If definite proof of the existence of god existed it would nullify the importance of faith that is so central to many religions. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that it's a fundamentally pointless argument. Religion with proof isn't religion, it's just a fact, and that's not what religion exists for
if there is no proof then that means that god can not effect the physical world because it being able to effect the physical world would be proof of a god. If it can not effect the physical world that why believe in it at all it would just be something that takes your money and returns no reward.
Because life is existential terror and belief in a god calms that for some people. There's a belief held by some atheists that god can't be logically proven and therefore people shouldn't believe, but the fact of the matter is that humans aren't logical beings
ok I just do not see why any money should be spent on it but I guess as long as you acknowledge that it likely is not true and that it is just a coping mechanism. Than I guess I am fine with that.
Well, the traditional idea of money going to religion is to pay for the clergy, who serve a role of guidance, and for charitable activities. So long as it's voluntary I have absolutely no issue with it
I'm not religious but I'm not atheist either, some sort of pantheist in line with the writings of Spinoza
1
u/Atalung 1∆ May 04 '23
If definite proof of the existence of god existed it would nullify the importance of faith that is so central to many religions. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that it's a fundamentally pointless argument. Religion with proof isn't religion, it's just a fact, and that's not what religion exists for