IF your religion was proved to be incorrect, how would you change.

[Korugar]

Well, I suppose you could look at it like that, but as I said, believing in sentience from the beginning, it doesn't make a big difference to me.

I suppose I should clarify again, then. I don't believe in macroevolution(species evolving into other species, AKA what Darwin theorized), but I do believe in microevolution(variation within a kind(note, kind does not equal species), what Darwin used as proof). I simply didn't make the distinction because most don't use that argument. Also, as Kuro said, enough with the off-topic. Feel free to pm me if you want to continue this, Kuro, and if it matters to you who "has the last word" we can post the resolution somewhere.

[Daxx]

Skipping over exactly how you would be able to incontrovertably prove the existence of a god or gods, then the correct response (as I see it) is to bow down, face in the mud, and worship. Or else do whatever you are told by that god or gods. Follow their holy books, erect giant temples, sacrifice people, whatever it is that the gods want.

The real problem is how you get to that place to start with. The question of the existence of a god or gods is almost always either framed in such a way as that it cannot be verified or falsified or is even testable. The times when it is testable, the tests reveal no evidence to support the idea that a god or gods exist.
For example, I consider previous "religious experiences" that I have had (similar to ratcharmer's experiences) as being more a factor of wishful thinking, hallucination and self-delusion. Our brains are wonderful and fucked-up things which are more than capable of inventing experiences, sometimes after the fact. I have had other experiences (look up sleep paralysis on wikipedia - this is a very good example) which seemed supernatural in origin at the time but which modern neuroscience can explain as a creation of the brain. If I started hearing a god talk to me I would probably check myself into the nearest mental hospital.

[Scaredgirl]

I was not Christian at the time I had at least half of those experiences.

I don't think that your experiences are any more believable even if they happened when you weren't a Christian.

I'd also like to point out that said psychological phenomenon can affect atheists just as much as it can effect theists.

That's not 100% correct. Followers of religion already believe in the supernatural, so for them seeing weird stuff is more natural so to say. If I saw a "miracle", I would be very skeptical even though it felt real to me, and would try to find explanations from science. Religious people however would most likely instantly embrace the miracle as a work of God because it strengthens what they believed in the first place. They want it to be true, so they believe it.

Yes, it's possible that some bizarre bit of my psyche is causing me to see things, but it's just as plausible that part of yours is keeping you from seeing them.

Think about it like this. If there is a person who sees a pink elephant walking down the street, and a million people who don't see a pink elephant walking down the street, which explanation is more plausible:

A) That person is "the chosen one", hand-picked by the great elephant God, only person who can see the holy pink elephant
B) That person is delusional

While these experiences you've had probably feel 100% real to you, most likely they are not. Daxx talks more about that in his last post.

[Korugar]

I'd also like to point out that said psychological phenomenon can affect atheists just as much as it can effect theists.

That's not 100% correct. Followers of religion already believe in the supernatural, so for them seeing weird stuff is more natural so to say. If I saw a "miracle", I would be very skeptical even though it felt real to me, and would try to find explanations from science. Religious people however would most likely instantly embrace the miracle as a work of God because it strengthens what they believed in the first place. They want it to be true, so they believe it.

Actually, that's his point. An atheist would see something strange, use 'science' to try to explain it, and end up accepting something that really isn't the best answer just because that's what they want to be true.

[Daytripper]

Those are many difficult issues. I agree with Daxx. If there was a God and if it made it's wishes known to you, you would probably do it. Question is, why doesn't he?

To follow up on that, I do not believe communications from the dead are optimal proof. The dead should be dead, or in heaven or hell. Being stuck on some plane on earth is one of those superstitions Christianity is not happy with. I have seen the same story many times by the way. People see spirits or the dead and then they become Christians. I have never seen any of that, so who knows what I'd do.

I think that if something otherwise inexplicable happened enough times, you might start to believe in it. You can't just explain that away, I think few would. Hearing voices is not the best example by the way. We use language all the time. Sometimes there is a glitch that makes you actually hear something. This condition is quite common and it doesn't mean you need meds for it, like my grandma. Grandma is by the way a nice example. God never answers her prayers, but the voice in her head, that is not God, does often tells her things. She is almost always wrong btw. if you were wondering.

[BluePriest]

Think about it like this. If there is a person who sees a pink elephant walking down the street, and a million people who don't see a pink elephant walking down the street, which explanation is more plausible:

A) That person is "the chosen one", hand-picked by the great elephant God, only person who can see the holy pink elephant
B) That person is delusional

While these experiences you've had probably feel 100% real to you, most likely they are not. Daxx talks more about that in his last post.

Actually.... ratcharmer already addressed that in another thread. Except in his thread, it was a pink unicorn, not elephant.

Out of that 100 people:
60 tell you there's an invisible pink unicorn following you
10 say it's an invisible purple unicorn
10 say it's an invisible pink pegasus
1 says it's an invisible blue rhinocerous
10 say they aren't sure if there's an invisible quadruped following you or not
9 say there is no invisible quadruped

Maybe this wouldn't convince me to go buy the unicorn a saddle, but it certainly isn't a strong argument against invisible unicorns.

Those are many difficult issues. I agree with Daxx. If there was a God and if it made it's wishes known to you, you would probably do it. Question is, why doesn't he?

To follow up on that, I do not believe communications from the dead are optimal proof. The dead should be dead, or in heaven or hell. Being stuck on some plane on earth is one of those superstitions Christianity is not happy with. I have seen the same story many times by the way. People see spirits or the dead and then they become Christians. I have never seen any of that, so who knows what I'd do.

What would you consider proof?

[Daytripper]

It would have to be something in line with Christianity. Communicating dead means only one thing, if verified: Christianity is wrong and some other world view or another Christianity is needed. The best proof of God, is still... just God.

[Daxx]

Actually.... ratcharmer already addressed that in another thread. Except in his thread, it was a pink unicorn, not elephant.

Out of that 100 people:
60 tell you there's an invisible pink unicorn following you
10 say it's an invisible purple unicorn
10 say it's an invisible pink pegasus
1 says it's an invisible blue rhinocerous
10 say they aren't sure if there's an invisible quadruped following you or not
9 say there is no invisible quadruped

Maybe this wouldn't convince me to go buy the unicorn a saddle, but it certainly isn't a strong argument against invisible unicorns.

That's argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Just because lots of people claim to see invisible creatures doesn't mean they exist, especially when a key metaphysical quality of these invisible creatures is that you cannot test for them in any way (cf. the Invisible Gardener, Russell's Teapot, Carl Sagan's dragon in his garage, and other similar rhetorical constructs).

After all, seeing a pink unicorn in the middle of the street only proves that you are seeing it, not that it is there. And since we know that the brain is capable of hallucination, there is a potential alternative explanation which tallies more with what we can observe and test about the world.

[Belthus]

My point is, you can not logically justify the existence of anything outside yourself without first assuming that things exist outside yourself. That's just as big a leap as it is to assume a god exists.

Wrong. I don't believe in God. If I am mistaken, the negative consequences of being wrong are not yet evident.

If you don't believe in the natural world as perceived by your senses -- or if you act as if you don't believe -- there will be immediate and severe negative consequences. Drink some bleach and chant to yourself how you don't believe that bleach and your GI system really exist. Throw yourself off a tall building while disbelieving in gravity.

[ratcharmer]

Wow . . . I'm posting from an airport while travelling . . . I think that means I have and addiction

I was not Christian at the time I had at least half of those experiences.

I don't think that your experiences are any more believable even if they happened when you weren't a Christian.

My point was that I had no reason at the time to "want" any of those things to be true.

I'd also like to point out that said psychological phenomenon can affect atheists just as much as it can effect theists.

That's not 100% correct. Followers of religion already believe in the supernatural, so for them seeing weird stuff is more natural so to say. If I saw a "miracle", I would be very skeptical even though it felt real to me, and would try to find explanations from science. Religious people however would most likely instantly embrace the miracle as a work of God because it strengthens what they believed in the first place. They want it to be true, so they believe it.

Actually, scientific research on the subject generally says the opposite. More religious persons appear to be less prone to such delusions.
http://jech.bmj.com/content/53/4/204.abstract
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oY0nsXwPJ3AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA87&dq=Divorce+rate+religiosity&ots=8x9AjghSsD&sig=fTA-PQ7xp0d00G2GmU9XVR50KWQ#v=onepage&q=Divorce%20rate%20religiosity&f=false
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713685584

In the interest honesty, I should point out that this reasoning DID hold true among diagnosed schizophrenics. Here's that article if you want to read it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBV-50PJJ23-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08/05/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1469090944&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cc69a7b4528ce342d2671ad6df59f94c&searchtype=a

Think about it like this. If there is a person who sees a pink elephant walking down the street, and a million people who don't see a pink elephant walking down the street, which explanation is more plausible:

A) That person is "the chosen one", hand-picked by the great elephant God, only person who can see the holy pink elephant
B) That person is delusional

While these experiences you've had probably feel 100% real to you, most likely they are not. Daxx talks more about that in his last post.

Read the first sentence of Daxx's post and then look at the above post.

That's argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Just because lots of people claim to see invisible creatures doesn't mean they exist, especially when a key metaphysical quality of these invisible creatures is that you cannot test for them in any way (cf. the Invisible Gardener, Russell's Teapot, Carl Sagan's dragon in his garage, and other similar rhetorical constructs).

After all, seeing a pink unicorn in the middle of the street only proves that you are seeing it, not that it is there. And since we know that the brain is capable of hallucination, there is a potential alternative explanation which tallies more with what we can observe and test about the world.

The argument of the invisible iunicorn was made as a response to a specific argument, namely Bertrand Russel's Teapot argument. The point is the analogies used (teapot orbiting Mars, invisible unicorn etc.) are invariably flawed in such a way as to bias the outcome. Whatever analogy is used is invariably something no one has ever reported seeing any evidence for.

This is nowhere near true of religion. MOST religious persons report having seen/experienced at least some sort of phenomena. Even many atheists report "strange events".

Let's do a thought experiment. Figures vary, but it's generally accepted that between 2/3 and 3/4 of the human population. Let's use the conservative estimate at 2/3. Then let's assume 80% of those people report some sort of "phenomena". Now let's assume half of those are simple mistakes, reading to much into things, seeing things where there really aren't any etc. Now assume half of the remainder are flat-out falsehoods, people lying to get attention or some-such.  That still leaves 130 million testimonies you're simply ignoring, at a conservative estimate.

I could use the same argument to say that China doesn't exist since I can't afford to fly there. Never mind that millions of people have seen China.

You can't say "argument ad populum" in this case because because argument ad populum applies to things people think not to whether or not they've experienced something.

[EvaRia]

Everyone's perception on the world is different. When you see something happen, your brain automatically and often unconsciously makes decisions based on it. Everything that makes up your perception on the world is based on what you decide they are.

Since people's perceptions are different, we can't truly understand each other's world. In attempt to understand each other, we bind things and share perception through the use of language.

The fact is, if you decide that something is different from what everyone else decides it is, you are seen as being delusional or weird, but in actuality your perception is just a bit different.

See my sig.

It's only ________ if you decide it is.

You can put virtually anything into that blank.

It's only a problem if you decide it is.
It's only impossible if you decide it is.
It's only real if you decide it is.
It's only a hallucination if you decide it is.
It's only a lie if you decide it is.
It's only the truth if you decide it is.
It's only a car if you decide it is.
It's only a box if you decide it is.

These decisions are what make people different. Even if it doesn't make sense to you, it does to them, because they decided differently. And you never have to change your perspective, yourself, just to fit the world of someone else a little bit better.

Imagine this.

Your teacher draws a shape on the chalkboard. It looks like this: O
He asks the class what it is.
The majority say it's a circle.
Some say it's a ring, a ball, the letter "O".
Someone might say it's a hole in the side of the chalkboard.
But you, YOU say it's a triangle. You decided it was a triangle, you believe it is a triangle, your perspective of it has been a triangle all your life.
And you absolutely refuse to believe that it is anything else.
No one can do anything about it. Your perspective of the world is different, everyone thinks you're crazy, but you don't care.

A similar thing happens with colour blindness. If they are red-green colour blind, they still see green, but what they see as green is different with what you see as green. You call it the same thing, you see it as the same thing, but it is different, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Religion is just a lot of people who's perspective on the world is that God exists. They decided God exists, they believe that God exists, and of course, they refuse to believe otherwise. Atheists decided that God doesn't exist, they believe that God doesn't exist, and refuse to believe otherwise. The perspectives are fundamentally different, so of cours there is conflict and lack of understanding.

Nobody is the same. Everyone sees the world differently. But you can decide that's not true if you choose to do so.

[Boingo]

How would I change?  I guess the thoughts that run through my head may be a bit different, as in how strongly I believe one thing or another, but I doubt my actions would change much.  Hmmm, perhaps a better question may be "why would I change?"

[soapbox]
Perhaps you've run across Kohlberg's stages of moral development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development) before.**  Take a second to read the stages if you haven't (it's pretty short.)

When I read people posting that they'd make radical changes to their lives, I get the impression they're stuck in one of the earlier stages ("How can I avoid punishment?" or "What's in it for me?" type moral stages.)  That's more than a bit disappointing. 

Whether atheist or theist, you ought to pursue the course of action that you think is right/good/moral.  That you feel deep down is right.  Not what is easy, or most pleasurable (oh, how I detest the hedonists....) or the most popular, but whichever way, upon reflection, your moral compass points.  Of course we'll be stuck with some wackos doing the wrong thing because they felt it was right--there's no getting around that.  But if more people simply did what they knew to be right, we'd all be a lot better off.
[/soapbox]

**For the sake of this rant, it's immaterial whether or not these represent actual stages.