If you had proof that Christianity was bullshit...

[radamanthys]

Just finished watching The Last Templar. It sucked donkey balls. Since it brought up a good question, and we haven't had a good religious thread in a while...
If you had definitive proof, in your hands, that the entire doctrine behind modern Christianity was false, would you release it?

On one side: It brings many people hope, and many people rely on it for their emotional wellbeing.
On the other side: The truth is the truth. People have a right to know and make their own decisions free of falsities.

And perhaps, just as an afterthought- I ask the Christians in the audience: if this came to pass, do you think you could handle it?

[Deathravin]

I'd release it as an alias with great detail.... Unfortunately not every Christian pays attention to Christ's teachings, so you'd have to protect your identity... It wouldn't change anything though. The whole point of most religions is that they can't be proved or disproved. That, and people will believe what they believe.

[Renian]

Yes, because the in the Bible, the Apostle Paul said, if this stuff isn't true, then fuck it.

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? 30 Why are we also in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brethren, by the boasting in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. (1 Corinthians 15:29-32).

[Stanley Burrell]

Probably not. They, meaning all Christians, just killed that guy who was an abortion clinic doctor.

I'd blackmail the pope with it until he let me ride in his bulletproof popemobile instead.

[Renian]

They, meaning all Christians, just killed that guy who was an abortion clinic doctor.


Those weren't Christians, those were "Christians". I.e., people who twist the Bible for their own personal gain and to control others.

[Stanley Burrell]

Lies, all lies.

They formed like Voltron into a ginormous crucifix with 10x DB lightsaber skills and smote down that babykiller.

[BriarFox]

No, I wouldn't. Religion is patently a social construct created to regulate and succor people who need an external crutch, and no good would come from taking it away from them. Those who are strong enough not to need that crutch wouldn't care anyway.

[radamanthys]

Those weren't Christians, those were "Christians". I.e., people who twist the Bible for their own personal gain and to control others.

Some argue that the entire purpose of the Bible is to give the church power and to control others.

[Androidpk]

I'd sell it on ebay.

[radamanthys]

No, I wouldn't. Religion is patently a social construct created to regulate and succor people who need an external crutch, and no good would come from taking it away from them. Those who are strong enough not to need that crutch wouldn't care anyway.

What do you think people would do? What would be the effect, do you think?

[BriarFox]

What do you think people would do? What would be the effect, do you think?

Of telling people who need religion that it's patently false? Some would declare that despite any "proof" to the contrary, religion is a matter of faith, and ignore the proof. Others would react with anger and lash out violently. A portion of others, ones swayed by evidence, would begin to seriously question their faith in an untenable belief and might eventually find some other code. The last group's the one you'd really be trying to reach, but it's unlikely they'd turn to logic. They were religious in the first place, which makes it likely they'd just find a "better" religion.

Meanwhile, people would be trying to kill you.

[radamanthys]

Of telling people who need religion that it's patently false? Some would declare that despite any "proof" to the contrary, religion is a matter of faith, and ignore the proof. Others would react with anger and lash out violently. A portion of others, ones swayed by evidence, would begin to seriously question their faith in an untenable belief and might eventually find some other code. The last group's the one you'd really be trying to reach, but it's unlikely they'd turn to logic. They were religious in the first place, which makes it likely they'd just find a "better" religion.

Meanwhile, people would be trying to kill you.
.

I'm not sure people would 'switch' religions. It's a matter of cultural upbringing more than an active choice, in many cases.

I'm sure that a couple people out there would off themselves, and I'm sure that some others would still keep going, as many of the teachings are sound. I don't think the entire fabric of society would crumble. People like their shit too much.

[Morrff]

I don't need anymore proof then the good portion of the bible I've read.

[Renian]

Some argue that the entire purpose of the Bible is to give the church power and to control others.

I'm sure they do and could make a great argument, as many have been been able to use it for that purpose.


Lies, all lies.

They formed like Voltron into a ginormous crucifix with 10x DB lightsaber skills and smote down that babykiller.

lol brielus

[Androidpk]

Meanwhile, ClydeR would be trying to kill you.

That.

[iJin]

:rofl:

[Liagala]

If you had definitive proof, in your hands, that the entire doctrine behind modern Christianity was false, would you release it?
Personally - How could I do anything else? It's pretty foolish to continue to believe in something that has been proven, beyond all shadow of a doubt, to be false.

In terms of society - Again, yes. Enough rotten things are done by crazy people in the name of Christianity as it stands. If the basic tenets that they are twisting are actually false, then they should be removed. Nutjobs will still do off the wall stuff, but it'll remove one more reason, and maybe keep a couple of those that are on the fence from falling off on the wrong side.

As far as the emotional wellbeing part goes - I'm not a big fan of comforting lies. There will be some that can not handle it, but the vast majority will find something else to place their trust in. I'll avoid saying "never," but it is rarely beneficial in the long run to foster someone's belief in a lie.


And perhaps, just as an afterthought- I ask the Christians in the audience: if this came to pass, do you think you could handle it?
I could, but it would definitely throw me off for a while. That has always been a part of my life, and it's a huge comfort when things are going wrong. It would take some pretty serious readjusting to eliminate it, but I'd live.

[Apotheosis]

Lies, all lies.

They formed like Voltron into a ginormous crucifix with 10x DB lightsaber skills and smote down that babykiller.

that is an awesome statement.

you even used the word smote.. awesome

[Apotheosis]

J
And perhaps, just as an afterthought- I ask the Christians in the audience: if this came to pass, do you think you could handle it?


I guess the thing is.. I was agnostic before I became Christian, and I spent a long time studying various religions and philosophy to the point where when I chose to become Christian;

1) I pretty much had all the "proof against" answers figured out, and

2) when I did make the choice to live by the tenets, then a lot of my old life was sacrificed, but I believe I'm better off for it..


would new information change my view to the contrary?

I'd like to say yes, but I would probably ignore or disregard "new information" as just someone's attempt to put a wedge in my spiritual life.

[radamanthys]

http://www.joshwolk.com/blogs/media/users/josh/poltergeist.jpg

http://dvdmedia.ign.com/dvd/image/article/732/732098/ace-ventura-deluxe-double-feature-20060911040825128-000.jpg

Yummy.

[Keller]

Just finished watching The Last Templar. It sucked donkey balls. Since it brought up a good question, and we haven't had a good religious thread in a while...
If you had definitive proof, in your hands, that the entire doctrine behind modern Christianity was false, would you release it?

On one side: It brings many people hope, and many people rely on it for their emotional wellbeing.
On the other side: The truth is the truth. People have a right to know and make their own decisions free of falsities.

And perhaps, just as an afterthought- I ask the Christians in the audience: if this came to pass, do you think you could handle it?

Wouldn't Christians just say, "Oh Rad, that was put there by god to test our faith."

[radamanthys]

I guess the thing is.. I was agnostic before I became Christian, and I spent a long time studying various religions and philosophy to the point where when I chose to become Christian;

1) I pretty much had all the "proof against" answers figured out, and

2) when I did make the choice to live by the tenets, then a lot of my old life was sacrificed, but I believe I'm better off for it..


would new information change my view to the contrary?

I'd like to say yes, but I would probably ignore or disregard "new information" as just someone's attempt to put a wedge in my spiritual life.

I mean irrefutable proof. Like, Jesus appearing to all of mankind and saying, "cut it out, people. I was just a guy. Oh, and by the way, the Zoroastrians have it right".

Hm... I'd imagine that if he were to appear, he'd appear under the musical theme of "Thus spoke Zarathustra", so it'd work out well with the Zoroastrian thing.

[Clove]

Some argue that the entire purpose of the Bible is to give the church power and to control others.It would be a poor argument.

[MrTastyHead]

My friends, I have this proof! I give you...


http://www.ipmc.cnrs.fr/~duprat/neurophysiology/images/brain2.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

I would suggest that it's not possible to consider this question. We (humans) have never had incontrovertible, irrefutable proof of or against anything - even worse, it is literally impossible for such a thing to exist.

Furthermore, you seem to have defined the basic tenets of Christianity in a way most Christians do not. I think it was Evarin's thread where we talked about how the historical particulars of Jesus' life are relevent only as context to his message, rather than the fundamental example of Christian life. Very few Christian sects endorse the hygienic practices of Jesus' day, for instance. There have certainly been some historical particulars elevated by some sects to the level of dogma (explicitly named as such or not), but to even begin considering "proof" for or against the fundamental tenets of Christian doctrine, we ought to have some sort of description of what they are.

.

If I was offered compelling evidence that the religion of Christianity was conceived in the same fashion as (for instance) Scientology, I would certainly be disappointed, but I already have a Christianity that is not strongly tied to any Church or church, so I doubt it would have any deleterious effect on me.

I think the best historical-sociological analogues one can find are the second Vatican Council (on a smaller scale) or the beginning of Islam. As near as I can tell, neither event engendered any widespread sort of despair or chaos. The Protestant Reformation certainly did, but I would attribute that more to Europe's being a horribly violent place.

[Clove]

I'm sort of curious what kind of proof exists that "do to others as you would have done to yourself" is "false"?

[Geshron]

I'm not sure what there is to exactly figure out, I don't think for one second a snake ever spoke to a man, period. I don't quite understand what their is aside from accepting a great deal of things that absolutely defy every day, common occurrence. Even the extraordinary is not supernatural. The rest is fun, fun mythology that people take way too seriously. I say, bring back the Greek gods!

[Back]

If you had definitive proof, in your hands, that the entire doctrine behind modern Christianity was false, would you release it?

Even if someone had proof and released it... the whole concept of religion is not based on proof so the entire religious community wouldn’t believe it anyway.

[Apotheosis]

I'm not sure what there is to exactly figure out, I don't think for one second a snake ever spoke to a man, period. I don't quite understand what their is aside from accepting a great deal of things that absolutely defy every day, common occurrence. Even the extraordinary is not supernatural. The rest is fun, fun mythology that people take way too seriously. I say, bring back the Greek gods!

Well.. in many cases, biblical stories shouldn't necessarily be taken as literal.. they're symbolic in many cases...

for example, the name Adam roughly translates to "first man" or "primal many" so most of the early bible is most likely symbolic rather than literal to tell a story regarding human nature.

[4a6c1]

I wouldnt tell a soul.

I think faith is necessary to the evolution of humanity. And considering the demographic of my church, I wouldnt want to break a hundred old ladies hearts. That's just mean.



And perhaps, just as an afterthought- I ask the Christians in the audience: if this came to pass, do you think you could handle it?

Sadly yes. Similar to most educated catholics, I'm an apologist about my religion and I can sympathize with most of the arguments against the Papal Seal. But none of that really matters to me. I know what I believe.


I'd like to add as an afterthought that every Catholic, true or passive, should read the Gnostic gospels and the Gospel of Judas. Also the Nag Hammadi Codex and the Keys of Solomon. Those are eye-openers.

[Latrinsorm]

Well.. in many cases, biblical stories shouldn't necessarily be taken as literal.. they're symbolic in many cases...

for example, the name Adam roughly translates to "first man" or "primal many" so most of the early bible is most likely symbolic rather than literal to tell a story regarding human nature.I've seen compelling evidence that this actually holds at least partway through Kings, that there's no historical record of a King Solomon or a King David. I think if this was more widely disseminated it would provide another angle to forecast this sort of question on.

[Stanley Burrell]

I've seen compelling evidence that this actually holds at least partway through Kings, that there's no historical record of a King Solomon or a King David. I think if this was more widely disseminated it would provide another angle to forecast this sort of question on.

I think I'd believe there was a King David after the excavations. And especially because a few ancient scripts from around his possible time are stories of a giant douchebag of a king, which is much more real to me in the fundamentals of describing an actual depiction of a human being that existed than the story X, Y and Z of a guy who defeated Leviathan and summoned fireballs out of his arse.

[phantasm]

What type of facts could exist to disprove Christianity with such completeness that former believers would no longer believe. Any ideas what discovery could do it?

[phantasm]

What type of facts could exist to disprove Christianity with such completeness that former believers would no longer believe. Any ideas what discovery could do it?


So far all science / math / and logic can do the opposite and prove with certainity that there is some crazy cosmic bullshit that exists on a level that we as humans have 0% chance of ever understanding / sensing / or possibly even thinking about.

edit: meant to hit EDIT, not QUOTE.

[Stanley Burrell]

What type of facts could exist to disprove Christianity with such completeness that former believers would no longer believe. Any ideas what discovery could do it?

Hypothetically inarguable proof: I mean irrefutable proof. Like, Jesus appearing to all of mankind and saying, "cut it out, people. I was just a guy. Oh, and by the way, the Zoroastrians have it right".

Hm... I'd imagine that if he were to appear, he'd appear under the musical theme of "Thus spoke Zarathustra", so it'd work out well with the Zoroastrian thing.

[Latrinsorm]

The interesting thing about that proposition is that it's only irrefutable if Jesus is inherently irrefutable... and if Jesus is inherently irrefutable, then he's not just a guy... so if Jesus SAYS he's just a guy, he's manifestly wrong and not inherently irrefutable.

Now, if Jesus was omnipotent, he could be manifestly wrong and still inherently irrefutable........ but that would suggest maybe Christianity is the way to go after all. :)

[Stanley Burrell]

Oh. I sort've just http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showpost.php?p=950183&postcount=23'd when I saw phantasm couldn't read the thread.

[ViridianAsp]

Just finished watching The Last Templar. It sucked donkey balls. Since it brought up a good question, and we haven't had a good religious thread in a while...
If you had definitive proof, in your hands, that the entire doctrine behind modern Christianity was false, would you release it?

On one side: It brings many people hope, and many people rely on it for their emotional wellbeing.
On the other side: The truth is the truth. People have a right to know and make their own decisions free of falsities.

And perhaps, just as an afterthought- I ask the Christians in the audience: if this came to pass, do you think you could handle it?

I could handle it, I look at things differently than most Christians I know. I don't take the bible word for word.. I believe in God, but I follow my ideas on the matter.

If it came out? Do you think Christians...DIEHARD OMG PRAISE THE LORD Christians are going to believe you?

Nope.

[Stanley Burrell]

I could handle it, I look at things differently than most Christians I know. I don't take the bible word for word.. I believe in God, but I follow my ideas on the matter.

If it came out? Do you think Christians...DIEHARD OMG PRAISE THE LORD Christians are going to believe you?

Nope.

Think of it as being irrefutable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Like, God appearing to an Atheist and magically hard-wiring every part of Atheist person's brain to absolutely believe 100% that the magical being in front of them was not a bitchin' LSD trip but proof of the antithesis of their belief.

And that when the aforementioned is used as a poor analogy, you would spontaneously have the entire Christian world knowing, irrefutably, that Christianity was a lie... ...Is what I think the OP was getting at. |proof|

[ViridianAsp]

Think of it as being irrefutable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Like, God appearing to an Atheist and magically hard-wiring every part of Atheist person's brain to absolutely believe 100% that the magical being in front of them was not a bitchin' LSD trip but proof of the antithesis of their belief.

And that when the aforementioned is used as a poor analogy, you would spontaneously have the entire Christian world knowing, irrefutably, that Christianity was a lie... ...Is what I think the OP was getting at. |proof|



You've obviously not met hardcore southern baptists...They like being happy in their ignorance.

I can see them saying it was made up, not believable, ect., ect.

Would I stop believing in God? No, probably not.

Would I finally know once and for all most of the BS in the bible is in fact BS and be thankful someone finally pointed out most of the shit is obviously a sham?

Yes.

[Stanley Burrell]

You've obviously not met hardcore southern baptists...They like being happy in their ignorance.

I've met plenty of ignorant people hellbent on a system of beliefs and virtues.

For the purpose of this thread, proof would present itself in an infallible way that even the most stubborn of minds would understand and believe the reverse of a particular belief system, etc., etc., etc.

[ViridianAsp]

I've met plenty of ignorant people hellbent on a system of beliefs and virtues.

What I'm saying is that proof would present itself in an infallible way that even the most stubborn of minds would understand and believe the reverse of particular belief system, etc., etc., etc.


I don't have that much faith in people. I know they'd deny it, even if it was so blatant you couldn't deny it.

[Stanley Burrell]

Proof would dispel all doubt, no matter who the candidate. That's the point of this thread: That this proof would cosmically make each and every human being ascribing to Christianity, in this case, know that it [Christianity] was a lie. This would affect any and all spectra of its faith-followers. Each and every Southern Baptist, Episcopalian and secular Christian would magically know they were wrong. That's the "proof" that this thread is questioning, I assume.

[ViridianAsp]

Proof would dispel all doubt, no matter who the candidate. That's the point of this thread: That this proof would cosmically make each and every human being ascribing to Christianity, in this case, know that it [Christianity] was a lie. This would affect any and all spectra of its faith-followers. Each and every Southern Baptist, Episcopalian and secular Christian would magically know they were wrong. That's the "proof" that this thread is questioning, I assume.


I think if it was released, people would go on thinking what they want. That is my point.

[Junarra]

I'd release it because it would be interesting (yet scary) to see the response across the world. It'd probably result in years worth of all kinds of ridiculousness too.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think if it was released, people would go on thinking what they want. That is my point.

I got that. What I am saying is that this proof would literally reconfigure your brain and make you go back on this statement, such would be the irrefutably irrefutable hypothetical tangible in concern.

[ViridianAsp]

I got that. What I am saying is that this proof would literally reconfigure your brain and make you go back on this statement, such would be the irrefutably irrefutable hypothetical tangible in concern.

Okay, I'd say release it. If Christianity is bullshit it should be known. Would it configure my way of thinking? Most definitely.

[radamanthys]

Think of it this way: it would render the bible fiction. Fiction like "Lord of the Rings".

[ViridianAsp]

Think of it this way: it would render the bible fiction. Fiction like "Lord of the Rings".


So, like I said...people will believe what they want. They'll deny it's fiction. I mean, sure release it, will it damage Christianity as a whole? No.

[radamanthys]

So, like I said...people will believe what they want. They'll deny it's fiction. I mean, sure release it, will it damage Christianity as a whole? No.

How would missionaries continue to convert 'heathens'? How would parents force their children to go to church? How would religious right politicians be able to garner votes? What would happen to the Vatican and their holy edict?

I assume that the immediate damage to current practitioners would be lighter than expected. Damage would certainly be widespread, though.

[DCSL]

I'm agnostic and I would be.. disappointed, I guess? On a couple of levels, anyway. I don't think I'd be willing to release this hypothetical proof at first. Not until some zealot did something to piss me off, and then I probably would because I'm needlessly vindictive and reactionary much of the time. Post-zealot, I'd be all, "Hey, Associated Press! Look what I've goooooot!"

And then I'd regret it. Probably. At least a little, but possibly not much.

[ViridianAsp]

How would missionaries continue to convert 'heathens'? How would parents force their children to go to church? How would religious right politicians be able to garner votes? What would happen to the Vatican and their holy edict?

I assume that the immediate damage to current practitioners would be lighter than expected. Damage would certainly be widespread, though.

Do you really think so? I mean when people believe things like Scientology..trust me, I don't think it'd hurt as much as you think it might.

[Stanley Burrell]

Think of it this way: it would render the bible fiction. Fiction like "Lord of the Rings".

Heh. How would this be 100% irrefutable then? Specifically rendering the Bible as inept would just allow people to believe in non-written verse.

Is "proof" (in this scenario) designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason; those that are acknowledged as belief. Or is the proof itself less otherworldly and more of a physical object; e.g. Here's a photograph of God, that could be called into question by average human mindsets?

I think if you're talking about |irrefutable| proof versus indefinitely questionable "proof" it makes a big difference.

[radamanthys]

I'm needlessly vindictive and reactionary much of the time.

:blndwhip:

[radamanthys]

Heh. How would this be 100% irrefutable then? Specifically rendering the Bible as inept would just allow people to believe in non-written verse.

Is "proof" (in this scenario) designed specifically to overwhelm logic and reason; those that are acknowledged as belief. Or is the proof itself less otherworldly and more of a physical object; e.g. Here's a photograph of God, that could be called into question by average human mindsets?

I think if you're talking about |irrefutable| proof versus indefinitely questionable "proof" it makes a big difference.

It is designed to overwhelm, but on a different level. It's to discuss the potential ramifications of the presentation of a truth. It's a sociological and mass psychological rumination based on a hypothetical situation.

Remember when you were a kid, you may have played these silly hypothetical games: Who would you rather do, "Rosie O'Donnell or a food processor set to high?". Eventually someone would try and wiggle out of it- "Neither!". You'd reply, "No! You have to answer!". It's like that.


I admit it's kinda childish- but it was the entire point of the movie I saw, and I thought it'd be interesting to see what people thought. Just a topic of discussion, I don't wanna get in peoples britches about it. Feel free to discuss the nature of truth. That's a debate I just don't have the stamina for.

[DCSL]

:blndwhip:

Yeah, "bitch" is about the right speed for what I'm talkin' here.

Seriously, though, the next Witness that ambushes me between my car and my front door after work is going to get proof shoved up his ass.

[Apotheosis]

I've seen compelling evidence that this actually holds at least partway through Kings, that there's no historical record of a King Solomon or a King David. I think if this was more widely disseminated it would provide another angle to forecast this sort of question on.

Well, wait until you get to the research that shows how each verse of genesis actually consists of multiple, non-conflicting statements regarding the nature of creation + God and all that other stuff..

the point is, language was different, and multiple things needed to be condensed to short phrases only because there was/is a larger story to tell..

most of that is lost on the average bible thumper.. but not necessarily on biblical scholars.

[Stanley Burrell]

I admit it's kinda childish- but it was the entire point of the movie I saw, and I thought it'd be interesting to see what people thought.

I thought it made for a good thread. And as it is written in the Torah, "Thus Abraham spoketh to his people, that forever bad cinema shall create divine Internet threads in His holy image."

[Warriorbird]

If Christianity were proved "real" I'm still not sure I'd follow it. "God" has serious split personality issues.

[radamanthys]

I thought it made for a good thread. And as it is written in the Torah, "Thus Abraham spoketh to his people, that forever bad cinema shall create divine Internet threads in His holy image."

So... if we goatse this thread, it'll look like god?

[Stanley Burrell]

So... if we goatse this thread, it'll look like god?

Correctamundo.

[radamanthys]

If Christianity were proved "real" I'm still not sure I'd follow it. "God" has serious split personality issues.

Ooooh. That's a good point. I like where this is going. That might necessitate another poll. I've used up my poll quota for the time being I think.

[radamanthys]

Correctamundo.

Don't tell Methais. The newly deified goatse might envelop his entire essence and then implode on itself.

[phantasm]

Here's a related challenge: come up with some fact (any), and show some irrefutable truth that the fact is as you stated it.

[Methais]

So... if we goatse this thread, it'll look like god?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/61900756_f8f7e42c98.jpg

[radamanthys]

Here's a related challenge: come up with some fact (any), and show some irrefutable truth that the fact is as you stated it.

Huh? Nah.

To close the matter: I am well aware that nothing is irrefutable. Say that I claim that Stanley is not a real person. He is a Techno-aristocratic assassin* from the year 2067. I'm sure Stan could do plenty of things to attempt to prove his existence. But, since I possess the power to refute, no matter how illogical the declaration, there's nothing irrefutable. The point was made manifold within this thread. I attempted to explain in my last post.

I am also well aware that there could have been other poll options. For example: "That's impossible!", "I'll release what's in my hand... On your face.", or "FUCK YOU GODMASTERS!!!". I didn't include them for a reason.

It's a silly hypothetical. Play along?



*What the hell? wtf is a techno-aristocratic assassin?

[DCSL]

I am, in fact, alive. I can take my pulse and know that my heart is still beating, pushing blood through my blood vessels. I can move around under my own power. I am animate. You're welcome to come to my place to observe said proofs of my alive state. Stay for a little while for a drink, though.

[LMingrone]

It's an inarguable argument. (Does that even make sense?) I can't find my animated model right now...but It's a model of a Big Bang happening over and over. Basically four (I'll call the) spheres collapsing and expanding over and over.

As much as we can explain with science, even to an almost infinite understanding, I believe we'll never be able to say where "nothing" and "everything" came from.

God? No, I think that's impossible under our current definition of "god". Nothing can be all knowing, all seeing, all being, and completely moral under the circumstances of our ENTIRE human existence. Or we can be living in a Matrix.

/rant over. Sorry drunk and feeling philosophical.
//And Stanley is a real person, depending on how you define real. He's actually a pretty cool guy.

[Gan]

Releasing the information would definately be a test of faith on the believers.

That being said, I have to agree with those who've said that it wouldnt make a difference in how one who lives their life in a Christian like way.

And I dont see religion as the glue that holds all social morality together though. Remove it and something will surely fill the void.

Live long, and prosper.

Nanoo, nanoo.

[Fallen]

It is supposed to be a hypothetical. So, in this scenario, even the batshit crazy believers couldn't dismiss this evidence. Anyone who believes in Christianity would instantly realize their religion is a lie upon hearing this evidence. You would basically be removing the entire religion from the world.Now, under that scenario, would I release said information? No. I don't think enough good would come from it to make out for the fallout.

[radamanthys]

It is supposed to be a hypothetical. So, in this scenario, even the batshit crazy believers couldn't dismiss this evidence. Anyone who believes in Christianity would instantly realize their religion is a lie upon hearing this evidence. You would basically be removing the entire religion from the world.Now, under that scenario, would I release said information? No. I don't think enough good would come from it to make out for the fallout.

What kinda fallout? Widespread Riots? The long term damage is less than a decade. Collapses of government? I doubt it, there aren't that many Christian theocracies left- I can't think of any at least.

If these are people who need a crutch, wouldn't they find something else? Perhaps something more... productive?

[4a6c1]

Productive? Last time I checked religion was the motive behind at least half a dozen carebear orgs.

Do you have a personal vendetta against religions themselves, or just the people who have faith in something YOU cant see?

[TheWitch]

According to the later proven to be child molester priest that participated in my (do what ya gotta do to keep peace and its not like it's Taoism or something else totally unrelated to the Lutheran church I was raised in) conversion to Catholicism, fish on Friday arose from the then Pope's being paid off by the fish sellers who's profits were down. Ergo, the pope made a decree that Catholics will eat fish on Friday. He cloaked this decree not in the truth, but in a bunch of mumbo jumbo about sacrifice and abstinence.

I am a firm believer in the Ten Commandments and the Serenity Prayer.

Beyond that, I tend to be mostly agnostic because throughout history virtually every war of any significance had at its root religious and/or anti-religious fervor of some sort.

To finish my thought: I already don't believe most of Christian theology, most specifically Catholic theology, is any more than a hugely successful effort to control people, if I had said proof I would release it. Conceptually it was sound at the outset, a paradigm and belief system for people to follow that basically said, treat people with respect and dignity, which I don't think becomes invalid no matter what theology it's based on.

[StrayRogue]

I'd release it. But then half the people are stupid; I expect most Christian's wouldn't believe it for one. Yet even if they did consider the kind of sheep that Christianity (and all religion) attracts - similar to the classic South Park episode - they'd all find something equally stupid to fight, kill and denounce others over.

[Neo]

I'm sort of curious what kind of proof exists that "do to others as you would have done to yourself" is "false"?

The biblical parallel to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is found in the following verse: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them (Matthew 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31). The phrase, "love thy neighbor as thyself," also bears a close relation to the saying and is found throughout Scripture (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8; Luke 10:27). James even refers to "love thy neighbor as thyself" as being "the royal law" because it is the embodiment of all the laws dealing with human relationships.

While many will happily point out that the New International Version translates the Lucan passage as "Do to others as you would have them do to you"—which is nearly identical to the standard, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However, as close as this phrasing is, we cannot point to the NIV for the phrase's origin. The NIV was first published in 1973, well after the phrase came to popularity. Further, as the NIV is founded on a translation framework known as dynamic equivalancy (in which passages are translated in a so-called thought-for-thought manner rather than by a more literal guideline), it seems apparent that they translated the passage in order to reflect the well-known phrase.

Further research indicates that the phrase's earliest known origin comes from a Roman Catholic catechism from 1583 (which reprints an earlier of the same from 1567). The particulars of the phrase may in fact date further back even than this, as the idea of an ethic of reciprocity has been common throughout the world even into ancient histories (we find evidence even in the ancient Greeks).

So, in the end, while the saying does not appear in its common form in any of the more literal translations of Scripture, its sentiment is certainly biblical.

Is that what you are looking for?

[radamanthys]

Productive? Last time I checked religion was the motive behind at least half a dozen carebear orgs.

Do you have a personal vendetta against religions themselves, or just the people who have faith in something YOU cant see?

That's quite a leap... from "zealotry is non-productive" to "I have a vendetta of hatred against 90% of the world"

Flip back- I was referring to the 'batshit crazy' ones in the post I replied to. I think that religious zealots have issues. I think that much of their fervor is non-productive. And I gave credit to christians- I don't think it would cause a collapse of society if this happened.

That's not that much of a stretch, is it?

[diethx]

That's not that much of a stretch, is it?

Nope. Just sounds like you hit a nerve or something.

[Methais]

I say, bring back the Greek gods!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAQUukC7JWA

[Back]

Nope. Just sounds like you hit a nerve or something.

JihnasSpirit is raw nerve.

[4a6c1]

That's quite a leap... from "zealotry is non-productive" to "I have a vendetta of hatred against 90% of the world"

Flip back- I was referring to the 'batshit crazy' ones in the post I replied to. I think that religious zealots have issues. I think that much of their fervor is non-productive. And I gave credit to christians- I don't think it would cause a collapse of society if this happened.

That's not that much of a stretch, is it?

Leap? Maybe.

Nerve. Yes.

YOU SAID CRUTCH = I SMASH U WIT MY CRUCIFIX

Using the word crutch when refering to religion is sort of....eh, annoying. I dont like fads. They bug me. They come and go. It is fashionable to hate religion these days. Which is probably why I was drawn to studying it.

Here is how I see it. Everyone has a cause to their effect. Something that helps them find that power inside of themselves to accomplish what they need to. Everyone has a crutch, or something that gives them strength. Family, kids, church, organization, job. Something holding these people accountable in life for their actions. What it comes down to is when you have someone watching you fuck up, you do it less.

I like things that hold people accountable, and I like things that give people strength. People who fear nothing have nothing to lose and those people are dangerous. Do you want someone without family, kids, church, organization or job living in your neighborhood or hanging out with your kids?

Zealots. They are everywhere, just like psychopaths. Both I believe are a threat to society and can only be determined once they break the law. There is no point in discussing them unless we are wondering whether to use the death penalty or not and I dont believe zealots have anything to do with religion.