If science PROVED that no god existed, no matter what religion-would you still believe in your faith?
545500
i believe i am god. i can't prove i exist though
1139856
Apparently, Daniel M, the answer is no. Most religious people could not handle the shock of their reality being altered. So they stubbornly refuse to hear any sort of proof. And, while you cannot prove something does not exist (like god), there is far more empirical evidence that he does not exist than evidence that he does. There incredibly ignorant refusal to see that is why the religious are so frustrating!\n\nAnd, I have discovered, most atheists, if shown sufficient evidence of the truth of one religion or another, would convert to that religion! How ironic that atheists, who are painted as horrible, evil, satan-possessed blasphemers who are determined to corrupt everyone, are the most rational and open when it comes to religion.
1001555
Apologize profusely for not believing, but I would plead my case and explain that all that I have done in my life would add up to the same. And that in all cases I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone who stands by their religion. I learned a long time ago that nothing should change the way you feel about your convictions, not even angels, because the evil one can disguise himself as an angel of light.
998636
Yes. You are right. There is nothing scientific about atheism or any other religion for that matter, because there is no way (and never will be, until you die) to prove or disprove its claims. Atheists often think that they are better than religious people, because they aren't bogged down by dogma. What they don't realize is that they are making a claim just as outrageous as any religious person. They can't claim to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their is no God any more than anyone else can claim to know that there is one. That's what faith is for. Athiests put just as much faith in what they believe as anyone else does. That's why so many scientists are not athiest, but are agnostic. They acknowledge the possiblility of God without making any any claims that they know more than they do. Agnostics realize that they don't have all the answers, so they rarely engage in religious arguments (unless someone is saying something truly wrong). Many athiests actually meant to be agnostic. They seen the many flaws with the current major religions, so they turn to atheism thinking that it's their only other option. But agnosticism rejects the current major religions without eliminating the possiblility of a God. Agnostics also are very tollerant of other religions (unlike atheists), because for all they know, they could be right. Agnosticism is the only belief that can't be proven wrong, because it doesn't make any claims except that we don't really know anything for sure.
560337
None actually, but having no proof on the other side, by grace of the Occam´s razor I would choose the simplest hypothesis: no god.
664867
If there was one indisputable god, where would faith come in?  What about free will?
869180
The only faith required for science is the belief that the physical universe is at least partially knowable. Where gaps are filled in by conjecture, scientists are busy trying to prove or disprove the conjectures - no one takes it on faith. The fact that science may see things differently next year makes it very different from religion, where any change in the dogma leads to accusations of heresy and other histrionics. \n\nScience is also willing to admit it doesn't know everything, where religion expects you to accept it as absolute truth. Your understanding of science is very distorted; I hope you will manage to gain some education in that area.
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
261713
There IS no way to prove or disprove the existence of any deity, as is the same with anything supernatural. The supernatural is definitively NOT scientifically testable. You can give evidence one way or another, but it is debatable as to whether we will ever have the ability to prove or disprove the existence of anything supernatural - including deities.
609301
you would have to die, but then you would have to come back to life so you could tell someone what happend. by that you could only prove to yourself if he exsists or not. Or if you could find the alein that planted life on this planet. or if you could find the missing link. but people really are too stubborn sometimes even when they are faced with the truth. I think god himself could tell a believer that he did not create man and he would still believe that he did. I hope this helps.
1158121
No.  There is no god.  There's no evidence pointing toward the existence of a god or gods, and no reason to suspect that such evidence just hasn't been found yet.
1167720
How much faith do you need to not believe there's an invisible unicorn in your backyard? You can't prove that there isn't. You can only believe that there isn't. An atheists disbelieves in God as much as you disbelieve in magical gnomes in your dresser. They can't be disproved, they're magical, but as a rational person you decide that there are no gnomes in your dresser, but there is a possibility that there are because you cannot monitor your dresser every day all the time. A religious person definitely has more faith than an atheist.
707582
I am a Deist.  We believe in God, but do not believe in holy texts.  So there is a whole religion out there that believes in God, but no texts.
817838
Do you believe in God?
1097338
It would take ABSOLUTE proof that He didn't exist.  No questions.  Someone would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does NOT exist.
182165
Let me guess, you have been divinely inspired by your god to reveal this new truth.  You are the first prophet of a new religion.\n\nThis is all, of coarse, to make a point about belief in religion being irrational due to it being based on faith and not scientific facts as we know them.\n\nSo am I to believe you have now found a religion (as of a few questions ago that you posted you were an atheist) or are you just trying to have some fun with some of us?\n\nBack to your question, I guess I would respond with asking you to prove the existance of your new god based on science and logic.  After all, it does sound like you feel like taking the other side of the discussion for once.
648952
Imagine if Mary never opened the tomb.\n\nWe would stand outside the tomb today, and argue with EQUAL PROBABILITY whether or not God exists.\n\nNow THAT would be a religious debate worth having.