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

[Sha'irullah]

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.

The God particle was named as the Goddamn particle because it seemed hard to calculate. It has nothing to do with gods and science does not seek god since god is not an inherent thing that exists. Seriously, stop making fallacious arguments.

 

[Eileen]

The God particle was named as the Goddamn particle because it seemed hard to calculate. It has nothing to do with gods and science does not seek god since god is not an inherent thing that exists. Seriously, stop making fallacious arguments.

First of all I am very aware of what the god particle idea is- I was being a bit flippant. However, I am not arguing anything. I stated my opinion and answered questions asked of me. No argument. So I made no fallacious arguments. I only stated my opinion - take it or leave it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

First of all I am very aware of what the god particle idea is- I was being a bit flippant. However, I am not arguing anything. I stated my opinion and answered questions asked of me. No argument. So I made no fallacious arguments. I only stated my opinion - take it or leave it.

No, I will not accept that excuse on the account of you trying to dodge your ignorance.

 

[Midget01]

Perhaps I would become a Christian Atheist, since I could still admire some of Jesus' teachings. But... How could anybody provides any proof attesting the non-existence of God or gods? Just curious. However, I suppose that's a question for another thread.

Martellus: If there are no gods then why would you admire Jesus He is a God. Our creator is a God but I suppose there is some man or scientist out there that seems to think something came from nothing all by itself.

 

[garbonzo607]

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.

Why is it so hard to do a simple Google search when you don't understand something like the "God particle"?

I can assure you it is not the business of science to disprove deities, so your hatred is unqualified.

The very existence of life is proof to many religions and beliefs, it doesn't single out your religion as The One.

 

[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?

"If you knew for certain that there were no gods, would you still follow your religion?" "If so, why? If not, why not?"

My question is, "Is it within the scope of the OP for one person to attack the validity of another person's answer to the requested, "If so, why? If not, why not?"

"I would still follow my religion because I "believe" that there has to be a "God particle" holding everything together." "I would still follow my religion because I "believe" that without God there would be no life." Do I need to also defend these two beliefs? Having to defend your answer does not seem to be a part of the OP, was having to defend your answer implied? Sir?

 

[Eileen]

Why is it so hard to do a simple Google search when you don't understand something like the "God particle"?

I can assure you it is not the business of science to disprove deities, so your hatred is unqualified.

The very existence of life is proof to many religions and beliefs, it doesn't single out your religion as The One.

I never said my briefs are the One religion, I did not understand this to be the purpose of the question. While I do believe HaShem is the One and Only true God and I am not trying to convince or convert anyone to my understanding of "God". People can and will believe as they choose.

I also understand that it has not been the aim of science to prove or disprove deities. At your suggestion, I did a Google search on the "God Particle to see if indeed I was way off in using it as an example.
The general agreement I found was that the Higgs boson particle was a sub atomic particle that's detection would confirm the existence of the Higgs field, which is believed to permeate the universe and give particles mass. Without the Higgs boson and field, nothing would exist – no animals, oceans, planets or stars. There is probably more to the God particle idea than what this definition encompasses but this is a working and accepted definition for it.

I also read that scientist think they may have found it but have stopped short of declaring it as actually found. Or at least I did not find any information that definitely claimed its discovery. If it had been, please tell me where to find the information.

According to this definition it is indeed more than just a mathematical equation but is actually some thing they are looking for, something that actually exists outside of theory. However as of now it exists only in theory. If it had been detected, please tell me where to find the information.

But even if it has been that would not shake my belief/trust that HaShem is ultimately the source of all existence. Midget01 obviously believes Jesus to be God, he/she has her reasons. I think she is wrong and he/she thinks I am wrong. Sha'irullah thinks I am ignorant, I think she sounds contentious without reason.
I was having a discussion but I see that this is a debate board. So, I am in the wrong place.

Sunstone, I hope others will answer your original question in a manner that will facilitate an actual debate, if that is what you were looking for.

 

[goodhunter819]

Looking at whether a person would follow a religion if there were no god, gods or goddesses for that matter, as for myself self I would totally still choose religion yes, for me religion is a spiritual matter, a matter of the non tangible, the unseen force of the universe and no I am not talking of evil in least though I am aware that power exists, I am talking of the natural power of the universe, that power tapped into by our inner being, I am sure everyone will agree that is is only since the eventual rise of organized monotheism that the parameters meanings of religious doctrine were changed. I do not believe in the conventional practices of religious teaching and I do believe that to pass to the future too, religion for me is not just about the conventional ideas of god it is the spiritual realm and that cannot be put into the categories of everyday practices of political doctrine so the only true term is religion , so the combined mutaul recognition of spiritual practices in my opinion can be defined as religious and religion without to unified concept of god and having this same religion be its terminology, so yes I do believe to follow religion attributed to purely spitual practice, there are many religions indigenous that have this practice to the forces of nature.

 

[bigNavySeal]

You can just as well turn this question around. That's why this question, on one hand a good one, is playing with the unknown answer: If you know for sure that there is/are (a) God(s), would you still "practice" Atheism? And then you can go into details, what/who/which this/these God(s) are and are demanding... I prefer just to remain Agnostic at this point.

 

[Sees]

You can just as well turn this question around. That's why this question, on one hand a good one, is playing with the unknown answer: If you know for sure that there is/are (a) God(s), would you still "practice" Atheism? And then you can go into details, what/who/which this/these God(s) are and are demanding... I prefer just to remain Agnostic at this point.

You would instantly not be an atheist or able to "practice" atheism if you knew God/s exist. Not much the same.

 

[Blackstone]

If it was proven that my gods don't exist nothing would change for me, my views would only switch to my gods being useable archetypes in my head rather than beings outside of myself, I would still get the satisfaction from following them that I do now.

 

[bigNavySeal]

You would instantly not be an atheist or able to "practice" atheism if you knew God/s exist. Not much the same.

How is it not the same? The initial question challenges the human concept of 'faith' (in a broader sense of the word), and questions the reader about the willingness of the reader to stop practicing certain 'behavior/rituals' related to that faith when confronted with certain information (eg: God does not exist). This question is just as well applicable to Atheism, or rather Darwinism. It are both a set of believes, the latter with mainly a thought system more than rituals. Just as the previous poster pointed out, he/she derives certain habitual/spiritual 'elevation' from her practice/faith system. This means faith/value is very often purely personal. A person may choose to continue to ignorantly live 'Atheistically' in this world when presented with the information, just as well that a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/fill-in Deity belief system may choose to ignorantly continue living practicing that faith when presented with contrary information.

Honestly, when you think about it, you would assume the opposite, as history has often proven that when we are presented with evidence of something we accept that as truth. Yet, ironically when it comes to a very definitive question, as to the essence of who we are and how we have come about, there is no 100% answer/evidence. I guess I don't get further than this now, someone help me out.

Obviously it also matters how 'visually' it is presented to the individual that there definitively is no or a God.

 

[garbonzo607]

How is it not the same? The initial question challenges the human concept of 'faith' (in a broader sense of the word), and questions the reader about the willingness of the reader to stop practicing certain 'behavior/rituals' related to that faith when confronted with certain information (eg: God does not exist). This question is just as well applicable to Atheism, or rather Darwinism. It are both a set of believes, the latter with mainly a thought system more than rituals. Just as the previous poster pointed out, he/she derives certain habitual/spiritual 'elevation' from her practice/faith system. This means faith/value is very often purely personal. A person may choose to continue to ignorantly live 'Atheistically' in this world when presented with the information, just as well that a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/fill-in Deity belief system may choose to ignorantly continue living practicing that faith when presented with contrary information.

Honestly, when you think about it, you would assume the opposite, as history has often proven that when we are presented with evidence of something we accept that as truth. Yet, ironically when it comes to a very definitive question, as to the essence of who we are and how we have come about, there is no 100% answer/evidence. I guess I don't get further than this now, someone help me out.

Obviously it also matters how 'visually' it is presented to the individual that there definitively is no or a God.

It's not the same simply because it seems these people's religions are more to them than just evidence of there being a God. It is a part of their life and their core. Any atheist that arrived to atheism because of reason and logic would no longer be an atheist if they knew there were no gods. To say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest. In other words, you can (supposedly) take god(s) out of a religion, but you can't take "no god(s)" out of atheism, or they would no longer be atheists.

I never said my briefs are the One religion, I did not understand this to be the purpose of the question. While I do believe HaShem is the One and Only true God and I am not trying to convince or convert anyone to my understanding of "God". People can and will believe as they choose.

I also understand that it has not been the aim of science to prove or disprove deities. At your suggestion, I did a Google search on the "God Particle to see if indeed I was way off in using it as an example.
The general agreement I found was that the Higgs boson particle was a sub atomic particle that's detection would confirm the existence of the Higgs field, which is believed to permeate the universe and give particles mass. Without the Higgs boson and field, nothing would exist – no animals, oceans, planets or stars. There is probably more to the God particle idea than what this definition encompasses but this is a working and accepted definition for it.

I also read that scientist think they may have found it but have stopped short of declaring it as actually found. Or at least I did not find any information that definitely claimed its discovery. If it had been, please tell me where to find the information.

According to this definition it is indeed more than just a mathematical equation but is actually some thing they are looking for, something that actually exists outside of theory. However as of now it exists only in theory. If it had been detected, please tell me where to find the information.

But even if it has been that would not shake my belief/trust that HaShem is ultimately the source of all existence. Midget01 obviously believes Jesus to be God, he/she has her reasons. I think she is wrong and he/she thinks I am wrong. Sha'irullah thinks I am ignorant, I think she sounds contentious without reason.
I was having a discussion but I see that this is a debate board. So, I am in the wrong place.

Sunstone, I hope others will answer your original question in a manner that will facilitate an actual debate, if that is what you were looking for.

Wikipedia is your friend. But at least you tried to search this time.

Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the "Status" row on the side column.

Nevertheless, you keep equating the "God particle" as something to do with God or religion when it doesn't. It's a particle, like a neuron or a proton. Do you accept neurons and protons as being true? Then you would have no problem with the Higgs Boson. I would assume, if you believe in God, that you think he created it like everything else....

You stated creation as being evidence that your religion is true, I was just saying that is a folly assertion.

 

[Ultimatum]

Less interesting due to the human incapability to prove such a theory?

What a ridiculous question. I think you'll find that you have the burden of proof to prove the existence of a magical deity--of which you have none.

 

[J Ciresoli]

I always found religion to be nothing but role play and I love role play. Considering I reverted back to Islam and remain an adamant atheist I am doing just that now. I love the ritualism of Islam, the arts, the history, the philosophies spawned from it and the practice itself.
Who cares if gods aren't real, just imagine they are for your own amusement

True, but for me, it has more to do with family. **** Santa Claus and the consumerism. Family is what matters to me. It is one of the few times each year that I can have a lengthy time with my family, including my two beautiful nieces.

 

[Glaurung]

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?

I'd have some major debauchery to catch up on.

 

[mystic64]

Well obviously sir has loosened things up a bit and this topic is open to some "topic drift" . Cool!

You stated creation as being evidence that your religion is true, I was just saying that is a folly assertion.

Hi and welcome to the message board Garbonzo607! "Creation is the evidence that God exists." The problem is that you are under the impression that what science is studying (our physical world) is all that there is. Not ! There is another whole different world outside of the "box" that we call Creation. The reason that Stephen Hawking's Black Hole math is so revolutionally extraordinary is that it prooves that there is something outside of our "box" with our "box" being that which science can measure. When something passes into a black hole it is gone and is no longer a part of our "box" part of Creation. A lot of science says that this is not possible because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter. Stephen Hawking answers that it is not destroyed, it just went somewhere else. So anyway Garbonzo, the "folly" at this point in time is to claim what you claimed is "folly".

 

[Eileen]

Nevertheless, you keep equating the "God particle" as something to do with God or religion when it doesn't. It's a particle, like a neuron or a proton. Do you accept neurons and protons as being true? Then you would have no problem with the Higgs Boson. I would assume, if you believe in God, that you think he created it like everything else....

Of course I believe neuron and protons exist and the Higgs Bosom may also exist but you are correct I do believe HaShem created them and I am only using the 'god particle' because it is what is suppose to give things mass and that is part of what HaShem did at creation. I agree the god particle does not have anything to do with religion. But it most certainly does have to do with HaShem. Man, in this case scientist, are given the task of naming what ever they 'discover' but they are only finding (or using) what HaShem has already brought into existence. HaShem is wholly uncreated whereas everything else is created. I assume you do not believe this and you are certainly free to choose that belief because HaShem created mankind with free will.

You stated creation as being evidence that your religion is true, I was just saying that is a folly assertion.

Actually I said-- "I believe the very existence of life is proof, others do not." Your answer demonstrates that you do not believe that is legitimate proof which I already admitted to be the case.
I said nothing about religion. How do you define 'religion'? Wait-that might be a good thread topic- if someone else has not already asked that question.

 

[mystic64]

Of course I believe neuron and protons exist and the Higgs Bosom may also exist but you are correct I do believe HaShem created them and I am only using the 'god particle' because it is what is suppose to give things mass and that is part of what HaShem did at creation.

Genesis 1. "and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the deep." From there He created light/ movement in the deep where originally there was none and then separated this light/movement from the dark/nonmovement that was the deep. The argument always boils down to, "What was the "first cause"?" Because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter not even God can create matter, it had to have already existed. All God could do is take something in total non movement and give it movement. From there it is just a matter of figuring out the physics that caused a huge cloud of proto matter in movement to condense into what we percieve/measure as the matter that Creation is made off. There is nothing magical about what God did and the physics of what was done can be understood. If the Higgs Bosom is the God partical that holds everything together, then God did not create it He just gave it an attitude.

Now it could still be proven that God does not exist relative to Creation because He originally was not in Creation when He started the forces at work that resulted in Creation.

 

[Eileen]

Genesis 1. "and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the deep." From there He created light/ movement in the deep where originally there was none and then separated this light/movement from the dark/nonmovement that was the deep. The argument always boils down to, "What was the "first cause"?" Because of the Law of the Conservation of Matter not even God can create matter, it had to have already existed. All God could do is take something in total non movement and give it movement. From there it is just a matter of figuring out the physics that caused a huge cloud of proto matter in movement to condense into what we percieve/measure as the matter that Creation is made off. There is nothing magical about what God did and the physics of what was done can be understood. If the Higgs Bosom is the God partical that holds everything together, then God did not create it He just gave it an attitude.

Now it could still be proven that God does not exist relative to Creation because He originally was not in Creation when He started the forces at work that resulted in Creation.

You seem to be saying there was something and there was HaShem and HaShem acted on that something to give it movement. Is that a fair idea?

I agree that according to the account of Bere'sish (Genesis) in English this is what is presented. The 'deep' as well as what the deep was covering existed and HaShem created and formed from it everything else. But the Hebrew makes it clear that this is not the case.

Genesis 1:1 uses a special Hebrew word for "created." It is a word that is only used in connection with God. The word bara means to make something from nothing, to create something that never existed before. It is used sparingly through the Bible. In Genesis 1:1 is used to state that God created time ("in the beginning"), space ("the heavens"), and matter ("the earth"). These things did not exist prior to the beginning.

You indicated that the Law of the Conservation of Matter indicates matter always existed. I say the law came into existence once matter existed.The word bara shows that HaShem brought it into existence from nothing in the beginning of the first day. I am not a strict Creationist so I do not ague how long the days of creation were. I tend towards 7 - 24 hour periods but I do not know for sure. I trust HaShem. Secondly, I agree nothing HaShem has done is magical--beyond human understanding -yes but not magical
And I also agree that HaShem is not in creation He is the creator. Again I say nothing existed before HaShem spoke it into being.