for atheists

[dogs4thewin]

Yes.

so then basically you are saying you do not believe you could see them again?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Here's a really specific thing that would at a minimum force me to concede that there probably was a god and that it might even be some form of the Christian God:

Have a very public, preferably worldwide, united Christian prayer session where all of the participants pray specifically to Jesus Christ for the healing and restoration of all amputees in the world overnight. I don't mean people missing limbs just feel better the next day. I mean their missing limbs spontaneously regrown overnight and restored to full function. That's something that would be very, very difficult to explain away. Especially if prior to this you had all other religions do the same thing with no results.

Here's the thing, though. I know for a fact that there is no Christian on this forum and probably anywhere in the world who actually believes this would actually work. I don't mean they have doubts about it. I mean they know it will not. It seems we all know the mind of God when it comes to things we know to be naturalistically impossible.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

Well, I just don't have that kind of faith, then.... to believe all that just happened by blind luck with no first cause? Nope, the cause would have to show itself to me for me to believe that. And it hasn't. So I will continue to believe the cause is an all powerful being beyond comprehension.

It tends to help if you don't look at human beings as the purpose of the universe (which is difficult because most religions consider humans to be somewhat important). Imagine that we are not the outcome of some intended plan - we are a pit stop on a much longer journey, one that will most likely continue without us. Then it's not about 'blind luck', it's just about 'what there is'.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

No force would be necessary. All he would have to do is show up. Why did the old testament Israelites get all the attention? Pillars of salt and fire. Wrath raining down on the wicked. Manna from Heaven. Plagues. Angels of Death. Visits in the lion's den. They got it all. They didn't need faith. They had hard evidence. That's all I'm asking for.

Yeah I feel the same way and what's worst is that since Jesus the stakes have never been higher. I find it hard to square a loving God that establishes a penalty for non-belief (eternal torture) and simultaneously decides that overt displays of its existence aren't its jam anymore.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What, if anything would make you believe that God is or at least may be real?

Having been brought up in a Christian community, I used to think about this a lot, and the problem I have with this kind of question is that believing that God 'is or at least may be real' is that I now realise that even if I were to have some change of viewpoint or understanding that resulted in me believing in God, or a god, it wouldn't mean that what I believed in was objectively real, it would just mean I had a belief.

Given what I've learned over the years, it seems to me beyond reasonable doubt that the gods people believe in, and have believed in, are human inventions serving human purposes, that the only observable effects of these beliefs are on the behaviours of people, and that life experiences can cause people to come to start believing in them or to stop believing in them. IOW, 'it's all in the mind'.

Whether entities exist in the universe that we might consider to be god-like, I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does - I have yet to see evidence of such.

 

[Strathos]

If there is something that is impossible for a being to do, then that being is not omnipotent. Thus removing one of the typical characteristics traditionally associated with the deity of monotheism.

God can't do things that are logically contradictory, like make a rock too heavy to lift. That's because those things are not logically coherent. If there is no possible evidence that will convince someone of X, then obviously no evidence can be presented to that person that would convince them of X. To claim otherwise would be to say that one of the two contradictory premises is wrong.

No force would be necessary. All he would have to do is show up. Why did the old testament Israelites get all the attention? Pillars of salt and fire. Wrath raining down on the wicked. Manna from Heaven. Plagues. Angels of Death. Visits in the lion's den. They got it all. They didn't need faith. They had hard evidence. That's all I'm asking for.

And that's a better answer than the cop-out one.

Really? Considering how rude your claim was that anyone was polite was rather amazing. You do realize that you made a very flawed accusation, don't you?

Not at all. I never said that all atheists would never accept any evidence (after all, there are atheists who convert to Christianity). Just some of them.

 

[renniks]

It tends to help if you don't look at human beings as the purpose of the universe (which is difficult because most religions consider humans to be somewhat important). Imagine that we are not the outcome of some intended plan - we are a pit stop on a much longer journey, one that will most likely continue without us. Then it's not about 'blind luck', it's just about 'what there is'.

Still doesn't answer anything. A planet perfectly suitable for human habitation just happened? And people just happened to spring from the ooze over a few billions of years? No, I see planning and order and design everywhere I look in nature.
A beaver doesn't just happen to develop the skills of an engineer. An otter doesn't just happen to be built like a torpedo with a rudder...

 

[46AND2]

God can't do things that are logically contradictory, like make a rock too heavy to lift. That's because those things are not logically coherent. If there is no possible evidence that will convince someone of X, then obviously no evidence can be presented to that person that would convince them of X. To claim otherwise would be to say that one of the two contradictory premises is wrong.



And that's a better answer than the cop-out one.



Not at all. I never said that all atheists would never accept any evidence (after all, there are atheists who convert to Christianity). Just some of them.

You suspect there are some. I suspect there are none. I highly doubt that there is anyone alive for whom it is impossible for them to be swayed into believing that there is at least some sort of god. Particularly if such a being has omnipotent-like powers at his disposal. The vast majority of atheists would not even claim such immunity to any sort of persuasion.

 

[keith99]

...
I am no great example of a Christian as I tend to be more intellectual than emotional and loving but I realize that honesty and humility often is respected by those who are looking for truth, personally I would rather listen to a simpleton speak of simple things that loves and helps people than an arrogant intellectual that is a hypocrite. ... /QUOTE]

You put forth a less unfriendly version of why I reject Christianity. At least popular American Christianity. It rejects intellect and reason in favor of emotion.

You also set up a false dichotomy of contrasting a simpleton with humility as opposed to someone of intellect who is a hypocrite. Problem is those of intellect have no corner on the hypocrisy market and I would argue are actually less prone to that problem. They often show great forbearance with those of lesser intelligence who fail to understand, but when patience finally runs out usually with little or no effort being made to understand than when they finally do show some emption they are labeled as arrogant.

I don't think your post had that intent, but it still had that content. It pervades a certain mindset and one easily falls into the trap if the person speaking seems nice. But only a fool decides a speaker is correct just because they are nice. Sadly at times we all are fools.

 

[keith99]

Here's a really specific thing that would at a minimum force me to concede that there probably was a god and that it might even be some form of the Christian God:

Have a very public, preferably worldwide, united Christian prayer session where all of the participants pray specifically to Jesus Christ for the healing and restoration of all amputees in the world overnight. I don't mean people missing limbs just feel better the next day. I mean their missing limbs spontaneously regrown overnight and restored to full function. That's something that would be very, very difficult to explain away. Especially if prior to this you had all other religions do the same thing with no results.

Here's the thing, though. I know for a fact that there is no Christian on this forum and probably anywhere in the world who actually believes this would actually work. I don't mean they have doubts about it. I mean they know it will not. It seems we all know the mind of God when it comes to things we know to be naturalistically impossible.

As far as I know there has not yet even been a single case where this happened to just one person. Not even over a period of time let alone overnight.

Yet the common lizard does this with its tail. A starfish does it in spades and when cut into pieces becomes several starfish.

I say to you that there are people alive today who will see men regrow arms, not overnight but over the period of a few months.

Will we then worship the team who first achieves this? I doubt I will be alive to see this, but I do not consider it even close to impossible in my lifetime.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all. I never said that all atheists would never accept any evidence (after all, there are atheists who convert to Christianity). Just some of them.

Why would conversion to Christianity be any sort of indicator? Even more Christians become atheists. So by that logic . . .

It is best to present evidence and find out if it is valid or not.

 

[Sophrosyne]

This is all great and wonderful and while I disagree with some of it I also agree with a lot of it. And that's the thing. Atheists and Christians can agree on a lot of issues with regard to how we should treat people, right and wrong, etc. The problem is that because I'm an atheist, because I don't believe in what the Christians claim is the source for these agreements that we have. So, the only real difference between us is that belief in a god that because I lack I am condemned. And, quite frankly that is stupid. It smacks of human invention and thinking, not divine. That's why ultimately these arguments boil down to the mere existence of a god and not feelings or beliefs. Because we share a lot of those feelings and beliefs. Just not the ones that seem to render the whole of existence completely illogical, irational and inconsistent.

My go to statement with regard to the whole issue is that reality makes so much more sense when you remove gods from it. The problem of evil literally disappears with the god being removed. The way people act and the bad things that happen to people make complete sense in a godless universe. It's only when you add in this omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that nothing makes sense anymore.

In reality there is no such thing as a godless universe as even atheists agree man has made up gods for many reasons I also believe when a man who doesn't believe in a god, makes themselves one in reality.
This causes a conundrum in that either you have an outside god that isn't a living person that you ascribe rules for right and wrong to and agree in making that person in that respect "rule" over you or you have to pick others to be "gods" in ways either minor like elected officials or major like dictators and kings and emperors. When you start to reject other men's (gods) rules then you have to transfer their morality decisions back to yourself or another if you still have no outside source. I've found that nobody living is perfect and many are rather illogical that end up in power over us (gods in some ways).
I believe God has given us rules, but he allows us a choice to obey his rules or obey someone else's rules (including themselves). Now you can decide where rules of right and wrong come from and how to sift through all the gods (including yourself) to decide who is god, to choose there isn't a god for you, makes you essentially your own god.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, I just don't have that kind of faith, then.... to believe all that just happened by blind luck with no first cause? Nope, the cause would have to show itself to me for me to believe that. And it hasn't. So I will continue to believe the cause is an all powerful being beyond comprehension.

No faith is involved. If there is a God, and she is a truthful one, then the development of the universe is written in its nature. The outline I provided in my previous post is where that written evidence leads. While other possibilities can be considered they lack that evidential support.
Faith is only relevant when evidence is absent or ambiguous. I understand the value that some attach to faith. I view it as, at best, irrelevant and at best, dangerous.
I am sure you have heard the arguments pointing out the illogic of favouring an uncaused, conscious entity initiating the First Cause over uncaused, First Cause, yet are unconvinced by them.

 

[Ophiolite]

In reality there is no such thing as a godless universe as even atheists agree man has made up gods for many reasons I also believe when a man who doesn't believe in a god, makes themselves one in reality.
This causes a conundrum in that either you have an outside god that isn't a living person that you ascribe rules for right and wrong to and agree in making that person in that respect "rule" over you or you have to pick others to be "gods" in ways either minor like elected officials or major like dictators and kings and emperors. When you start to reject other men's (gods) rules then you have to transfer their morality decisions back to yourself or another if you still have no outside source. I've found that nobody living is perfect and many are rather illogical that end up in power over us (gods in some ways).
I believe God has given us rules, but he allows us a choice to obey his rules or obey someone else's rules (including themselves). Now you can decide where rules of right and wrong come from and how to sift through all the gods (including yourself) to decide who is god, to choose there isn't a god for you, makes you essentially your own god.

Your argument is predicated upon the belief that there must be a God, or gods. There are two problems with that:
1. You need to demonstrate that there must be a God, or gods.
2. You are equivocating two or more of the meanings of god/God/gods/etc..

 

[HitchSlap]

1. Everything we've previously attributed to god/s was eventually explained with science.
2. We can watch religions develop in real time.
3. The god of the bible is contradictory.
4. When I took a deep dive into my own faith as a Christian, I realized it was just as contrived and man-made as any other religion.

 

[Strathos]

You suspect there are some. I suspect there are none. I highly doubt that there is anyone alive for whom it is impossible for them to be swayed into believing that there is at least some sort of god. Particularly if such a being has omnipotent-like powers at his disposal. The vast majority of atheists would not even claim such immunity to any sort of persuasion.

I have seen people make that claim.

Why would conversion to Christianity be any sort of indicator? Even more Christians become atheists. So by that logic . . .

It is best to present evidence and find out if it is valid or not.

I think you're confused.

My statement was that not all atheists are immune to any sort of evidence, because there are some who have converted.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Your argument is predicated upon the belief that there must be a God, or gods. There are two problems with that:
1. You need to demonstrate that there must be a God, or gods.
2. You are equivocating two or more of the meanings of god/God/gods/etc..

Not really. My argument is about right vs wrong and the source of it. I equate the in todays society often
the source of rules about such things are from gods existing truly or not is not an issue the rules that deal
with right and wrong that keep societies from falling apart are there. We have to have rules for right and wrong
otherwise anything goes and that won't work long. If the rules that are attributed originally from gods aren't
used then man must make them and not say a god made them but themselves thus replacing god with him
making himself a god in that respect. Not the same as a god in entirety but in that sense yes.

 

[Paulos23]

Not really. My argument is about right vs wrong and the source of it. I equate the in todays society often
the source of rules about such things are from gods existing truly or not is not an issue the rules that deal
with right and wrong that keep societies from falling apart are there. We have to have rules for right and wrong
otherwise anything goes and that won't work long. If the rules that are attributed originally from gods aren't
used then man must make them and not say a god made them but themselves thus replacing god with him
making himself a god in that respect. Not the same as a god in entirety but in that sense yes.

Now you are stretching it. We have rules for right and wrong based on trial and error over the length of human history. In many cases, we have moved past what is taught in the Bible and found a better way.

What is keeping us from falling apart is the values and institutions in the society. Churches and religions can be part of that, but I would not for one minute mistake that for divine intervention.

You are devaluing our human achievements by attributing them to your God.

 

[renniks]

Faith is only relevant when evidence is absent or ambiguous.

Well, there you go. I find the evidence for Darwinism sorely lacking.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

Still doesn't answer anything. A planet perfectly suitable for human habitation just happened? And people just happened to spring from the ooze over a few billions of years? No, I see planning and order and design everywhere I look in nature.
A beaver doesn't just happen to develop the skills of an engineer. An otter doesn't just happen to be built like a torpedo with a rudder...

There're only a few places on the planet you can actually survive, the rest is ocean, desert or arctic wasteland. You're looking at the world from the perspective of water in a puddle, saying "look how convenient this hole is, it fits me perfectly!" when it is in fact you that fit the hole's shape.

You mention the beaver and the otter as being so specialised - why not the other 99% of life that has gone extinct because it wasn't specialised enough?