The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

[muichimotsu]

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.

And you're basically assuming the bible is more accurate without actually supporting that claim, begging the question. How is the bible any better at assessing this God if it's supposedly beyond our comprehension? Come on, this is basic stuff a teenager would ask

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.

You can't actually demonstrate any of that, it's rooted in your belief that the events 1) happened and 2) had this god involved, neither of which can be either verified or even considered important enough to investigate without good reason to consider such an agency as being part of the world at all

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

That fails to matter because belief in God in terms of Christianity, Jdudaism and Islam, among others, are demonstrably and by the basic definition in academia, religions, so the distinction is splitting hairs at best

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

Because God created us knowing this would happen, even assuming a generous notion of foreknowledge and the like that's compatible with freedom of will

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.

It still renders the notion pointless in terms of making any real claims of value, because it boils down to relativism, every approach is equally valid because we cannot be certain in regards to actually determining whether it is anything in particular, only that people supposedly could experience it

 

[muichimotsu]

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



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

Christians having doubt in the sense of just questioning, but ultimately wanting to return back to their authority is not really genuine doubt because it selectively applies what skepticism should be used on, and it isn't on God, but interpretations or other things less fundamental than, "Does God make sense?" or ,"Do you need God to be a good person or have rational moral foundations?" among other questions that lead to apostasy in the sense of nonbelief, not merely doubt that then converts you to a different authority source rather than questioning that authority's strength or justification in the first place

What I'm saying is that the idea of skepticism in religion is usually pared down to a point that suggests, "Sure you can question, but don't just give up on believing, don't abandon faith," assuming that it's virtuous without much substantive argument. If the challenge is on points that don't matter ultimately, like sprinkling or immersion for baptism or whether Jesus' body was purely spiritual or physical after his resurrection, rather than the substitutionary atonement or similar soteriological aspects in contrast to, say, universal reconciliation, then it's just wasting time on something you've already assumed is true in a fundamental sense and never genuinely questioning the fundamentals themselves

 

[BigV]

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.

But if there is a God, then he would, presumably, be able to perform a miracle that could not have been staged? One suggestion is to grow limbs for Nick Vijicic

https://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/

If Nick grows his arms and legs, then I would believe in a supernatural. As science is not yet at a stage to help someone like Nick grow their limbs.

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.

But why would God play in a realm of mental illness? People who are mentally ill hear voices in their head. Therefore, it's natural to assume that if one hears voices, they should be checked for mental illness. Can God communicate by other means that are more direct and less prone to error and/or misunderstanding?

Furthermore, the Bible is recordings of events as they happened...not a carefully crafted handbook.

The Bible is assumed to be a recording of history, but it's very likely exaggerated.

2 Chronicles 1:15 The king made silver and gold as common in Jerusalem as stones, and cedar as plentiful as sycamore-fig trees in the foothills.

The text claims that king Solomon made silver and gold very common in Jerusalem! If this were true, then ancient Israel would have left an archeological footprint far larger than what is found today of ancient Egypt and ancient Rome!

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?

But the Bible makes a point that Bob (or Moses) spoke directly for God and anyone challenging Bob's authority would be swiftly punished by said God.

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 think that "power" of the universe is nothing more than human survival mechanism. We have evolved to see and hear things that are not there. Imagine you are on a prairie at night, and you think you hear a tussle or some strange sound. If you ignore it, you could be killed as that sound could be a large animal looking for their next meal. So, people who ignored these things had a much higher probability of being killed. On the other hand, people who saw tigers/wolves/bears at every turn, even when none were actually present, have had a much higher probability of survival, even while being wrong most of the time.

Therefore, seeing things that were not there have proven useful and, in my view, is a large component of religious belief. Couple that with the belief of an ETERNAL Hell for disobedience of this God, and an atheist becomes nuts for not believing! Eternal Hell is much worse than a bear or a wolf and, in my view, remains a large component for why people believe in God(s).

 

[Resha Caner]

What I'm saying is that the idea of skepticism in religion is usually pared down to a point that suggests, "Sure you can question, but don't just give up on believing, don't abandon faith," assuming that it's virtuous without much substantive argument.

You can say whatever you want. It's still wrong. It is not at all how you describe.

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

Nope, that isn't a good definition. In some cases they are models hung from strings, CGI, hallucinations, reflections on the lenses of cameras, ground lights refracting through the atmosphere, temperature inversions affecting radar, etc.

When Blue Book was closed they concluded that there was no evidence of a national security threat and no likelihood of gaining scientific knowledge by further study of UFOs. Similarly we might want to ask if there is any evidence that these reported religious phenomena are worth the bother of consideration.

 

[46AND2]

Nope, that isn't a good definition. In some cases they are models hung from strings, CGI, hallucinations, reflections on the lenses of cameras, ground lights refracting through the atmosphere, temperature inversions affecting radar, etc.

1. Those are all identified flying objects. Perhaps they were once UFOs but no longer.
2. A better definition in the vein most people think of when discussing UFOs is probably "extraterrestrial spacecraft."

Apart from that, if it is unidentified, how COULD you define it more accurately? It's kind of hindered by the "U."

 

[cloudyday2]

1. Those are all identified flying objects. Perhaps they were once UFOs but no longer.
2. A better definition in the vein most people think of when discussing UFOs is probably "extraterrestrial spacecraft."

Apart from that, if it is unidentified, how COULD you define it more accurately? It's kind of hindered by the "U."

That's kind of how I see these questions about God. We say "God" without clarifying what we mean, and that makes a big difference in how we decide if we believe or disbelieve. Some of the philosopher-types in this sub-forum seem to imagine God who does little besides filling some gap in a philosophy that they think must certainly be filled by something. On the other end of the spectrum are Christian fundamentalists. Then there are people like me who are interested and open to weird ideas like ghosts and angels and a God but not certain about anything. Then there are metaphysical naturalists too.

The question of whether there is a God is trickier than those questions suggest because everybody has different definitions. We might be living in the matrix and that would confuse matters too (for example).

A UFO example that comes to mind is the use of statistics on UFO reports. If we are going to use statistics then we ought to know what we are measuring. UFO reports are of all kinds - crop circles, hoaxes, mentally ill people, skyhook balloons, the planet venus. Using statistics on a data set that includes so many different types of things seems worthless to me.

 

[46AND2]

That's kind of how I see these questions about God. We say "God" without clarifying what we mean, and that makes a big difference in how we decide if we believe or disbelieve. Some of the philosopher types in this sub-forum seem to imagine God who does little besides filling some gap in a philosophy that they think must certainly be filled by something. On the other end of the spectrum are Christian fundamentalists. Then there are people like me who are interested and open to weird ideas like ghosts and angels and a God but not certain about anything. Then there are metaphysical naturalists too.

The question of whether there is a God is trickier than those questions suggest because everybody has their own ideas on the definitions. We might be living in the matrix and that would confuse matters too (for example).

I've found that if a god is defined too robustly, it becomes obvious he doesn't exist.

 

[NBB]

With that attitude in the OP, you are trying more to fight christians than actually be a little interested in knowing if God is true or not.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

With that attitude in the OP, you are trying more to fight christians than actually be a little interested in knowing if God is true or not.

No, I dispute that.
You have no idea what my attitude is, and I object to your implication that I am acting in poor faith.
I do not believe that a God exists, but I have a wholehearted commitment to knowing the truth, and I'll thank you not to impugne my motives.
Please try to engage with the content of the OP rather than attacking the character of the poster.

 

[46AND2]

No, I dispute that.
You have no idea what my attitude is, and I object to your implication that I am acting in poor faith.
I do not believe that a God exists, but I have a wholehearted commitment to knowing the truth, and I'll thank you not to impugne my motives.
Please try to engage with the content of the OP rather than attacking the character of the poster.

Don't you know? They already know how we think. We actually believe in god, we just deny it. Then, we persecute them to justify our lust for sin; our desire to partake in copious amounts of sex and alcohol. And no matter how much we object, we're just being deceived by a pseudo-god, satan himself.

Couldn't possibly be that we genuinely search for truth, cause their holy book would be wrong if god didn't then provide it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Don't you know? They already know how we think. We actually believe in god, we just deny it. Then, we persecute them to justify our lust for sin; our desire to partake in copious amounts of sex and alcohol. And no matter how much we object, we're just being deceived by a pseudo-god, satan himself.

Couldn't possibly be that we genuinely search for truth, cause their holy book would be wrong if god didn't then provide it.

Some Christians actually do think like that, of course. We know God exists, but we just refuse to believe in Him. If that sounds a ridiculous thing to think, well, it is.

 

[46AND2]

Some Christians actually do think like that, of course. We know God exists, but we just refuse to believe in Him. If that sounds a ridiculous thing to think, well, it is.

Nay...MOST Christians think this.They are after all, indirectly, commanded to do so.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

No, no, no. All wrong. The theist's guide to converting the atheist is simple:

Indoctrinate your atheist infant from the moment he or she learns to speak. Your baby won't stand a chance!

Atheists would never do this to their children, but Christians will. So take the advantage that is being handed to you and brainwash your children. Remember to instill the fear of hellfire deep into their psyche. Under no circumstances should you offer exit counseling to fix the psychological damage that you carelessly wrought should your child decide to exercise free will and become a skeptic.

Now, what about censorship? How much information should you hide from your child? You can't hide them from the world forever. You have to get ahead of the facts fake news. Once your child is properly brainwashed, you can gradually reveal secularism to your child but in a sarcastic, straw-man version, so that they will never take it seriously even if they are actually exposed to it later on.

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

 

[NBB]

To find God i say you need to show a little more interest than that.
If its the truth is not indoctrination.
But we christians are 'brainwashed' supposedly.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Wowie, came back here to check @muichimotsu 's reply to my post and...yikes, this turned into a dumpster fire real fast. Usually, it's me and Muichi getting into it(thanks to my loud mouth normally)but this time it appears as though we're not the ones derailing the thread.

I'm going to just unwatch this thread for now--sorry to those I didn't get to reply to, but I'm sensing this scene is going to take a turn for the worse real soon and I'd rather not be present for that.

 

[muichimotsu]

You can say whatever you want. It's still wrong. It is not at all how you describe.

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.

 

[muichimotsu]

I've found that if a god is defined too robustly, it becomes obvious he doesn't exist.

Death by 1000 qualifications, which I remember first reading that essay in Philosophy of Religion, which would've been 2006~ (?) I believe I have the collection of essays that appears in in my library too, God Freedom and Immortality by Antony Flew

 

[muichimotsu]

To find God i say you need to show a little more interest than that.
If its the truth is not indoctrination.
But we christians are 'brainwashed' supposedly.

The truth should not be indoctrinated, you don't seem to understand what the word entails, which is not thinking critically on what you believe. It's the same problem with fallacies: even if the conclusion you reach is correct, if you're using faulty reasoning, that conclusion is not justifiable to others, only to those who are convinced by rhetoric that would be using pathos and ethos rather than logos

 

[InterestedAtheist]

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

Then Christianity has no prophecies to offer as proof.

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.

Not really. I can think of plenty of examples of miracles God could perform that would be compelling evidence. There's plenty of them in the Bible, but that's rather the point: we don't encounter them in real life.

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.

No, the point - which was made in the article - was not that many people have seen a miracle, but that many people have seen a miracle all at the same time - reliable witnesses, too.
Again, this happens all the time in the bible, but not in real life.

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.

Even if God didn't put pen to paper Himself, He still inspired the Bible and often played an important role in its events. We would expect the holy book of a real religion to be compelling evidence for its god's existence, and the Bible isn't.

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.

But can't agree on what God said or meant. As witness the dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of different Christian denominations, many of them bitterly disagreeing with each other. If God were real and talking to all of them, they wouldn't be saying that God is telling them mutually exclusive things.

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.

Ah, but at least the child knows what you want it to do. Whereas Christians, frankly, have no idea what God wants us to do.

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.

God is described as being just, merciful and loving. And as slaughtering millions of people.

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.

The same problem applies. Different religions are mutually exclusive. If they all claim contact with the divine, they cannot all be right - but that can all be wrong.