way of reading this. Why is atheist morality any different than religious morality? If you knew for certain there were no gods, then how do you spite non-existent gods? It doesn't make sense.

Are you saying would you kill someone just to spite a god? That doesn't make sense, I doubt many people would do that, and those that would have mental problems.

 

[ginaleanne]

My religion doesn't keep me from being bad. Cops and courts and mans laws do. I'd probably still pray to something when I do something wrong and see a cop and pray he didn't see me.

 

[ginaleanne]

We can see that the common thread in this thread is that everyone believes it's their religion that gives them their morality and way of living in life. Everyone has mostly the same morals and way of life however. So we can see that one religion doesn't have the monopoly on this. If ALL religions have this in common, then there would be no difference if you didn't have a religion at all. The only legitimate reason to stick with a religion, in my opinion of course, are those that are in a religion due to cultural reasons, but even then, if you are only in it for the culture, does that really mean you are religious? Is that what religion is for?



What is that supposed to mean? Why assume that atheists live a life of moral debauchery? I want to assume that you didn't mean that, but I don't believe there is another way of reading this. Why is atheist morality any different than religious morality? If you knew for certain there were no gods, then how do you spite non-existent gods? It doesn't make sense.

Are you saying would you kill someone just to spite a god? That doesn't make sense, I doubt many people would do that, and those that would have mental problems.

I totally agree. One of the most upright moral persons I met in a Christian yahoo forum about 10 years ago was the atheist member who spent his free time arguing with Christian women. I began emailing him off the forum and it turned out he was probably more moralistic, law abiding and righty tighty than most of the other members. It's ridiculous to think people need to God to be decent people.

 

[Asha]

Namaste

In Sanatana Dharma God is synonomous with the eternal truth , so I am not sure that god can be disprooved ?
So I cant realy answer, even the DemiGods are expansions of The one God, and as we are expansions of God ourselves, I dont see that you can remove God ?
If you remove God you remove all of us and everything else, we would never even have been here to ask the question.

 

[Sees]

That's still fear of repercussions from a master/s...to me it's poor form in regards to morality, whether religious or not.

My religion doesn't keep me from being bad. Cops and courts and mans laws do. I'd probably still pray to something when I do something wrong and see a cop and pray he didn't see me.

 

[Eileen]

That's still fear of repercussions from a master/s...to me it's poor form in regards to morality, whether religious or not.

Not all people follow HaShem (or their chosen god) out of fear of repercussions. I 'fear' (am in awe of) HaShem because of who He is not because of what He might do to me.

 

[mystic64]

Assuming your religion has a god or gods, then if you knew for certain that there were no gods, would you still follow your religion? If so, why. If not, why not?

Bonus Question for Atheists: If you knew for certain there were no gods, would you still live a life of moral debauchery just to spite them?

Well Sunstone sir, if one hangs out with gifted atheists for a considerable length of time (for years) as I have, they if they are honest about things, are constantly giving what you have presented in your OP question some serious thought. There is only one God in my religion and that God is the Father of Lord Jesus, that art in Heaven. And my religion would still exist even if it were to be assumed the He (that God) did not exist, because I am a yogi mystic. To me Lord Jesus and Lord Shiva are immortals and examples of the potiental that lies in all human beings. Lord Jesus and Lord Shiva are considered Gods by some, but in true reality they are immortals. And the question becomes, "How did they do it?" And answering and exploring that question does not actually require the existance of God, using the generally accepted definition of God. And there is a profoundly powerful force with a conscious mind that is at play in Creation and this profoundly powerful force lives outside of Creation. Is this profoundly powerful force the God of religion? I doubt it. My religion is the exploration of the "unknown". Do the Gods/God of religion have to actually exist for me to follow my religion? Nope .

 

[Riverwolf]

Not all people follow HaShem (or their chosen god) out of fear of repercussions. I 'fear' (am in awe of) HaShem because of who He is not because of what He might do to me.

Just occurred to me that I can FINALLY sympathize with this sort of thinking, as it's similar to how I view Woden.

 

[Riverwolf]

I find it rather interesting that a lot of answers are variations on "well, if there's no God, then we wouldn't be here."

To those answering with such reasoning, I must ask: what would your answer change to if it were proven that absolutely no God were needed in order for us to be here?

 

[Eileen]

I find it rather interesting that a lot of answers are variations on "well, if there's no God, then we wouldn't be here."

To those answering with such reasoning, I must ask: what would your answer change tothat absolutely no God were needed in order for us to be here?

I am one of those who say No God- no anything. I originally responded to point out my belief. Perhaps some would say I am then incapable of entertaining ideas I don't agree with or I am somehow not quite as intelligent or open minded as others who think this is a real thought to discuss. Actually, entertaining ideas I don't agree with is exactly why I say, No HaShem-no us. And I can consider ideas but, for me, there is no ' if it were proven' as it is impossible to prove that we can exist without HaShem. Rephrasing the question does not change my answer at all.
This is simply my answer to your question it is not a polemic against anyone else's opinion.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am one of those who say No God- no anything. I originally responded to point out my belief. Perhaps some would say I am then incapable of entertaining ideas I don't agree with or I am somehow not quite as intelligent or open minded as others who think this is a real thought to discuss. Actually, entertaining ideas I don't agree with is exactly why I say, No HaShem-no us. And I can consider ideas but, for me, there is no ' if it were proven' as it is impossible to prove that we can exist without HaShem. Rephrasing the question does not change my answer at all.
This is simply my answer to your question it is not a polemic against anyone else's opinion.

I know. It's okay. ^_^ I'm one of those who doesn't doubt the general intelligence of people. I'm not what I've come to call an intellectual elitist.

Could you explain further why you feel it's impossible to prove that we can exist without HaShem?

 

[Eileen]

I know. It's okay. ^_^ I'm one of those who doesn't doubt the general intelligence of people. I'm not what I've come to call an intellectual elitist.

Could you explain further why you feel it's impossible to prove that we can exist without HaShem?

Quite simple. I believe HaShem and His Torah. Also 'science has been looking for the 'god' particle without any success and I do not believe they will ever find a 'god 'particle because HaShem is not quantifiable in any way. Mankind in general has been trying to disprove His existence for a long, long time now, again, without success. I must add here that although I believe there is proof that He IS I know not everyone will agree with what I consider proof. I believe the very existence of life is proof, others do not.

 

[Eileen]

Quite simple. I believe HaShem and His Torah.

Actually, I should say I actively trust HaShem and His Torah not simply believe Him.

 

[Riverwolf]

Quite simple. I believe HaShem and His Torah. Also 'science has been looking for the 'god' particle without any success and I do not believe they will ever find a 'god 'particle because HaShem is not quantifiable in any way. Mankind in general has been trying to disprove His existence for a long, long time now, again, without success. I must add here that although I believe there is proof that He IS I know not everyone will agree with what I consider proof. I believe the very existence of life is proof, others do not.

Fair enough, but I don't really think the whole "God particle" thing is really what it sounds like. More of a nickname that, as I understand, was jokingly applied to something in quantum physics that I don't understand enough to say anything about.

Plus... well, yeah it hasn't been disproven, but that doesn't mean it exists. Bigfoot hasn't technically been "disproven", either. In logical deduction, the default stance is negative, not positive. Therefore, no-existence until proven existence, and life just isn't enough given that I understand there's plenty of evidence that it could have come to be on its own.

Hence my theism is agnostic. I believe in the Gods and other Wights, but I don't know they exist.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm one of those who doesn't doubt the general intelligence of people. I'm not what I've come to call an intellectual elitist.

I try to be realistic about people: In my experience, some are brighter than others. That doesn't mean they're more decent, though. I've known abusive geniuses and kind morons. But I deem it nonsense to dismiss such differences, just as I would deem it nonsense to dismiss the differences between a kind person and a cruel person on the grounds that one should not be a "kindness elitist".

 

[Riverwolf]

I try to be realistic about people: In my experience, some are brighter than others. That doesn't mean they're more decent, though. I've known abusive geniuses and kind morons. But I deem it nonsense to dismiss such differences, just as I would deem it nonsense to dismiss the differences between a kind person and a cruel person on the grounds that one should not be a "kindness elitist".

Not really what I'm doing. I don't dismiss differences. Different people have different types and degrees of intelligence. I also try to be realistic.

Intellectual elitism is a label of my own conception, which I've characterized by scorn and belittlement of people who are perceived to be of "lesser intelligence", based on arbitrary, and often irrelevant, reasons. An example of this would be the conception that another person is stupid because they don't know certain factoids, as if intelligence automatically grants, or means having, knowledge. It also exists subtly in our common vernacular, where a large number of our culture's insults are about intelligence and mental ability. It doesn't refer to people who are intelligent, and/or place value on intelligence.

 

[Sunstone]

Not really what I'm doing. I don't dismiss differences. Different people have different types and degrees of intelligence. I also try to be realistic.

Intellectual elitism is a label of my own conception, which I've characterized by scorn and belittlement of people who are perceived to be of "lesser intelligence", based on arbitrary, and often irrelevant, reasons. An example of this would be the conception that another person is stupid because they don't know certain factoids, as if intelligence automatically grants, or means having, knowledge. It also exists subtly in our common vernacular, where a large number of our culture's insults are about intelligence and mental ability. It doesn't refer to people who are intelligent, and/or place value on intelligence.

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, I agree with you.