The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

[InterestedAtheist]

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

There are a lot of assumptions in that list regarding what a theist might claim. But I do appreciate you listing your expectations.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Not going to address every single point, but just thought I'd give some food for thought on a few of these;

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

Even if there were true prophecies fulfilled, we still struggle to figure out when certain parts of the bible were written...let alone the exact timeline of events as they happened in true history. There's not a great deal of knowledge available from that time, especially given Judaism was originally passed down orally and not via any historical writings.

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.

If this happened, people would immediately assume it was staged somehow or achieved by other means. Perhaps, at times, a bias leads us to being too skeptical for our own good.

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

If you heard a voice in your head telling you to believe in God, there's a very high chance you would check yourself into the local hospital for fear of auditory hallucinations.

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

To be fair, I don't think even the Bible claims scripture to be perfect. Valuable and profitable for teaching? Yes. God-breathed and divinely ordained? Absolutely. Perfect? Well...it depends on what you mean by perfect. If perfect means no contradictions, I'm not sold. God can change his mind about things--He seems to have done that quite a few times, honestly. Furthermore, the Bible is recordings of events as they happened...not a carefully crafted handbook.

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.

I think free-will is very important to God. Due to this, we've been given the choice to make terrible mistakes as we wish--not to say we're saved from the consequences. One could argue allowing disputes could work in God's favor, as it weeds out the loyal followers from those who only wish to use religion for control.

Which, you know...that's another thing. The Bible has been translated many, many times from an essentially dead language. I'm sure there was once a more divine, clear-cut version of the bible at one or more points in history, I'm just not going to state I'm 100% sure we currently have that version.

Lastly, obviously there are people out there who will argue/lie over the most obvious facts. Take a look at a lot of mainstream creationists who try to talk about science, for example...

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.

God makes two things extremely clear; A) Men are sinful as heck, and B) His commandments.

Considering my previous point on free-will and it being a necessity to humans, I'd say that the judging factor should be what God said; not what people did. If I, for example, commit mass genocide in the name of some guy named Bob after I took a joke he made about 'pressing the reset button on humanity' a little too seriously...who's a fault, myself or Bob?

Religion and belief in God are very different.

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

Once again, history does not offer enough to make conclusive arguments here. On the note of recent events(within the past 2,000+ years or so, for example)we can surely say God is taking a break from helping his children win pointless wars they started with each other.

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?

Playing devil's advocate for a moment; from a logical standpoint, if many people have convincing experiences of faith despite being in totally different religions, my first assumption would be something like this...

Let's say there is indeed some unnamed, higher power or force in the universe. It is nothing that can be explained, but we've given it certain attributes--ones that all give it at least a few commonalities. Because it is out of our scope of understanding, it is interpreted through the lens of whatever belief is held by the person experiencing it. The entity is real, but the label/certain attributes given to it might not be.

 

[public hermit]

A Theist's Guide to Debating Atheists Who Have Been on CF 10+ Years, but Couldn't Care Less About Being Converted

Don't

 

[Resha Caner]

Not going to address every single point, but just thought I'd give some food for thought on a few of these;




Even if there were true prophecies fulfilled, we still struggle to figure out when certain parts of the bible were written...let alone the exact timeline of events as they happened in true history. There's not a great deal of knowledge available from that time, especially given Judaism was originally passed down orally and not via any historical writings.



If this happened, people would immediately assume it was staged somehow or achieved by other means. Perhaps, at times, a bias leads us to being too skeptical for our own good.



If you heard a voice in your head telling you to believe in God, there's a very high chance you would check yourself into the local hospital for fear of auditory hallucinations.



To be fair, I don't think even the Bible claims scripture to be perfect. Valuable and profitable for teaching? Yes. God-breathed and divinely ordained? Absolutely. Perfect? Well...it depends on what you mean by perfect. If perfect means no contradictions, I'm not sold. God can change his mind about things--He seems to have done that quite a few times, honestly. Furthermore, the Bible is recordings of events as they happened...not a carefully crafted handbook.



I think free-will is very important to God. Due to this, we've been given the choice to make terrible mistakes as we wish--not to say we're saved from the consequences. One could argue allowing disputes could work in God's favor, as it weeds out the loyal followers from those who only wish to use religion for control.

Which, you know...that's another thing. The Bible has been translated many, many times from an essentially dead language. I'm sure there was once a more divine, clear-cut version of the bible at one or more points in history, I'm just not going to state I'm 100% sure we currently have that version.

Lastly, obviously there are people out there who will argue/lie over the most obvious facts. Take a look at a lot of mainstream creationists who try to talk about science, for example...



God makes two things extremely clear; A) Men are sinful as heck, and B) His commandments.

Considering my previous point on free-will and it being a necessity to humans, I'd say that the judging factor should be what God said; not what people did. If I, for example, commit mass genocide in the name of some guy named Bob after I took a joke he made about 'pressing the reset button on humanity' a little too seriously...who's a fault, myself or Bob?

Religion and belief in God are very different.



Once again, history does not offer enough to make conclusive arguments here. On the note of recent events(within the past 2,000+ years or so, for example)we can surely say God is taking a break from helping his children win pointless wars they started with each other.



Playing devil's advocate for a moment; from a logical standpoint, if many people have convincing experiences of faith despite being in totally different religions, my first assumption would be something like this...

Let's say there is indeed some unnamed, higher power or force in the universe. It is nothing that can be explained, but we've given it certain attributes--ones that all give it at least a few commonalities. Because it is out of our scope of understanding, it is interpreted through the lens of whatever belief is held by the person experiencing it. The entity is real, but the label/certain attributes given to it might not be.

I wouldn't agree with all of this word for word, but it touches on many of the issues involved here. Often times the approach seems to be an oversimplification that demands discarding all the complexities of life when such demand is not made of any other topic.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

1 Peter 3:15

 

[Resha Caner]

1 Peter 3:15

And? Are you saying that verse binds me to meet your conditions? Or do I simply need to state my reasons?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And? Are you saying that verse binds me to meet your conditions? Or do I simply need to state my reasons?

Hey, it's Peter telling you what to do, not me.
Having said that, it does seem reasonable. If you believe in Christianity, presumably you have good reasons for doing so, and I am inviting you to share them.
If you don't have good reasons for believing in Christianity, perhaps you should re-evaluate your belief.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Hey, it's Peter telling you what to do, not me.
Having said that, it does seem reasonable. If you believe in Christianity, presumably you have good reasons for doing so, and I am inviting you to share them.
If you don't have good reasons for believing in Christianity, perhaps you should re-evaluate your belief.

To be fair, who dictates what is/isn't a good reason for believing? Seems too subjective to be anything imposed on others.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hey, it's Peter telling you what to do, not me.
Having said that, it does seem reasonable. If you believe in Christianity, presumably you have good reasons for doing so, and I am inviting you to share them.
If you don't have good reasons for believing in Christianity, perhaps you should re-evaluate your belief.

To be fair, who dictates what is/isn't a good reason for believing? Seems too subjective to be anything imposed on others.

This. Of course my reasons seem reasonable to me. Why even raise such a point? You knew what you were doing when you shared the list. Don't pretend differently.

 

[muichimotsu]

Religion and belief in God are very different.

Really, this just sounds like you're trying to make your particular belief in God different from someone else's belief in God, the religion versus relationship dichotomy that might as well just say you're spiritual rather than religious, but not actually lump yourself in with those people, but not with the Christians you consider legalists or such.

Belief in God is part of religion in the general definition, it's not identical with it, because a religion can and does in many parts of the world, exist without a belief in a monotheistic God, or even really gods at all in the sense of worship

Once again, history does not offer enough to make conclusive arguments here. On the note of recent events(within the past 2,000+ years or so, for example)we can surely say God is taking a break from helping his children win pointless wars they started with each other.

Just occurs to me...didn't God basically have the Israelites start wars once they entered the Promised Land? Basically told Joshua and such to slaughter various people (or Gideon or others that came after, as I roughly recall)

Let's say there is indeed some unnamed, higher power or force in the universe. It is nothing that can be explained, but we've given it certain attributes--ones that all give it at least a few commonalities. Because it is out of our scope of understanding, it is interpreted through the lens of whatever belief is held by the person experiencing it. The entity is real, but the label/certain attributes given to it might not be.

You've basically just rendered the idea of the blind men touching an elephant as the explanation for what would essentially be religious pluralism or relativism in that all those interpretations are equally valid. Might also be called Perennialism or some variant of syncretism

 

[muichimotsu]

To be fair, who dictates what is/isn't a good reason for believing? Seems too subjective to be anything imposed on others.

Subjective in the sense of relative and subjective in the sense that we all start investigation of things as individuals in the basic sense aren't the same thing

And that seems like a loaded question to suggest it has to be a person or authority of that nature who determines such things rather than a reasonable and rational consensus of what has worked with the admission of intellectual humility to correct the standards with considerations in the future.

Are we really not going to admit that belief based on your sentiment is insufficient to convince others to believe, but is also insufficient to have a stable belief, because our feelings, as Obi Wan told Anakin, can betray us?

 

[muichimotsu]

I wouldn't agree with all of this word for word, but it touches on many of the issues involved here. Often times the approach seems to be an oversimplification that demands discarding all the complexities of life when such demand is not made of any other topic.

Except that'd be the opposite of what is done in science and even philosophy apart from supernatural claims that then go into certainty of a religious/spiritual/mystical nature. Science demands challenge to it in order to better refine the theory, the models, the methodology, etc and philosophy is similar, even if it's not peer reviewed in that same respect, but does demand that there is a dialogue

But religion/spirituality doesn't tend to do that at all, people tend to just be satisfied with the certainty of the answer they have that gives them an absolute conclusion. It can vary, but it seems far rarer for someone to subject their spiritual worldview to criticism that they would agree is beneficial in every other context (science, medicine, politics, etc)

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Hello, theoneandonlypencil. Thank you for your reply!

Even if there were true prophecies fulfilled, we still struggle to figure out when certain parts of the bible were written...let alone the exact timeline of events as they happened in true history. There's not a great deal of knowledge available from that time, especially given Judaism was originally passed down orally and not via any historical writings.

You're quite right. But the thing is, if God were real, it would be reasonable to expect there to be prophecies.

If this happened, people would immediately assume it was staged somehow or achieved by other means. Perhaps, at times, a bias leads us to being too skeptical for our own good.

Would they? I wouldn't. Perhaps the skeptical bias comes from the fact that whenever a miracle claim can be investigated, it turns out to be groundless.

If you heard a voice in your head telling you to believe in God, there's a very high chance you would check yourself into the local hospital for fear of auditory hallucinations.

If you check the article, you'll see the author takes that into account. A good start would be plenty of witnesses in a sound frame of mind.

To be fair, I don't think even the Bible claims scripture to be perfect. Valuable and profitable for teaching? Yes. God-breathed and divinely ordained? Absolutely. Perfect? Well...it depends on what you mean by perfect.

Well, first of all there are plenty of Christians who do claim the Bible is perfect. Second, if God were real, even taking into account human nature, one would expect the Bible to look like a book written by a perfect being. Each page should ring with clarity, wisdom and goodness. I understand that some Christians might claim that this is what they experience, but I think as an objective fact, the Bible looks like a man-made book of religious stories and little more.

I think free-will is very important to God. Due to this, we've been given the choice to make terrible mistakes as we wish--not to say we're saved from the consequences. One could argue allowing disputes could work in God's favor, as it weeds out the loyal followers from those who only wish to use religion for control.

Apparently disputes to weed out the unfaithful isn't working very well. And again, even taking human nature into account, one would expect that the one true religion would be considerably more unified than it is.

God makes two things extremely clear; A) Men are sinful as heck, and B) His commandments.

Are God's commandments clear? If so, why do so many people have trouble agreeing what God wants?

Considering my previous point on free-will and it being a necessity to humans, I'd say that the judging factor should be what God said; not what people did.

I'd say that the deciding factor should be what God did, not what He said. The Bible is very clear about God slaughtering people and commanding slaughter.

Once again, history does not offer enough to make conclusive arguments here. On the note of recent events(within the past 2,000+ years or so, for example)we can surely say God is taking a break from helping his children win pointless wars they started with each other.

There are two types of holy wars we can see in the Christian religion. The first are Bible stories in which God helps His chosen people clearly and remarkably. The second type is actual wars in real history, in which God does not seem to take part.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment; from a logical standpoint, if many people have convincing experiences of faith despite being in totally different religions, my first assumption would be something like this...

Actually, I don't think you're playing devil's advocate here. Surely that's me?

Let's say there is indeed some unnamed, higher power or force in the universe. It is nothing that can be explained, but we've given it certain attributes--ones that all give it at least a few commonalities. Because it is out of our scope of understanding, it is interpreted through the lens of whatever belief is held by the person experiencing it. The entity is real, but the label/certain attributes given to it might not be.

So God is communicating with all of these people of different faiths - and deceiving them? Because if He is able to communicate with them in any way whatosoever, you'd think He would at least nudge them towards the One True Religion. If people from all faiths communicate with the Christian God and leave the conversation convinced they spoke to the God of their own faith, then basically, God is deceiving them.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Really, this just sounds like you're trying to make your particular belief in God different from someone else's belief in God, the religion versus relationship dichotomy that might as well just say you're spiritual rather than religious, but not actually lump yourself in with those people, but not with the Christians you consider legalists or such.

The distinction I was making was between belief in God and organized religion. I consider the latter to be a lot more manufactured/man-made than biblically accurate, hence why a lot of contradictory/'atrocious' actions are committed in the name of God.


But yes, people having different interpretations is also part of it. Though it doesn't change what was said by God and what was actually done.

Belief in God is part of religion in the general definition, it's not identical with it, because a religion can and does in many parts of the world, exist without a belief in a monotheistic God, or even really gods at all in the sense of worship

That's also part of my reasoning for the distinction between belief in God(in this case, the Abrahamic God) from religion in general.

Just occurs to me...didn't God basically have the Israelites start wars once they entered the Promised Land? Basically told Joshua and such to slaughter various people (or Gideon or others that came after, as I roughly recall)

Yes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of beans.

You've basically just rendered the idea of the blind men touching an elephant as the explanation for what would essentially be religious pluralism or relativism in that all those interpretations are equally valid. Might also be called Perennialism or some variant of syncretism

To be fair, it was meant as a hypothetical example that wasn't meant to be in the context of Christianity or any particular faith--just to illustrate a 'what if' on some kind of higher power or unseen force.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

You're quite right. But the thing is, if God were real, it would be reasonable to expect there to be prophecies.

I know, and I'm saying that it's entirely possible that such events are so old that we've lost record of them.

Would they? I wouldn't. Perhaps the skeptical bias comes from the fact that whenever a miracle claim can be investigated, it turns out to be groundless.

Depends on what is considered groundless, as that loops into my point of whatever is seen as a 'miracle' tends to be discredited as having been achieved in some way other than what was claimed.

If you check the article, you'll see the author takes that into account. A good start would be plenty of witnesses in a sound frame of mind.

This loops back into my previous point, with the added example that multiple people have sworn to have seen things such as aliens, cryptids, etc as well.

Well, first of all there are plenty of Christians who do claim the Bible is perfect. Second, if God were real, even taking into account human nature, one would expect the Bible to look like a book written by a perfect being. Each page should ring with clarity, wisdom and goodness. I understand that some Christians might claim that this is what they experience, but I think as an objective fact, the Bible looks like a man-made book of religious stories and little more.

Not really, no. As I said, the bible is a recording of events, dialogue, etc--it doesn't look like it was written by a perfect being, because it wasn't. Sure, the material is coming from an all-knowing God, but fallible humans are the ones actually putting it down on paper.

Apparently disputes to weed out the unfaithful isn't working very well. And again, even taking human nature into account, one would expect that the one true religion would be considerably more unified than it is.

On one note, we all disagree at times over what's considered basic doctrine. On another note, we are all indeed unified because we believe in and praise the same God, and Jesus Christ.

Are God's commandments clear? If so, why do so many people have trouble agreeing what God wants?

For the same reason why if you tell a child 'don't even step in that room', they'll surely find a way into that room without letting their feet touch the floor.

I'd say that the deciding factor should be what God did, not what He said. The Bible is very clear about God slaughtering people and commanding slaughter.

If we're going down that route, I'm going to be clear-cut and say that just because God doesn't fit our notions of 'loving' all of the time, doesn't make it so. More often than not, there was a lot more context behind the extreme measures taken by God; furthermore, he's also described as being just. A just God will not let any bad deed go unpunished, especially at the expense at his preserving the goodness of his children.

There are two types of holy wars we can see in the Christian religion. The first are Bible stories in which God helps His chosen people clearly and remarkably. The second type is actual wars in real history, in which God does not seem to take part.

Pretty much in agreement here.

Actually, I don't think you're playing devil's advocate here. Surely that's me?

That was a disclaimer because the following point I made was not meant to be in a Christian context; IE it has no religious affiliation.

So God is communicating with all of these people of different faiths - and deceiving them? Because if He is able to communicate with them in any way whatosoever, you'd think He would at least nudge them towards the One True Religion. If people from all faiths communicate with the Christian God and leave the conversation convinced they spoke to the God of their own faith, then basically, God is deceiving them.

Perhaps I didn't communicate well enough; I was talking outside of the context of Christianity, for a moment. Although inside of biblical context, supposedly demons do exist and possess the ability to do many wonders so...the analogy still holds useful there, if only replacing a vague higher power with 'demons'. In that case, it would be other spirits at work--not God.

 

[46AND2]

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.

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.

 

[cloudyday2]

@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.

 

[46AND2]

@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.

We do have a good definition of a UFO. They are objects. That fly. And aren't identified.

And they certainly exist. I saw one the other day that was some kind of bug, but, as I am not an entomologist, I couldn't identify what kind.

Oh, not what you meant, sorry.

 

[Resha Caner]

Except that'd be the opposite of what is done in science

Yep. Christianity and science are different. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

It can vary, but it seems far rarer for someone to subject their spiritual worldview to criticism that they would agree is beneficial in every other context (science, medicine, politics, etc)

But to assume this difference means Christians don't have doubts, ask difficult questions, and challenge each other is simply wrong.