If hypothetically all religion god-based religions were proven false...

Not likely, Most. Not likely.

I'm done with this. I get your point, although not very healthy, I do get it.

But keep swinging from the same branch and see where it gets you.

 

You realize that religious-texxx is asking agnostic-sam to provide evidence, when texxx, whom the burden of proof lies upon, has provided none. Right?

 

When there was no sun and no sky . . . how long was a day?
I will admit . . .I don't take the bible so literally.

I did not mention I ate yesterday . . .does not mean it did not happen.

When I read the bible . . . . I take several things into account.
1. Who is documenting it
2. Who it is written for.

I don't claim Christianity. But I do claim an overwhelming belief in God.

What I find odd is . . . .
Which requires more 'faith' - Someone build a Car or that a Car randomly comes together with no outside influence?

I think we are frightened at the idea of someone controling
and manipulating large scale bio systems etc.
I seems to me . .. . folx look at it and say . . .its too complicated to have
been a controled system/situation.

One need only look at the evolution of machines.
Those men who made the EdVac has no concept of the iphone
maybe they had an inkling of the possibility.

While I will add my bit of the arrogance of man to it
I have little doubt . . that if man does not kill himself
we will one day do similar things.
We will manipulate and mold planets
We will change astral projectories and make suns
but . . . it won't happen tomorrow. Next Century. Next eon maybe.
In the terms of universal time. . . Man is a baby

You mother made you. . .. . she was walking and talking before you could scoot
Man is growing up. We are only beginning to understand the language of the universe.
just because one day . . you learned to walk and talk as good if not better
than you mom . . . .does not make her any less remarkable Human!

Rocket River

 

No doubt, that's a valid question. But mine is... which requires more 'faith' - a super complicated creator 'just existing' to create the universe just the way it is or the universe either 'just existing' or 'slowly developing over time' with no end goal to become what it is today, but this is what we got anyways.

It goes back to the Carl Sagan quote:

“If the general picture however of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the Universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly somehow created? How did that happen? Many cultures’ customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing.

If we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: Where did god come from?

If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?”​

Also, in regards to saying "which takes more faith", I feel inclined to point out the difference between religious faith and the 'faith' of a non-believer. If you are saying that atheists have faith because they must believe there is something 'beyond' that has caused the world - then YES, atheists have faith. We have faith that SOMETHING must have happened because here we are. But atheists don't claim to know what caused it. We just have "faith" that something did and we are eager to find out.

What atheists won't do, as Christians will with their version of faith, is that we won't claim to have certainty over answers we cannot prove and then have "faith" that our view is correct even though there isn't any evidence to defend such claims. That, of course, is the big difference. Christianity and other religions have faith in answers that cannot be proven. Atheists have "faith" that there are answers, but we don't know them yet. It's a huge, huge, HUGE difference - and if you are going to say that "atheists have faith", you need to realize that it is a very different form of faith compared to that of religion.

However, I get a sense that you're looking at god from a more deistic viewpoint than a theistic one anyways, so I'm not sure how relevant your 'faith' in a god is anyways. To me, deism and atheism are quite closely related. They both agree with natural explanations as opposed to magic. The lone major disagreement is the origins of the universe. The atheist will say "I don't know" and wait for evidence while the deist will say "god did it". When asked about the characteristics of this god, deists will say "I don't know". To me, this doesn't seem all that far away from saying "I don't know" to the origins of the universe which is an atheistic approach. So they sure seem quite similar, don't they? It seems they align quite well if it weren't for semantics regarding the term "god" (a deistic term that is far different than the "god" that theists refer to).

 

Just to answer the original question. I don't think people or the world would really change that much. We are such creatures of habit that people would probably still keep going to chuch and tithing.

Look at something like Columbus Day. We still celebrate it as a holiday, a lot of people get the day off when Columbus did not discover America and in fact just ordered the genoicide of men, women, and children, in pursuit of non existent gold.

Even when the facts come out we kind of just go eh whatever.

 

I like paradoxes. Religions offer them more in a less compartmentalized version and often challenging scope and reason with the realities we define.

Anyways, this topic has been treaded over X amt of times to the point where I even forget some of my responses. I found this one while looking for the "Creator from top-down vs Created from bottom-up" fallacy.

In other words, there's a paradoxical effect that we're seeing in front of us. Preachers sometimes peddle unquestionable dogma. In that case, its followers are forced to question within whether to accept those words in their hearts. Whereas laymen sometimes accept scientific press releases as truth (mostly due to lack of training or effort) while its teachers/researchers have to question and challenge the underlying fundamentals of their peers and their own ideas because our current understanding is never enough.

Human nature is always interesting.

As for the article I couldn't find, it was about that "mind experiment" about assembling a 747 given a tornado and airplane parts (in this case, someone building a car). Well evolution isn't like that. It's almost like saying someone/power designed the grand canyon. Most likely it just happened over time and ended up that way, a sight that only we would know and recognize.