The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

InterestedAtheist · Mar 5, 2020

46AND2 said:
I've thought about this from time to time. Frankly, I don't think there is anything, even in your first category, that a theist can do to convince me (with the possible exception of showing me consistent, unequivocal prophecy; none of which is found in the Bible, and I've looked into it a lot; every example I've seen is either self-fulfilling, postdiction, or, most frequently, context manipulation). At least, not directly. However, if a god exists, and has the power claimed by theists, I'm sure he could find a way to be convincing.

Typically, when a theist attempts their power of persuasion on me, it has the opposite effect.

I quite agree with you - Christians have no compelling evidence. But they could have, and if God were real, they would have.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 5, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
@InterestedAtheist , I don't mean to be negative, but that is not a good list. I agree with the comments from @theoneandonlypencil

It's not so simple to decide about God. Some of those items listed wouldn't convince me that God exists.
- How do we know we aren't dealing with aliens possessing superior technology but otherwise maybe inferior to us intellectually and morally?
- How do we know we aren't dealing with consciousness that manifests from systems of matter with certain properties similar to a human brain?
- How do we know this god is not some other god in disguise for reasons either benevolent or malevolent?
- Also how do we know our memories aren't false or are senses aren't false in some cases?

UFOs are an excellent analogy. I have read a lot about UFOs, and I may have even seen a UFO. But the whole topic makes me confused. If we had a good definition of a UFO then we might be able to decide if they exist or not, but all we have are sightings without an obvious explanation. That is how it is with spirituality. Stuff happens and we wonder if there is more to the world than we realize, but we don't know what we are looking for.

Maybe that link covers some of those issues. I didn't read it.

This is an interesting response, and worth consideration. But let's not forget that we are not yet at this point, because at the moment we have no evidence that God exists.
When lights across the sky start spelling out "Jesus is Lord" and when Christians are shown to have much better rates of recovery from illnesses than non-Christians, and when we all have a voice from a burning busy saying "I'm Jesus, and Christianity is true," then we can begin debating whether it's God or aliens. But at the moment, Christians don't have, well, anything.

InterestedAtheist · Mar 5, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
The problem with your suggestions, @InterestedAtheist, is that Christianity will consistently fail your tests. Quite clearly.

You're quite right, Nihilist Virus.
I know that. I'm hoping some of them will notice it, and draw the correct conclusion.

NBB · Mar 5, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
This is an interesting response, and worth consideration. But let's not forget that we are not yet at this point, because at the moment we have no evidence that God exists.
When lights across the sky start spelling out "Jesus is Lord" and when Christians are shown to have much better rates of recovery from illnesses than non-Christians, and when we all have a voice from a burning busy saying "I'm Jesus, and Christianity is true," then we can begin debating whether it's God or aliens. But at the moment, Christians don't have, well, anything.

We have our testimony, that as serious normal people are telling you God did things to us, God made things so we need to meet with him through the preaching of the gospel, in the bible there is the case of the rich and Lazarus, he demanded prophets were raised from the dead so his family would be saved, but no if they didn't listen to the gospel, even if prophets were to be raised they wouldn't believe anyway.

In court a person can go to jail if several witnesses say something against that person, that means being witness has weight, you may need to compare if you say different religions say the same then, what kind of thing their are witnesing.

Resha Caner · Mar 5, 2020

muichimotsu said:
By all means play the No True Scotsman and dismiss whatever doesn't fit your own preconception of religion encouraging "doubt" in a way that isn't selective and based in confirmation bias of some form or fashion.

It would only be a "No True Scotsman" fallacy if I claimed certain people weren't Christian because they disagreed with me. That's not what I'm saying.

My point is that you don't seem to understand the social dynamic at play here. You are claiming inside knowledge about a group to which you don't belong. That's how conspiracy theories get started. Or are you saying you're now Christian?

Resha Caner · Mar 5, 2020

Nihilist Virus said:
The problem with your suggestions, @InterestedAtheist, is that Christianity will consistently fail your tests. Quite clearly.

InterestedAtheist said:
You're quite right, Nihilist Virus.
I know that. I'm hoping some of them will notice it, and draw the correct conclusion.

Of course it fails these tests. But what conclusion are you expecting us to draw, other than the fact that your dog is barking up the wrong tree?

cloudyday2 · Mar 5, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
This is an interesting response, and worth consideration. But let's not forget that we are not yet at this point, because at the moment we have no evidence that God exists.
When lights across the sky start spelling out "Jesus is Lord" and when Christians are shown to have much better rates of recovery from illnesses than non-Christians, and when we all have a voice from a burning busy saying "I'm Jesus, and Christianity is true," then we can begin debating whether it's God or aliens. But at the moment, Christians don't have, well, anything.

I understand your point, but it isn't accurate to say we don't have any evidence for God. I keep coming back to the UFO analogy, and it seems apt. We have lots and lots of UFO reports, so it isn't accurate to say that we have no evidence for alien spacecraft (or any other phenomenon we might hypothesize to be the cause of some UFO reports). We have lots of people with accounts of miracles and some of them seem to be difficult to explain with our current understanding of nature. Just as with UFOs, some of these accounts of miracles are hoaxes and urban legends and so on. There are lots of wildly varying hypotheses to explain UFO reports and similarly there are lots of ideas about God - even within Christianity.

I had an idea for studying miracles scientifically. Some organization could choose a large random sample of humans and pay them handsomely to report their experiences each day in some format that can be easily analyzed statistically. A similar thing could be done to study UFO reports more scientifically. Currently we only hear the stories and we don't her the non-stories. We need to know who did NOT see a UFO as well as knowing who did see a UFO. And the same for miracles.

Currently with both UFOs and miracles we should focus on developing a hypothesis rather than testing a hypothesis. Christian fundamentalism is one of many hypotheses to explain miracles and the feeling most have that we need a purpose in God. There are too many other hypotheses about God where the questions listed in the OP are not the right questions to consider.

Also, the most extreme Christian fundamentalist theories about God can be discredited by looking at history. There is negative evidence already available to make us disbelieve, so we don't need to ask for positive evidence to make us believe. Any positive evidence could also be explained with competing hypotheses such as liberal versions of Christianity or ancient alien theories that do not have the liability of claims that have already been discredited by history.

And of course there are many variations of Christian fundamentalism. Maybe some of them are not discredited by negative evidence yet. I'm only using that as an example.

Redac · Mar 5, 2020

Here's one thing that suggests to me that this is not a serious list.

InterestedAtheist said:
Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I’m not that hard to convert; I’ll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person

Any subjective experience.
Saying “I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart” or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists – members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?

These points are contradictory. You cannot say that a direct, personal, subjective experience would totally convince you of God's existence, and then claim that subjective experience is inherently unreliable and not to be trusted when talking about God's existence.

muichimotsu · Mar 5, 2020

Resha Caner said:
It would only be a "No True Scotsman" fallacy if I claimed certain people weren't Christian because they disagreed with me. That's not what I'm saying.

My point is that you don't seem to understand the social dynamic at play here. You are claiming inside knowledge about a group to which you don't belong. That's how conspiracy theories get started. Or are you saying you're now Christian?

I'm saying there is a trend, I'm not claiming knowledge about the whole group, you're insinuating I claim this about ALL Christians rather than some.

muichimotsu · Mar 5, 2020

Redac said:
Here's one thing that suggests to me that this is not a serious list.

These points are contradictory. You cannot say that a direct, personal, subjective experience would totally convince you of God's existence, and then claim that subjective experience is inherently unreliable and not to be trusted when talking about God's existence.

In person /=/ subjective experience that cannot be verified and corroborated by another or believed in a sense that isn't subject to special pleading or the like. The problem becomes that God is defined in such a way that it appearing before someone can still be written off by other believers as a demon deceiving them or such, so it's up to purely subjective and preferential notions of what the "God" tells someone in a revelation or experience rather than something remotely consistent about said deity that isn't going to then get further qualified to distinguish it from other phenomena of a similar, but distinct nature

cvanwey · Mar 6, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
I understand your point, but it isn't accurate to say we don't have any evidence for God. I keep coming back to the UFO analogy, and it seems apt. We have lots and lots of UFO reports, so it isn't accurate to say that we have no evidence for alien spacecraft (or any other phenomenon we might hypothesize to be the cause of some UFO reports). We have lots of people with accounts of miracles and some of them seem to be difficult to explain with our current understanding of nature. Just as with UFOs, some of these accounts of miracles are hoaxes and urban legends and so on. There are lots of wildly varying hypotheses to explain UFO reports and similarly there are lots of ideas about God - even within Christianity.

I had an idea for studying miracles scientifically. Some organization could choose a large random sample of humans and pay them handsomely to report their experiences each day in some format that can be easily analyzed statistically. A similar thing could be done to study UFO reports more scientifically. Currently we only hear the stories and we don't her the non-stories. We need to know who did NOT see a UFO as well as knowing who did see a UFO. And the same for miracles.

Currently with both UFOs and miracles we should focus on developing a hypothesis rather than testing a hypothesis. Christian fundamentalism is one of many hypotheses to explain miracles and the feeling most have that we need a purpose in God. There are too many other hypotheses about God where the questions listed in the OP are not the right questions to consider.

Also, the most extreme Christian fundamentalist theories about God can be discredited by looking at history. There is negative evidence already available to make us disbelieve, so we don't need to ask for positive evidence to make us believe. Any positive evidence could also be explained with competing hypotheses such as liberal versions of Christianity or ancient alien theories that do not have the liability of claims that have already been discredited by history.

And of course there are many variations of Christian fundamentalism. Maybe some of them are not discredited by negative evidence yet. I'm only using that as an example.

If I may interject here?

I honestly do not know if extra terrestrials in fact do exist. However, I'm pretty confident all the specific claims laid forth, for sighting a specific entity has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Why am I confident?

Name for me one example, of a singular (or) mass 'alien sighting', in which [you] actually find 'compelling'? And though I admit this could be a very subjective question, we can then explore each individual's criteria for belief, or lack-there-of...

I'll go first. Meaning, I'll issue examples from history, which are forever <unanswerable>, because they are one-off events reported in the past; but yet, seem not to meet [my] burden of proof for being 'real' regardless:

- June 1, 1853: Luminous Objects Hover Over Tennessee College Campus, April 17

- 1897: Purported UFO crash in Texas, February 25, 1942: The Battle of Los Angeles

- January 7, 1948: Saucer Appears Over Kentucky

With UFO's, we can speculate quite a lot. Why? Because we have no idea if these UFO's even want us to know of their existence, just for starters... However, with the Christian God, seems as though God wants us to know of His mere existence. And yet, uses the same types of anecdotal devices for proof of His existence. (i.e.) Many many many one-off stories, ancient stories, unfounded stories, etc, all seemingly 'unsubstantiated'. ---> Just like we have for 'Elvis', ghosts, demons, Big Foot, psychic mediums, dreams, haunted houses, etc...

So yes... We have countless alien sightings, both singular, and mass sightings alike. Just like we do for 'god(s)'. The first question might begin with... Why do [you] disregard some anecdotal claims as insufficient (verses) accepting some claims as 'real'?

cloudyday2 · Mar 6, 2020

cvanwey said:
If I may interject here?

I honestly do not know if extra terrestrials in fact do exist. However, I'm pretty confident all the specific claims laid forth, for sighting a specific entity has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Why am I confident?

Name for me one example, of a singular (or) mass 'alien sighting', in which [you] actually find 'compelling'? And though I admit this could be a very subjective question, we can then explore each individual's criteria for belief, or lack-there-of...

I'll go first. Meaning, I'll issue examples from history, which are forever <unanswerable>, because they are one-off events reported in the past; but yet, seem not to meet [my] burden of proof for being 'real' regardless:

- June 1, 1853: Luminous Objects Hover Over Tennessee College Campus, April 17

- 1897: Purported UFO crash in Texas, February 25, 1942: The Battle of Los Angeles

- January 7, 1948: Saucer Appears Over Kentucky

With UFO's, we can speculate quite a lot. Why? Because we have no idea if these UFO's even want us to know of their existence, just for starters... However, with the Christian God, seems as though God wants us to know of His mere existence. And yet, uses the same types of anecdotal devices for proof of His existence. (i.e.) Many many many one-off stories, ancient stories, unfounded stories, etc, all seemingly 'unsubstantiated'. ---> Just like we have for 'Elvis', ghosts, demons, Big Foot, psychic mediums, dreams, haunted houses, etc...

So yes... We have countless alien sightings, both singular, and mass sightings alike. Just like we do for 'god(s)'. The first question might begin with... Why do [you] disregard some anecdotal claims as insufficient (verses) accepting some claims as 'real'?

Thanks, those are good issues to bring up. The real problem I see with UFOs is the vagueness of our definition. Essentially the definition is the negation of something (i.e. everything in the sky that is NOT identified). When you ask for examples of mass sightings of a UFO, we really need to clarify the term. There are lots and lots of UFO sightings with multiple witnesses in different locations who reported their experiences independently. On the other hand, declaring something as "unexplained" isn't really the goal. Blue Book wanted to know "are these unexplained sightings a security threat?" (at least that was their public goal - many people think Blue Book's true goal was to comfort worried citizens "don't worry we are on top of this issue, but so far there seems to be nothing to be concerned about")

On the question of paranormal or miraculous events, it seems equally difficult to me. I had some sort of brief psychosis, so I am more aware than most of just how deceptive our senses and memories can be. For example I had an experience with multiple people (one of them was my mother). When I asked her months later if she recalled she didn't remember. I remember her there. Did she forget, because it wasn't as memorable to her? Did I hallucinate her presence or confabulate a false memory?

I don't know if I am answering your question - probably not. Maybe I will rethink your post and try again later. I suspect I am off on a derail.

Also, I apologize to @InterestedAtheist , because probably I am derailing his OP and over-complicating the issues he presents. It wasn't my intent, but it is what I seem to do unintentionally sometimes.

cvanwey · Mar 6, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Thanks, those are good issues to bring up. The real problem I see with UFOs is the vagueness of our definition. Essentially the definition is the negation of something (i.e. everything in the sky that is NOT identified). When you ask for examples of mass sightings of a UFO, we really need to clarify the term. There are lots and lots of UFO sightings with multiple witnesses in different locations who reported their experiences independently. On the other hand, declaring something as "unexplained" isn't really the goal. Blue Book wanted to know "are these unexplained sightings a security threat?" (at least that was their public goal - many people think Blue Book's true goal was to comfort worried citizens "don't worry we are on top of this issue, but so far there seems to be nothing to be concerned about")

On the question of paranormal or miraculous events, it seems equally difficult to me. I had some sort of brief psychosis, so I am more aware than most of just how deceptive our senses and memories can be. For example I had an experience with multiple people (one of them was my mother). When I asked her months later if she recalled she didn't remember. I remember her there. Did she forget, because it wasn't as memorable to her? Did I hallucinate her presence or confabulate a false memory?

I don't know if I am answering your question - probably not. Maybe I will rethink your post and try again later. I suspect I am off on a derail.

Also, I apologize to @InterestedAtheist , because probably I am derailing his OP and over-complicating the issues he presents. It wasn't my intent, but it is what I seem to do unintentionally sometimes.

You also raise good points. I feel this issue warrants discussion, in (this) thread, Why? Because anecdotal testimony seems to be a large portion to 'validate' evidence for their 'god(s)'.

So, if we clump in 'god contact' claims, along side UFO's, ghosts, spirits, witches, etc., we can then determine how and why we accept/reject any/all such anecdotal testimonials of all these categories. In the case for UFO's, yes. We need to first define the term. For THIS case, let's only entertain the claims of the 'object' originating from a claimed external location, (i.e.) outside of the human race and from another planet/other.

Me? I currently reject any/all claims of such 'UFO' sightings. Does this mean they have not made contact? Of course not. However, the 'evidence' does not demonstrate, one way or another, if this 'contact' not only truly happened in the first place, but if it was actually from 'the beyond.' --- Same goes for the anecdotal claims for 'god(s)'. In many cases, I do not question the anecdotal claims of some presented experience. But the unanswered question still becomes; was it actually from god, or another explanation? And often times, using Occam's razor, seems more likely the event was not from a god, but instead some natural based means, if any actual contact at all?

cloudyday2 · Mar 6, 2020

cvanwey said:
You also raise good points. I feel this issue warrants discussion, in (this) thread, Why? Because anecdotal testimony seems to be a large portion to 'validate' evidence for their 'god(s)'.

So, if we clump in 'god contact' claims, along side UFO's, ghosts, spirits, witches, etc., we can then determine how and why we accept/reject any/all such anecdotal testimonials of all these categories. In the case for UFO's, yes. We need to first define the term. For THIS case, let's only entertain the claims of the 'object' originating from a claimed external location, (i.e.) outside of the human race and from another planet/other.

Me? I currently reject any/all claims of such 'UFO' sightings. Does this mean they have not made contact? Of course not. However, the 'evidence' does not demonstrate, one way or another, if this 'contact' not only truly happened in the first place, but if it was actually from 'the beyond.' --- Same goes for the anecdotal claims for 'god(s)'. In many cases, I do not question the anecdotal claims of some presented experience. But the unanswered question still becomes; was it actually from god, or another explanation? And often times, using Occam's razor, seems more likely the event was not from a god, but instead some natural based means, if any actual contact at all?

Another analogy is the CIA. A CIA analyst sitting at a desk gets anecdotal intelligence from sources of different types and reliabilities, but he/she must "connect the dots". I suspect that some of the methods these CIA analysts use could be applied to issues like whether God exists or not. I'm certain they have established methods and they don't just improvise.

bling · Mar 6, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
The following is adapted (a little light editing; see the link for the original article) from The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism
I’ve assembled below a list of everything I can think of that I would accept as proof that a given religion is true. Also included are things that I would accept as circumstantial evidence of a particular religion’s truth and things that would not be acceptable to me as proof of anything.

The first category deals with things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion. If shown any of these, I would convert on the spot.

Verified, specific prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived.
No points for trivial, vague, contrived or self-fulfilling prophecies.

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn’t possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me.

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
It wouldn’t have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer.

Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I’m not that hard to convert; I’ll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person

You are much more reasonable in your evidence “proof”, then most atheist I have talked with.

The first question I have: If you have “proof” of God’s existence, would that not be “knowledge” of God’s existence and not “faith” in His existence?

Do you think it would be more distasteful for the Christian God if: you knew He exists, but did not obey Him, then it would be for you to not obey Him and feel He does not exist?

Why has knowledge of God’s existence in the past, not brought forth obedience?

Believing in the existence of a benevolent Creator is something the lowliest mature person on earth can do and is very easy since a tree can be taken as evidence if you want it to be, so extending “faith” is a humbling experience and humility is something that is needed to help us fulfill our earthly objective.

Why do you really even want to know the Christian God exist? Do you want to be a disciple? Would that knowledge upset you?

God would not want to upset you in this life if you are not ever going to believe, since this life is all you have.

From the few posts, I have read of yours, it seems your view of the Christian God has Him being very immoral, inconsistent, angry, cruel and arbitrary, so I see why it would be hard for you to believe in such a being. Why do you want to believe?

cvanwey · Mar 7, 2020

cloudyday2 said:
Another analogy is the CIA. A CIA analyst sitting at a desk gets anecdotal intelligence from sources of different types and reliabilities, but he/she must "connect the dots". I suspect that some of the methods these CIA analysts use could be applied to issues like whether God exists or not. I'm certain they have established methods and they don't just improvise.

Yes, good point. Honest follow-up question(s) to ask, might be...

Does each person manifest the exact same amount of objective criteria, when investigating presented 'evidence' for each and every claim? Or, does many/most/all create completely differing standards for differing claims? Do we choose to more deeply scrutinize certain claims, and pieces of evidence, which might threaten our current position(s)?

I'm having quite the interesting discussion in another thread: Which brand of christianity is the right one/The one true church?

In a nutshell, the argument stems around 'belief.' I argue that we cannot control WHAT we believe. But [maybe], we can choose to protect our current belief, or protect our lack in a belief, by not researching further into a claim...

I remember watching a video about a year ago, which really stuck with me... I forget his name, but he was practicing 'street epistemology'. The person he interviewed was a Christian. It was on a college campus. The discussion stemmed around macroevolution, in which the Christian rejected. The 'street interviewer' ask why? The Christian went into much detail, and presented extensive examples. The interviewer then asks him, 'but you believe Christianity is correct, right'? He said yes. He asked him why. The reason(s) he provided seemed not to be nearly as involved. And when the interviewer started to press him with questions, which might present conflict against his current belief, he paused, and then stated he had to 'get to class.' In such a case, he was protecting his current belief. In other words, he wanted his belief to be true, and apparently doesn't want macroevolution to be true, because maybe he feels this would falsify Genesis/other for him?

Just food for thought...

Getting back to the OP... The proclaimed atheist is presenting a rare challenge. Meaning, he is asking theists to present their evidence. Regardless of being 'hard-headed', having pride, or other, there exists some types of evidence, for each and every one of us, that would sway our decision accordingly. This atheist is honest, and states what such 'evidence' might persuade him accordingly. Though 'evidence' differs for each and every person, he's asking for any of it. Which means, if he's honest, he is removing his protection devices accordingly, and inviting any/all to convince him otherwise. The question then becomes, does anyone feel they have anything which might convince a current unbeliever?

Tom 1 · Mar 7, 2020

InterestedAtheist said:
The following is adapted (a little light editing; see the link for the original article) from The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists - Daylight Atheism
I’ve assembled below a list of everything I can think of that I would accept as proof that a given religion is true. Also included are things that I would accept as circumstantial evidence of a particular religion’s truth and things that would not be acceptable to me as proof of anything.

The first category deals with things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a particular religion. If shown any of these, I would convert on the spot.

Verified, specific prophecies that couldn’t have been contrived.
No points for trivial, vague, contrived or self-fulfilling prophecies.

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn’t available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn’t possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me.

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
It wouldn’t have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer.

Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I’m not that hard to convert; I’ll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person

The second category deals with things that would not be conclusive, but that would count as circumstantial evidence. Show me one of these and I might not convert right away, but your religion will look a lot better to me.

A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
True inerrancy is, so to speak, the holy grail of theism. Almost every religion claims their scripture is perfect, but none that I know of have actually met this exacting standard

A religion without internal disputes or factions.
It seems reasonable to expect that, if there existed a god that was interested in revealing itself to humanity and desired that we follow its commands, that god would write down whatever instructions it had to give us in a way that was only amenable to one interpretation.

A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
If a given religion’s sacred text consistently promotes peace, compassion and nonviolence, and if that religion’s history reflects that fact, that religion would look much more attractive to me.

A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.
Strangely, none do. One can only wonder why.

The final category deals with things that would not convince me; none of the following would persuade me to rethink my position. To date, all the evidence I have ever seen presented for any religion falls into this category.
Speaking in tongues or other pseudo-miracles.
To convince me, a miracle would have to be genuine, verifiable, and represent a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary. Anything that can be explained by peer pressure, the power of suggestion or the placebo effect does not count. Favorable coincidences or kind or courageous acts performed by human beings also do not meet this standard.

People’s conversion stories.
I’m not interested in the testimonials of people who converted to a religion, not even if they used to be atheists. Everyone has moments of weakness in which emotion overrides logic. Instead of telling me how fast a religion is growing, how much of a difference it’s made in people’s lives, or how devoted its converts are, let those converts explain what logic and evidence persuaded them to join in the first place. If they can’t do this, their stories will not affect me.

Any subjective experience.
Saying “I know God exists because I can feel him in my heart” or something similar will not affect me. Most arguments of this sort rest on the assumption that a person cannot have a completely convincing subjective experience and be mistaken regarding its cause, but a look at the diversity of world religions easily disproves this. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists – members of all faiths claim to have had convincing subjective experiences of the truth of that faith. Obviously, they cannot all be right. Why should an atheist accept any one of these testimonies as more valid than any other?

The Bible Code or similar numerological feats.

Creationism of any sort.

If there are in fact multiple dimensions/universes, you might find some of that stuff spread over them, providing there are an infinite number of alternatives and the same basic rules of human reality don't apply in at least some of them.

cvanwey · Mar 7, 2020

bling said:
From the few posts, I have read of yours, it seems your view of the Christian God has Him being very immoral, inconsistent, angry, cruel and arbitrary, so I see why it would be hard for you to believe in such a being. Why do you want to believe?

If I may interject here..? I wanted to provide perspective from another current 'unbeliever.' Not sure if this is the OPer's view, but maybe it kind of is?

I'm merely asking for evidence of this asserted God's existence. I am surrounded by family, friends, co-workers, etc, whom assert, on a regular basis, and also 'give glory', on a regular basis, to this specific flavor of God. Regardless of my personal opinion about the Christian God's perceived 'morality', 'inconsistency', 'anger', 'cruelty', etc, is their sufficient evidence to demonstrate His existence at least?

Quite frankly, my personal opinion would not matter in the slightest. Yes, us unbelievers can point out many points, as to demonstrate how this perceived God appears to have such 'unfavorable' qualities. But if someone here can prove His mere existence to begin with, then we can start asking this asserted God, instead of only having the pleasure of asking apologists here

So, moving forward... Can you present evidence of His existence?

cloudyday2 · Mar 7, 2020

cvanwey said:
Yes, good point. Honest follow-up question(s) to ask, might be...

Does each person manifest the exact same amount of objective criteria, when investigating presented 'evidence' for each and every claim? Or, does many/most/all create completely differing standards for differing claims? Do we choose to more deeply scrutinize certain claims, and pieces of evidence, which might threaten our current position(s)?

No, your observation is correct. You have heard the claim by Carl Sagan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? What makes a claim extraordinary is its inability to fit into a person's current model of reality without major remodeling. In the history of science there is the concept of a paradigm shift such as quantum mechanics. The claimed behavior of particles that eventually lead to quantum mechanics was extraordinary to most physicists at the time and required extraordinary evidence. In contrast when astronomers claimed evidence for the first planets in other star systems that was not particularly extraordinary and probably wasn't scrutinized as vigorously.

Of course it is the same with religious claims. The Christian model of reality is essentially a superset of the atheist model of reality. Christians believe in the physical laws of nature that atheists believe but they also believe in some speculative things about an afterlife and salvation through Jesus and so on. There are some small differences for certain Christians such as macro evolution versus micro evolution, but such issues are only truly matter to academics in a related career. A physicist could believe that macro evolution requires God's hidden hand, and there would be no problem for him/her, because physicists are concerned with other areas of science. For most people,evolution is interesting but isn't very important - like reading about the discovery of some planet around a distant star.

I should add that evolution does matter in religious debates between theists and atheists, because it removes a gap that theists might otherwise claim requires God to fill.

cvanwey said:
Getting back to the OP... The proclaimed atheist is presenting a rare challenge. Meaning, he is asking theists to present their evidence. Regardless of being 'hard-headed', having pride, or other, there exists some types of evidence, for each and every one of us, that would sway our decision accordingly. This atheist is honest, and states what such 'evidence' might persuade him accordingly. Though 'evidence' differs for each and every person, he's asking for any of it. Which means, if he's honest, he is removing his protection devices accordingly, and inviting any/all to convince him otherwise. The question then becomes, does anyone feel they have anything which might convince a current unbeliever?

I'm not certain that I would characterize most atheists as particularly open-minded on issues that would cause them to doubt the metaphysical naturalism model of reality. A Christian's claim to have been aided by an angel would be considered more extraordinary to an atheist than it would be to a Christian, so the atheist would expect more extraordinary evidence than a Christian might. (Of course I have noticed that many Christians don't believe in anything supernatural in the contemporary world and would probably be just as skeptical as an atheist.)

bling · Mar 7, 2020

cvanwey said:
If I may interject here..? I wanted to provide perspective from another current 'unbeliever.' Not sure if this is the OPer's view, but maybe it kind of is?

I'm merely asking for evidence of this asserted God's existence. I am surrounded by family, friends, co-workers, etc, whom assert, on a regular basis, and also 'give glory', on a regular basis, to this specific flavor of God. Regardless of my personal opinion about the Christian God's perceived 'morality', 'inconsistency', 'anger', 'cruelty', etc, is their sufficient evidence to demonstrate His existence at least?

Quite frankly, my personal opinion would not matter in the slightest. Yes, us unbelievers can point out many points, as to demonstrate how this perceived God appears to have such 'unfavorable' qualities. But if someone here can prove His mere existence to begin with, then we can start asking this asserted God, instead of only having the pleasure of asking apologists here

So, moving forward... Can you present evidence of His existence?

Evidence is in the eyes of the beholder, how can you explain life coming from an apparent dead seed, so a tree becomes evidence for a god if you only accept it as evidence.

The OP offered what he would accept as evidence, but that is not to “believe”, but have knowledge of God’s existence.

The Christian is given a guarantee of God fulfilling all Hid promises with the indwelling Holy Spirit, but the non-Christian needs faith to help him/her fulfill their earthly objective, so they do not have a guarantee until after becoming a Christian.

The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Expert Fool

Expert Fool

Generic Theist

Regular Member

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Generic Theist

Regular Member

Similar threads