AJ113

Automaton, your post is followed immediately by a post from Hinduwoman who basically says the opposite to you. Hence my confusion regarding the Atheist stance on this issue.

"We?"

Clearly it is reasonable in your eyes, but your view is not universal. In my view, to accept anything as being true requires rational, reasonable thought, with due consideration to the volume and quality of available evidence.

"What evidence is good enough?" may look like a quote, but it is not a quote from me. Is it someone else's words, or did you make it up?

If you were confusing this phrase with what I actually said, allow me to clarify:

Having decided that a claim is extraordinary or otherwise, what process is utilised to ensure that the evidence presented to support the claim is of the same classification of the claim itself?

My point being that I do not think that it is possible to match the classification of the evidence with the classification of the claim. Instead, I think that regardless of the type of claim, the volume and quality of the evidence presented, along with individual reasoning, should be the major factors in determining fact from fiction.

GunnerJ

Ah. Then we have identified the source of your confusion. You hold the common but false belief that "Atheism" is some sort of unified religion (spelled with a capital "a" no less) with basic tenents of faith and a dogma which all "members" agree on. But atheism is not a religion; it is merely the lack of belief in god. Nothing more. Nothing less. Once you accept this, your "confusion" over the "Atheist [sic] perspective" on the subject of what constitutes evidence for the existance of god should dissapear.

I remember a thread called "What issues do atheists disagree on?" The best answer was: "All of them but one."

Pomp

AJ113,

Automaton, your post is followed immediately by a post from Hinduwoman who basically says the opposite to you. Hence my confusion regarding the Atheist stance on this issue.

Rimstalker had already handled this, but I'd like to extend his explanation with an example.

The important point to note is that the only thing that all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in a deity. There is no universal atheist dogma, nor is there some universal standard that, if met, would convince all atheists that a deity exists. Trying to characterize the "Atheist stance" on any question is as ridiculous as trying to characterize the "a-Santaist" stance on that question, the stance universally held by all people who disbelieve in Santa Claus.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

Doubting Didymus

I propose the following as a proof of god that would be acceptable to most atheists.

1) God should prove himself miraculously.

There should be no possible naturalistic explanation. Fraudulent miracles are so common that god has a responsibility to ensure that there is no suspicion of this.

2) The miracle should be tangible.

Many atheists (myself included) say that even if god appeared to them in a vision they still would not believe. The reason for this is that visions are not reliable. I once had a very real alien abduction experience, and was convinced that it was a true occurance. Reasearch into skeptical sources revealed to me that my symptoms coincided exactly with sleep paralysis.

Bloody hell, that felt real, and this convinced me that visions of this kind can never be trusted, even in onesself.

Therefore, the miracle should be tangible, so that it can be confirmed to be real by multiple people. (something in the sky over europe, say, would be about right).

3) The miracle should confirm which god is the real god, and what we mere mortals really need to do to gain gods grace.

Imagine that some supernatural miracle proved the existence of a god, but didn't demonstrate which one it was meant to be. Atheists would have no choice but to believe in a god of some kind, but how would we know what to do about it? Ask the church? Which church? All religions and denominations would claim that the newly proven god was their god, and we would all be back in the same boat.

I conclude that if god exists, and chooses not to prove himself in this way, then

A) He does not care if I believe in him or not, and has no reward/punishment system based on belief in him.

or

B) He does punish based on my belief, and is therefore illogical and malicious. (Imagine if I were to viciously punish my children if they refused to believe in something I chose not to prove to them)

Would any atheists here continue to disbelieve if this kind of miracle occured? If not, why not?

AJ113

Rimstalker and Pomp:

Point taken, but it seems to me that some posters on this forum are perhaps unreasonable, in that they express their point forcefully, with the inference that their views are atheistically universal. Very rarely on this forum do I see atheists taking issues with other atheists' views.


Doubting Didymus:
The miracles that you seek, complete with multiple witnesses, are available in the skies over Medugorje.

However, this emphasises my earlier point that although these miracles may be enough to convert you, they may well be dismissed by other atheists.

This in turn leads me to conclude that acceptance of god is a peculiarly personal decision, because there is no universally acceptable standard of proof or evidence.

Doubting Didymus

I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but if this thing in the sky really has no natural explanation, is unable to be fraudulent, and most importantly, makes it clear which god we are dealing with AND what he wants to tell us, then paint me sodding pink and call me a Medugorje's witness.

I don't know what you mean by 'multiple witnesses', but I suspect that the tangible nature of this miracle is not quite what I meant. Can I go and see this miracle? Please tell me what it is. By the way, is it the christian god that is demonstrted by the miracle, or is it Allah?

I think you are wrong. If there is a miracle that really satisfies the above criteria, I sincerely think all atheists would convert. Anyone disagree? Remember: we are talking about something pretty bloody impressive, where there is no possibility of fraud, coincidence, or natural explanation. 100 foot high letters of flame would do nicely.

Devilnaut

The only reason that belief in God seems like a "peculiarly personal choice" is because the existence of such a creature is so bloody unlikely. I can see though how this would be difficult to understand having been raised in a christian environment, where his existence is taken for granted.


Just think how easy it would be for a truly advanced civilization to take over the earth. Not through force, but through advertising

Autonemesis

I can think of an explanation for a phenomena like that which would be much more plausible than positing an omnipotent god being.

To my mind, something that would be very convincing evidence of intellingent design, would be if humans venture into space and discover many humanoid civilizations at a similar stage of development to ours. If humans could interbreed with some species from other worlds, that would also speak strongly of design.

In other words, if the galaxy turns out to actually be like Star Trek depicts it, that would strike me as being very suggestive of intelligent design. It wouldn't cinch it, but it would give compelling reasons to do research and investigate how so many species managed to develop more or less simultanously in parallel.

Doubting Didymus

Excellent point, Bud. Considering the astronomical improbability of life that came from a totally different lineage even having DNA, the probability that they could breed with us is just staggering. I would definitely think of intelligent design, probably by those things in 2001 (the book) that seeded intelligent life on many planets.

rainbow walking

rw: A more pertinent question should be why such a being with such postulated qualities has to resort to faith and an obviously errant book to communicate his existence and will? Surely such a creature has options that would enable him to win the affections of everyone and not just a few...yes?