Jack the Bodiless

Yes, that's what I was getting at.

It reminds me of an exchange I had with a young-Earth creationist who mentioned the alleged "artifacts embedded in coal". After telling him that I thought they were fakes, I said that IF they were genuine, they could be evidence of intelligent dinosaurs, visiting aliens, or time travellers. He seemed amazed that anyone would consider these science-fiction possibilities as more plausible than the Earth being created from nothing by a magical being a few thousand years ago.

Some people have very different views on what is "preposterous" and what is not.

joedad

Perhaps something can be gained by asking the theist to tell atheists what it would take, in their reasoning, to convince us of a belief in divinity. Seems reasonable and simple enough.

After all, it is the theists and supernaturalists who make the assertion, are convinced of its veracity, and therefore ought to have the very answer they ask of us! So, what's the answer?

Also, in asking what it would take to make me a believer, the question seems too vague. For example, a theist should ask me, "What would it take, joe, to convince you that I can fly unaided to the moon and back?" Obviously the best answer I could give to such a question would be your doing precisely that, with the supernatural nature (confused) of this event still remaining a separate point of discussion.

Speaking for myself, I practiced belief in theism because I was taught to practice belief in theism. It didn't take anything specific to make me accept that teaching. There was no single event.

Also, perhaps in any response to my question, we atheists might be told precisely what, if anything, it DID take to cement belief in the divine. As already stated, there was no singular event that caused me to be a believer and there was no singular event that caused my atheism, unless one considers "being taught" as an event. And of course, I was never "taught" to be an atheist. So, maybe the whole question being put forth by Andrew_theist is just a ruse.

I look forward to hearing responses from theists on this question.

joe

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

phlebas

Have any of our resident theists told us what it would take for them to become atheists?

HelenM

What an excellent question!

Well, I try to do what God tells me to do.

Therefore, if God tells me to become an atheist, I'll try my best.

I haven't heard anything to that effect yet, though.

So I guess theist it is, until I hear otherwise...

love
Helen

Theli

Just out of curiosity... How does god speak to you? What does he "sound" like?
How would you know it is god?

Seems abit strange to me.

ecco

Helen,

Perhaps you should try rewording the question: God, should I continue to believe in you?

If he doesn’t answer in the affirmative…

A man once asked a minister how much of the collection plate he gives to god and how much he keeps for himself. The minister answered, I take all the money and throw it up to god, he takes what he wants and the money that drops back to the ground is mine.

HelenM

phlebas

*snort*

Well, that's probably the most honest answer we'd get. Probably makes the most sense too

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

At this point there are far too many posts to come close to responding to all of them. So I will share some thoughts and reflections. The upshot of this post is that if someone is sold out on one point of view its possible that no amount of evidence to the contrary may persuade them otherwise. This is a strong rebuttal to many who claim there atheism is due only to a lack of evidence. Contrary to popular opinion I don’t believe in most cases atheism is ONLY a lack of belief. The only case I can think where that is true is in the case of an infant who can’t evaluate the claims of theism or atheism. In reasoning adults it is not a lack of belief only; it is a counter belief. Atheism IMO is not held in a vacuum. It thrives on the idea that some form of naturalism or materialism is true. Therefore it is a competing worldview and not just a belief rejection system.

Science has been so extraordinarilly effective in eroding the domain of god as to fully warrant the presumption against theism. And it is precisely the insistence on natural causes that drives science to repeatedly search for and find those causes. The bottom line is: when in doubt, doubt, don't pray.

This is a good point. There is some justification for believing in naturalism. Still one has to bear in mind that science is only willing to accept and look for natural explanations or reasons for anything. So even if the answer to a problem such as biogenesis were intelligent design, science is not going to find it. Because it rejects the very idea of looking in that direction. Science is guided by a philosophy of naturalism that is unproven.

Naturalism (philosophy), in philosophy, a movement affirming that nature is the whole of reality and can be understood only through scientific investigation. Denying the existence of the supernatural and deemphasizing metaphysics, or the study of the ultimate nature of reality, naturalism affirms that cause-and-effect relationships, as in physics and chemistry, are sufficient to account for all phenomena. Teleological conceptions, which suggest design and metaphysical necessity in nature, while not necessarily invalid, are excluded from consideration.

There is nothing wrong with adopting this philosophy. There is much that can be brought to the table that tends to confirm this belief. Most theists have adopted a slightly different philosophy. They don’t deny the existence of a material world or the laws of naturalism however they don’t deny the possibility of metaphysical or teleological considerations as a potential explanation or ultimate cause. Most theists believe the universe is a result of planning and design and not some fortuitous accident. That a creator put the laws we observe in motion and these laws are sufficient to run on there own without continued intervention. However such an agency for the sake of a sign can intervene and alter the laws temporarily.

If a person wishes to review the claims of theism and claim to be an objective freethinker they should not exclude the possibility of the supernatural as if it were already proven such were impossible to exist. If they are critical and skeptical of a supernatural cause of the universe they should be just as skeptical of natural causes that are put forth. And they should be willing to defend the case for naturalism. The problem is many on a board such as this are not skeptics or fact finders they are born again dyed in the wool naturalists advancing and promoting a worldview and belief system based on this philosophy. There is nothing wrong with being a dyed in the wool naturalist. We can’t possibly know all so we take the information we have and form a conviction out of it. They are just as much on the hook to defend their belief system as the theist is.

KeithHarwood

If the evidence for these events was overwhelming, say as good as the evidence for ionic dissociation in water, I might, possibly, consider the possibility of a little god, a god of healing who was overworked and underpaid and who couldn't get round to doing even a tiny fraction of the healing that needed to be done. Or perhaps a lazy god who sat on his cloud ignoring the world. Or perhaps an incompetent god who tried to do his magic spells and only rarely got them right.

What evidence would I need for an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Loving God?

Well, to start with, he'd have to start behaving like an A-P, A-K, A-L God. He'd have to get rid of all the evil in the world, he'd have to stop formenting that evil himself, he'd have to give us proper instructions of what he wanted, in unambiguous language that all can understand without needing professional apologists to understand it for us. He'd have to talk to me in a proper conversation so that I ask questions and get answers and other people would have to be able to hear those answers as well so that I know its not hallucinations or self-delusion; and I'd have to be able to hear the conversations he has with other people. He'd have to have the same relationship with every one, not just a chosen few who wear funny clothes or have funny dietary habits, or who require to be paid lots of money to intercede between me and him.

And that would just show me a god that worked on planet Earth. The earth is an insignificant dot in huge sloar system. The solar system is an insignificant dot in a huge galaxy. The galaxy is a less than insignificant dot inside a huge universe. If he wanted me to belive he really was A-P he'd have to show me he was a powerful out there as he is here.

Now tell me again about some piddling little miracle that could be faked by any half-way decent special effects man from the silent films, witnessed by a few people who can't be found and supported by nothing but documentation.

If the best that your god can come up with is to fix one broken leg in all the world, he's a pretty pathetic god and the effort of trying to examine the evidence to find out if he exists isn't worth the bother.