Hypothetical religion question...

[freeny]

Hypothetically, What would happen if someone died and came back alive and had undeniable, solid proof that god doesn't and never existed?

How would the faithful react?
Globally, what would happen?
Would things get better or worse?

[edesignuk]

I don't think the concept of "proof" holds much ground to religious types, they'd all just carry on regardless exactly the same as they do now.

:rolleyes:

[themadchemist]

I don't think you can prove negatives.

[emw]

What would happen if someone died and came back alive and had undeniable, solid proof that god doesn't and never existed?

How would the faithful react?

The faithful wouldn't believe it, regardless of any "proof". No more than the unfaithful now believe there is a God.

Globally, what would happen?
I think that there would be some "on the fence" religious folks who would stop going to church or what have you, but all religions aren't based on the same god, so many would write it off as there's no Christian/Muslim/... god, not that there isn't a god for that one person.

Would things get better or worse?
If we assumed that everyone believed this guy, things would probably get better in the long run.

[yg17]

I don't think you can prove negatives.

Sure you can. I can prove that there's not a Ferrari in my driveway and Jessica Alba isn't naked in my bed right now......unfortunately :(


Anyways, the religious people would ignore it. Actual proof doesn't mean anything to them.

[Queso]

I don't think you can prove negatives.
You can in mathematics. For instance, there is no such thing as the biggest number.

[emw]

Jessica Alba isn't naked in my bed right nowCompletely off-topic (although I suppose it could be defined as a religious experience ;)), I actually had a dream last night that I was with Jessica Alba and she was naked.

[TBi]

The church would just say he is lying or being coerced by the devil.

[kresh]

What would you think if someone died and came back to life and said God existed and they had absolute proof?

It seems the preponderance of people that have near death experiences support the existence of God.

Heck there was even one Guy that was dead for 3 days and He came back and said that God absolutely existed. Most people who are declared dead and then brought back to life are only dead a few minutes, maybe an hour. This Guy was dead 3 whole days. Imagine that.

[themadchemist]

Sure you can. I can prove that there's not a Ferrari in my driveway and Jessica Alba isn't naked in my bed right now......unfortunately :(


Anyways, the religious people would ignore it. Actual proof doesn't mean anything to them.

You can in mathematics. For instance, there is no such thing as the biggest number.

...in this context.

[nbs2]

I think a fair number of the faithful would be so blinded that they wouldn't accept the proof. In fact, I think even a number of the not blind would question the proof itself, as well as its source. Remember, religion countenances that deceivers will exist among us. But, if the proof is provable, then the majority would capitulate.

Globally, you would see a strong overall shift towards atheism. But, I think you would see significant social upheaval as a good number of people that have been good solely out of fear of wrath would then find carte blanche to act like idiots.

Eventually, things would balance out and people would be roughly the same, but there would be a strong shift towards lifetime gratification. That is, you wouldn't see as much done to help others as you see now, and you wouldn't see people worrying about future generations as much as what they want in their lifetimes.

Now, I suppose the same question has to be asked in reverse. How would the world change with incontrovertible proof of God?

I imagine that faiths outside of the "proved" God would go nuts, arguing that the proof is of the Devil. I think atheists would respond in a fashion similar to the above, questioning the proof and provider. Some would refuse to accept it, but I think a majority would.

Globally, you would see chaos. This would be moreso in nations where the proved God isn't the majority religion. But, things would begin to settle down, as strength of the moral superiority that the proved factions would believe themselves to have would be much more sustaining than that of the disproved.

I think things would get a little better, as people would worry more about whatever the proved God wanted people to worry about would be a strong focus in society. Now, keep in mind, I'm hoping that God is good. I think you would see the rise of a single global theocracy, but I haven't heard of a God who wasn't so wise as to defy human understanding, so I can't see that as a bad thing. especially since I'd expect that someone who could prove God would be in a position to know what God wants (either through direct communication or a very clear understanding).

[imac/cheese]

We would believe that the proof was created by Satan to deceive us into losing our faith. ;)

Actually, what type of proof could someone ever bring back from the dead that proved there was no God? Coming back from the dead with some sort of proof would mean that the person had an afterlife type experience which would mean there is more to life than just this world. If there is no afterlife and a person simply rots when they die, what type of proof would they bring back if they revived? By coming back from the dead with proof, they are providing evidence for an afterlife, which points towards the existence of some sort of god.

[Queso]

Heck there was even one Guy that was dead for 3 days and He came back and said that God absolutely existed. Most people who are declared dead and then brought back to life are only dead a few minutes, maybe an hour. This Guy was dead 3 whole days. Imagine that.
Considering we don't even have proof he ever lived at all, that claim can't really be taken as absolute evidence can it ;)

[nbs2]

We would believe that the proof was created by Satan to deceive us into losing our faith. ;)

Actually, what type of proof could someone ever bring back from the dead that proved there was no God? Coming back from the dead with some sort of proof would mean that the person had an afterlife type experience which would mean there is more to life than just this world. If there is no afterlife and a person simply rots when they die, what type of proof would they bring back if they revived? By coming back from the dead with proof, they are providing evidence for an afterlife, which points towards the existence of some sort of god.

But, the question isn't what proof would be sufficient, simply that there is proof. Given absolute proof, whatever it is, how would the OPs questions play out?

[Queso]

Eventually, things would balance out and people would be roughly the same, but there would be a strong shift towards lifetime gratification. That is, you wouldn't see as much done to help others as you see now, and you wouldn't see people worrying about future generations as much as what they want in their lifetimes.
I disagree strongly with this. A dog has no concept of religion yet doesn't mess his own bed.

[kresh]

Considering we don't even have proof he ever lived at all, that claim can't really be taken as absolute evidence can it ;)

Well considering the source has been scrutinized and vetted more than any other history ever written. There is not a single piece of literature that can be traced as close to the original source, any other written classic of the period can only be traced physically with 500 years or so. This source is within 50 - 60 years.

[themadchemist]

^^ this is what would happen :D

[kresh]

But, the question isn't what proof would be sufficient, simply that there is proof. Given absolute proof, whatever it is, how would the OPs questions play out?

That questioned is already answered in the religious texts of people who believe in God, but not Judaism. They are told that if God doesn't exist, then they are the most miserable of all people, because there would be no hope. But fortunately, they have hope :)

[stoid]

I disagree strongly with this. A dog has no concept of religion yet doesn't mess his own bed.

Yes, but that dog does mess other dog's beds. However, I'd like to think that humans, with our fairly unique skill of empathy and ability to see the world from a perspective other than our own, would be able to react a bit more intelligently than the canine population.

[nbs2]

I disagree strongly with this. A dog has no concept of religion yet doesn't mess his own bed.

No, but there is no benefit to him for it. On the other hand, I think a fair number of people on the planet are good, at least partially, because they believe that goodness will be rewarded in the afterlife (be it going to heaven, nirvana, reincarnate as a higher form, etc). If that carrot (and the stick of punishment) is removed, why wouldn't people be more likely to seek lifetime gratification?

I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, but I think that people would embrace that which appeases them in this lifetime, rather than seeking out their "riches in heaven" (you've seen bumper stickers)

[Queso]

Well considering the source has been scrutinized and vetted more than any other history ever written. There is not a single piece of literature that can be traced as close to the original source, any other written classic of the period can only be traced physically with 500 years or so. This source is within 50 - 60 years.
Absolute rubbish. There are masses of Greek and Roman texts from the era that can even be traced to within 10 years or closer.

Anyway, let's not go too far off-topic shall we?

[imac/cheese]

But, the question isn't what proof would be sufficient, simply that there is proof. Given absolute proof, whatever it is, how would the OPs questions play out?

I am not very good with hypotheticals unless I can see how they would actually happen.

If there was absolute, undeniable proof, I would believe it (because one cannot deny something that is truly undenible) and my entire world would be shaken to its core. If the proof simply looked like it might be true, I would search for the truth through prayer and careful examination of the evidence, looking at the proof from all angles.

[Queso]

No, but there is no benefit to him for it. On the other hand, I think a fair number of people on the planet are good, at least partially, because they believe that goodness will be rewarded in the afterlife (be it going to heaven, nirvana, reincarnate as a higher form, etc). If that carrot (and the stick of punishment) is removed, why wouldn't people be more likely to seek lifetime gratification?
You make it sound as if lifetime gratification and being a productive, caring member of society are mutually exclusive.

[imac/cheese]

You make it sound as if lifetime gratification and being a productive, caring member of society are mutually exclusive.

You are absolutely right here. Those two aspects of life go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately most people do not see personal gratification coming from helping and loving others.

[arkitect]

There is not a single piece of literature that can be traced as close to the original source, any other written classic of the period can only be traced physically with 500 years or so. This source is within 50 - 60 years.

Sure… and we are also able to say that the Brothers Grimm collected their stories during the first decades of the 19th century… :rolleyes:

[emw]

On the other hand, I think a fair number of people on the planet are good, at least partially, because they believe that goodness will be rewarded in the afterlife (be it going to heaven, nirvana, reincarnate as a higher form, etc).
I also think a fair amount of evil is done in the name of religion - specifically when beliefs collide. If that division of beliefs no longer existed, then the good/bad converts would probably balance out.

If there was no god, then perhaps people would find that they need to be held accountable to society in general, not to some higher power. "What Would Jesus Do?" bumper stickers could be replaced with "What Should I Do?" stickers. People have an immeasurable capacity for being good without religious implications.

And while they certainly have capacity for evil, I think that is in the minority and isn't currently impacted by any religious beliefs.

[Queso]

You are absolutely right here. Those two aspects of life go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately most people do not see personal gratification coming from helping and loving others.
Do you not think a reality-shaking event such as proof of God's non-existence might cause a bit of reevaluation for a lot of people? For instance, I'm quite convinced that a large number of people who do believe in an afterlife knowingly waste their current one. Wouldn't their sudden change to a state of action compensate for those who fall off the help others wagon?

[nbs2]

Well considering the source has been scrutinized and vetted more than any other history ever written. There is not a single piece of literature that can be traced as close to the original source, any other written classic of the period can only be traced physically with 500 years or so. This source is within 50 - 60 years.

The Qu'ran is even closer to its Born On date. But, yes, most other religious texts have a history that goes back farther then their physical inscription.

Of course, if you want to talk classical non-fiction pr philosophy, I'm sure that we can trace The Art of War to Sun-Tzu.

More disturbing about the Bible are all of these books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible) that aren't in the Bible (after all, they seem to be canon quality)

[Don't panic]

Eventually, things would balance out and people would be roughly the same, but there would be a strong shift towards lifetime gratification. That is, you wouldn't see as much done to help others as you see now, and you wouldn't see people worrying about future generations as much as what they want in their lifetimes.


funny, i think it would play out exactly opposite as you :)

in the 'proven' absence of a god (though i don't see how that 'prove' could exist, but that's beyond the point), a higher morality would set in.
people would realize (more) the importance of their fellow human beings and they would worry more and care more for the planet and their future inhabitants.

energy would be redirected to make this planet a better place, rather than to try to convince each other of who is right, and a lot of obscene behaviors, justified now in the name of religion, would cease to occur.

i don't think there are many people that are 'good' only because they fear 'hell'. people that are good would be so in almost any situation, so they would channel their compassion in other ways.
on the other hand there are many people whose reprehensible behavior are justified by religion, and they would have no excuses anymore, nor societies to cover their acts.

[Don't panic]

Well considering the source has been scrutinized and vetted more than any other history ever written. There is not a single piece of literature that can be traced as close to the original source, any other written classic of the period can only be traced physically with 500 years or so. This source is within 50 - 60 years.

well the sources describing the non-deniable and highly internally consistent world of harry potter can be traced in a range of just 10 years.

so, can i get my flying broom now?

[imac/cheese]

Do you not think a reality-shaking event such as proof of God's non-existence might cause a bit of reevaluation for a lot of people? For instance, I'm quite convinced that a large number of people who do believe in an afterlife knowingly waste their current one. Wouldn't their sudden change to a state of action compensate for those who fall off the help others wagon?

I am only speaking for the Christians that I know, but I don't see any of us wasting our current lives. Those who are truly motivated by Christ are not wasting anything. They are helping, loving, protecting, nuturing, and caring for those in need.

[Don't panic]

I am only speaking for the Christians that I know, but I don't see any of us wasting our current lives. Those who are truly motivated by Christ are not wasting anything. They are helping, loving, protecting, nuturing, and caring for those in need.

i agree with this.
i also think though, that after a shortish period of readjustment, the vast majority would keep helping, loving, protecting, nuturing, and caring for those in need.

[nbs2]

You make it sound as if lifetime gratification and being a productive, caring member of society are mutually exclusive.

I also think a fair amount of evil is done in the name of religion - specifically when beliefs collide. If that division of beliefs no longer existed, then the good/bad converts would probably balance out.

If there was no god, then perhaps people would find that they need to be held accountable to society in general, not to some higher power. "What Would Jesus Do?" bumper stickers could be replaced with "What Should I Do?" stickers. People have an immeasurable capacity for being good without religious implications.

And while they certainly have capacity for evil, I think that is in the minority and isn't currently impacted by any religious beliefs.

I don't wish to argue that the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I do believe that some people, specifically religious people (as far as this discussion goes) are partially motivated by God's commands and God's wrath. Indeed, I agree with emw that people would need to become introspective and be good for goodness sake (it would make Santa's job a little easier), but I think that a fair number would struggle in reaching within themselves. When you rely on crutches too long, your muscles atrophy. On the other hand, I think most religious people are inherently good and wouldn't have that struggle. They put God in their lives and that placement serves as a motivator when things are tough, but it isn't a crutch.

My posts read that a vast number of people would be selfish, and while I think that many people would be, I shouldn't have done that. I believe that the number will be significant, but not overwhelming. As every person is different, I think most will make the leap quickly, without harm to society, but there will be some who will take longer.

funny, i think it would play out exactly opposite as you :)

I'm a cynic :D

in the 'proven' absence of a god (though i don't see how that 'prove' could exist, but that's beyond the point), a higher morality would set in.
people would realize (more) the importance of their fellow human beings and they would worry more and care more for the planet and their future inhabitants.

energy would be redirected to make this planet a better place, rather than to try to convince each other of who is right, and a lot of obscene behaviors, justified now in the name of religion, would cease to occur.

i don't think there are many people that are 'good' only because they fear 'hell'. people that are good would be so in almost any situation, so they would channel their compassion in other ways.
on the other hand there are many people whose reprehensible behavior are justified by religion, and they would have no excuses anymore, nor societies to cover their acts.

My concern is that there would be those who, unable to justify themselves in the name of religion, would justify themselves otherwise. There are plenty of excuses out there to do anything.

I think in the long run, the world would get a little better, but I think there are enough problematic people out there that would find a cover other than religion for their actions, or would simply act problematic without reason,

[Queso]

I am only speaking for the Christians that I know, but I don't see any of us wasting our current lives. Those who are truly motivated by Christ are not wasting anything. They are helping, loving, protecting, nuturing, and caring for those in need.
I didn't mean that as an attack on you or yours, but there are a significant group of society that do appear to have given up on this life and sit around hoping for something better next time rather than working to improve their lot now. You won't find these people at your Church meetings, because they're too apathetic to go.

nbs2 mentions that some people would instantly turn to self-gratification, which is a fair comment, but I honestly think that proof of the non-existence of an afterlife would make some of these apathetic time-wasters spur themselves into action, which should offset the negative aspects of others' behaviour.

[imac/cheese]

i agree with this.
i also think though, that after a shortish period of readjustment, the vast majority would keep helping, loving, protecting, nuturing, and caring for those in need.

You are probably right. I personally have found that my own happiness and personal gratification comes when I serve others who are in need.

[snickelfritz]

"Death" is the end of life, from which there is no return.
Awakening after being in suspended animation for three days does not quality a person as an after-life source of the truth regarding the existence of God.
In any event, there's no way to prove that God does not exist.

I doubt this would have any effect whatsoever on the majority of the populace.
Although I'm sure this person would be on daytime talk shows and in the tabloids for a while.

[freeny]

Now, I suppose the same question has to be asked in reverse. How would the world change with incontrovertible proof of God?



I assume there would be more wars.

People would fight over who had more faith, who were the original believers and what land was promised them.

A lot like it is now but on a larger scale

I guess I would become an instant believer and worship them out of fear. What other choice would I have?
Thats the way most religions work. Punishment instead of rewards.
Just because gods existence was proven wouldn't motivate me to be a better person, fear would.

[nbs2]

I didn't mean that as an attack on you or yours, but there are a significant group of society that do appear to have given up on this life and sit around hoping for something better next time rather than working to improve their lot now. You won't find these people at your Church meetings, because they're too apathetic to go.

nbs2 mentions that some people would instantly turn to self-gratification, which is a fair comment, but I honestly think that proof of the non-existence of an afterlife would make some of these apathetic time-wasters spur themselves into action.

Indeed, I think these are the religious folks that are most likely to seek pure self-gratification. They do nothing to merit their "after-lifetime" of comfort, for whatever reason. If they lost that afterwards, I agree they would be spurred into action - and their actions would lean heavily towards self-gratification as to that point they wouldn't have shown any compassion for humanity, and I can't see anything that would change that.

[Queso]

Indeed, I think these are the religious folks that are most likely to seek pure self-gratification. They do nothing to merit their "after-lifetime" of comfort, for whatever reason. If they lost that afterwards, I agree they would be spurred into action - and their actions would lean heavily towards self-gratification as to that point they wouldn't have shown any compassion for humanity, and I can't see anything that would change that.
A pretty good analysis. I'll go with this over my earlier opinion, if you don't mind.

[Don't panic]

Indeed, I think these are the religious folks that are most likely to seek pure self-gratification. They do nothing to merit their "after-lifetime" of comfort, for whatever reason. If they lost that afterwards, I agree they would be spurred into action - and their actions would lean heavily towards self-gratification as to that point they wouldn't have shown any compassion for humanity, and I can't see anything that would change that.

you are a cynic! :)

i don't think there would be that many of those. some, but not many.
there are good and bad people in each group, religious (of all kinds) and not.

the vast majority of the good people would be good regardless.
same for the bad people, but now a lot of them wouldn't have an excuse or an organization/society to cover up for them, so they couldn't operate as freely.

so overall we would end up better.

[imac/cheese]

I didn't mean that as an attack on you or yours, but there are a significant group of society that do appear to have given up on this life and sit around hoping for something better next time rather than working to improve their lot now. You won't find these people at your Church meetings, because they're too apathetic to go.

nbs2 mentions that some people would instantly turn to self-gratification, which is a fair comment, but I honestly think that proof of the non-existence of an afterlife would make some of these apathetic time-wasters spur themselves into action.

I know you didn't mean it as an attack. You are right that there are a lot of people that sit around waiting for the afterlife not doing anything in this one, but I would wager (if I was a betting man) that a lot of them are not sitting around because of their belief in the afterlife. From my experiences in Christianity, those that sit around waiting for the afterlife are usually very weak believers that have not studied the Bible and do not understand what Christ has called us to do. They have succumb to the trials of this life instead of being motivated by the teachings of Christ and the promise of Heaven.

I imagine that some of them would be motivated to get up off their butts and make something of their lives, but I imaigine the majority would continue in depression and just sit around waiting to die. Your hypothesis makes it seem like those that do not believe in an afterlife are more motivated to live in this life than those that do believe in an afterlife. From my own experience (which I know is in no way evidence of the entire world) I have seen much the opposite. Those motivated by God are very active and doing everything they can to make a difference. Those I know that do not believe in God are less likely to volunteer or help others in need. Having lived in 5 states in different regions of the US, I have seen quite a wide range of people and communities and it always seems that the people out helping others are the religious ones.

[Shotglass]

I feel the need to clear some things up.


Religious people are not mindless idiots.
We don't go around killing people in the names of our gods.
We don't have a strong urge to convince everyone we see of our faith.
We are not religious because we can't face the "truth".
We are not controlled by "the church".

Some people might be exceptions, but your average spiritual person is not a moron. Please keep this in mind when you talk about religion. I'm so sick of all this prejudice. Atheists are no better than the hypocrites they rally against.

[Queso]

From my own experience (which I know is in no way evidence of the entire world) I have seen much the opposite. Those motivated by God are very active and doing everything they can to make a difference. Those I know that do not believe in God are less likely to volunteer or help others in need. Having lived in 5 states in different regions of the US, I have seen quite a wide range of people and communities and it always seems that the people out helping others are the religious ones.
I think the prevailing societal environment is the important thing for how people act. Europe is getting to the point where atheism is the dominant "belief system", and yet we have strong values to narrow wealth inequality, universal health systems etc. I wonder if the reason the US is so much more religious on average is down to your being taught to climb over each other all the time. Almost as if religion is used as an antidote to the American Dream.

Personally I see no correlation here between religious belief and volunteerism. Not that there aren't any volunteer organisations built around faith centres, just that there are just as many that aren't.

[.Andy]

I feel the need to clear some things up.


Religious people are not mindless idiots.
We don't go around killing people in the names of our gods.
We don't have a strong urge to convince everyone we see of our faith.
We are not religious because we can't face the "truth".
We are not controlled by "the church".

Some people might be exceptions, but your average spiritual person is not a moron. Please keep this in mind when you talk about religion. I'm so sick of all this prejudice. Atheists are no better than the hypocrites they rally against.
In conclusion christians are intelligent and all atheists are prejudiced hypocrites.

[imac/cheese]

I think the prevailing societal environment is the important thing for how people act. Europe is getting to the point where atheism is the dominant "belief system", and yet we have strong values to narrow wealth inequality, universal health systems etc. I wonder if the reason the US is so much more religious on average is down to your being taught to climb over each other all the time. Almost as if religion is used as an antidote to the American Dream.

Personally I see no correlation here between religious belief and volunteerism. Not that there aren't any volunteer organisations built around faith centres, just that there are just as many that aren't.

It is always interesting to see the differences between the continents.

I have been involved in numerous volunteer organizations that are not religious based, but almost all of the volunteers are still religious. Foster parenting is one of the main ones. Of course, the state is not allowed to endorse any religion through the foster parent system and all of the children are given the right to religious choice and foster parents are expected to help meet their foster child's religious needs whatever they might be, but every single foster parent I met was serving because of one of two reasons. They were called by God to help children or they couldn't have children of their own and wanted a baby. *disclaimer: Texas is "God's Country"

In other states I have seen a lot of the same. Even in NY state a majority of the volunteers that were helping the needy were religious. Of course there were certain volunteer organizations that were more likely to have non-religious members, such as the Sierra Club or other local environmental organizations.

Europe however does have a lot more governmental help for those that are in need than America. Most Christians I know that do not wish the government to help feel that way because they feel the government is not very capable of handling the issues. Some of them really just want to keep their money for themselves and others see local volunteering a much better place for their money to go than to the federal government. Others are just fooled by corporate marketing and believe we are actually saving money by the way we do the things we do.

[freeny]

Religious people are not mindless idiots.
True, but some are as well as some atheists too.

We don't go around killing people in the names of our gods.
There are some religions that do ask of this in certain situations including "sacrifices" in Christianity, although this practice has been mostly abandoned.

We don't have a strong urge to convince everyone we see of our faith.
Christianity as well as a few other religions require some sort of "bearing witness" as part of being a "good follower".

We are not religious because we can't face the "truth".
Not sure what this means

We are not controlled by "the church".
some are

You cannot speak for all religions, faiths and followers.

[snickelfritz]

I feel the need to clear some things up.


Religious people are not mindless idiots.
We don't go around killing people in the names of our gods.
We don't have a strong urge to convince everyone we see of our faith.
We are not religious because we can't face the "truth".
We are not controlled by "the church".

Some people might be exceptions, but your average spiritual person is not a moron. Please keep this in mind when you talk about religion. I'm so sick of all this prejudice. Atheists are no better than the hypocrites they rally against.

"You cleared things up" by making sweeping and unsupportable assertions and generalizations, then finish by attacking atheists in precisely the same manner you objected to at the beginning of your assertion.

I find it hard to believe that religious belief, by itself, automatically excludes with some exceptions, all morons, idiots, deluded killers and mindless sheep.
In fact, I find it equally plausible that the opposite could be true.

There's a movie I highly recommend, called "the Big Kahuna"
(Danny DeVito, Kevin Spacey)
It's a story about two middle aged salesman and a young rookie attending a sales convention together, with the goal of finding an elusive industry big-shot in order to pitch their product to him.
It's a compelling and interesting perspective on religious evangelism and human motivations.

[Shotglass]

You got it all wrong. There are in fact exceptions to what I said, but that's not the fault of the religion, but of the people.
Freeny: bearing whitness simply means showing that you enjoy life because of your religion. If someone sees you have a great life and sees that it's connected to your religion, they might get to thinking. Bearing whitness is in no way related or similiar to crusades.
Also, explain the sacrifices. I've never heard of any Christian denomination demanding the sacrifice of others, if that's what you mean.
snickelfritz: good job destroying my post. You missed the point though. I'm well aware that I was generalizing wildly. What I'm trying to tell you is that not all religious people conform to the stereotypes that many of the people who posted here apparently believe to be true. I might be overreacting, it's just that I've always hated blind prejudice.
The second paragraph of your post shows that you did not read mine. I'm talking about the average spiritual person. I was definitely not excluding brainless morons.
.Andy: No. Average Christians are as intelligent as Atheists. And there's just as many Christian hypocrites as there are Atheist hypocrites. Bottom line - we're all the same. Do excuse my generalization at the end.

[imac/cheese]

...Freeny: bearing whitness simply means showing that you enjoy life because of your religion. If someone sees you have a great life and sees that it's connected to your religion, they might get to thinking. Bearing whitness is in no way related or similiar to crusades...

In my church, bearing witness goes a lot further than simply living the example of a Christian life. Of course, that is often times a very effective way of spreading the gospel, but the Bible specifically tells us to share the Good News, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

[Shotglass]

imac/cheese: I've given up on the going out part, it seems quite counterproductive to me. I do however serve as a basis of information for my admittedly misinformed and miseducated (I'm not generalizing) atheist friends.

[mactastic]

"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."
Would you be accepting of a gay group knocking on your door on Sunday afternoon and "preaching the gospel" of how awesome it is to be gay while your kids listen in? And if not necessarily you, would you understand if other Christians didn't want that kind of intrusion on their preferred method of raising their children?

If not, why would you suppose any non-Christian would be tolerant of you doing the reverse?

[imac/cheese]

Would you be accepting of a gay group knocking on your door on Sunday afternoon and "preaching the gospel" of how awesome it is to be gay while your kids listen in? And if not necessarily you, would you understand if other Christians didn't want that kind of intrusion on their preferred method of raising their children?

If not, why would you suppose any non-Christian would be tolerant of you doing the reverse?

Sunday probably would not be a good day to catch me at home, but I would be accepting of them. I would politely tell them that I wasn't interested and send them on their way. If they persisted, I would probably discuss with them my own beliefs and try to share the gospel with them. I can undertand that many people do not want to hear the gospel. I can also understand why some people are not tolerant of people preaching the gospel to them. But I look at it this way.... if I truly believed that the city was going to be attacked by terrorists and thousands of people were going to suffer, I would scream at the top of my lungs and do everything in my power to get people out of the city and into safety. I could just save myself and slip quietly out of town, but morally I could not live with myself if I had the chance to warn people of what I believed was going to happen. Anyone who truly believes that the unsaved are going to hell should be out doing what they can to warn people about the dangers they face.

[RacerX]

Hypothetically, What would happen if someone died and came back alive and had undeniable, solid proof that god doesn't and never existed?Why is this part in this question? What significance are you putting (or assume others would have) on dying and coming back?

Are you assuming an after-life? And in addition, are you assuming that given an after-life, that there would actually be any more answers than in this life? What would lead you to believe that an after-life would hold any more (or less) information about the nature of the universe than our current existence?

Above and beyond the point of the original question, I find it quite intriguing that this additional condition was even needed.

[solvs]

As pointed out, not seeing God wouldn't mean there wasn't one. Then again, even if you thought you saw it, doesn't mean there is. And yeah, it wouldn't matter what proof you had, some people wouldn't believe it either way. Even if I saw it myself, I still wouldn't know what to believe.