camerontigris

Well, in their minds they have good evidence. But in my experience talking with theists, evidence is irrelevant. I've found that doctrine is usually more important the question of whether god exists in the first place. The Mormons I talked to were shining examples of this. They couldn't comprehend the arguments I was making and the evidence I was asking for the existence of god...they just couldn't go there. We kept starting with a demand for proof and then ended up reading from the bible. :banghead: I think there was also some element of fear that if they started to question they too might end up an atheist.

Asha'man

Hi camerontigris, another good question.

My answer is yea, the right evidence could convince me. That is why I rejected theism: the utter lack of evidence for the supernatural. If that were suddenly reversed, I would have no choice but to rethink my position.

However, extreme claims require extreme proofs. To be even more specific, supernatural claims require direct personal demonstrations of the supernatural. (You might want to take a look at some of the suggestions in this thread: What would it take?)

My personal suggestion for convincing proof was a real Holy Book: The Book is never translated, but makes perfect sense to every reader in every language. There is nothing that is unclear or confusing or contradictory, all our questions are answered perfectly, and everybody gets the exact same meaning out of it. I want a book that is so perfect, mankind would be incapable of authoring it.

Since all holy books presented to date have none of the above qualities, and no proof other than the book is ever offered, I find myself, well, unconvinced.

glitterkitty

Hmm. I have never given much though to what proof I would require. I think, for example, if Jesus had given the apostles some quantum physics formulas or insight to the workings of the universe, then my interest might be peaked.

Even if Mars suddenly became a lush green planet, I wouldn't automatically think it was a divine event. And I think, perhaps, that is what makes me an atheist. Some theists believe crying statues are evidence. I simply do not see anything in the world that would lead me to believe a God created the world. I find it curious that others do.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well...see....um....

Everybody's really talking at cross purposes here, which, ironically, is...well...ironic, since the theists are as well.

What evidence would it take to convince me there is a God? I don't know, but others have shared good ones, but that's really not the issue theists are addressing, is it?

What they are obfuscating with this marginallized, mock question is, "Will you worship Him and/or do His bidding?"

Aka, nine times out of ten (especially with cults like Christianity), it's a leading question and not the primary concern.

Most theists of the christian cult already accept their myths to be true and their myths (as with other similiar cults) don't even regard the issue in the slightest. In cult dogma, their god is presupposed to exist (christ I hate those words ).

So, ultimately, no question has any relevance other than the fundamental question that supports whatever cult is knocking on your door. In the case of the Mormon cult, they have two leading questions (again, ultimately); (1) Do you believe that Jesus is Yahweh? and (2) Do you believe Joseph Smith really found gold tablets in North America that were written by Jesus?

But the real question is, "Will you worship Him and/or do his bidding?"

Because, if you don't, you will burn in hell (however you want to define it).

So, when you really break it all down, there aren't any salient questions about the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being so much as there is actually and ultimately, a not-so-veiled-depending-upon-the-sect threat to believe as they believe; worship as they worship; follow as they follow.

In screenplay parlance, that's called "cutting to the chase."

So, the really interesting debate I always get them into is to cut them off and say, "Yeah, sure, of course. I would obviously have no choice but to accept acceptable evidence. That (literally) goes without saying, but you're a theist and don't understand such things as tautologies, so I'll let it slide. That being said, why do you want me to worship It?"

Try that one next time first thing out of your mouth and see how their cult programming crashes and stutters. Just say, "Ok, sure. He exists. Why not? So why should I worship him?" Then it really gets fun.

"Well...'cause...he died for your sins."
"Tell him...thanks...? Want a Coke? Oh, sorry. Or has that ban on caffeine been repealed by Jesus yet?"

Dargo

There is another problem that theists overlook. Even if we could find undeniable evidence that some sort of higher power existed, this evidence could be used to prove the existence of any god(s). Muslims would claim it proved Allah was real, Christians would claim just as passionately that it proved biblegod existed, and the Hindus would say they were both wrong. Even if the Christian god left a clear autograph, there would be no way to determine which Christian denomination was the right one. You could still go to hell by sincerely following the wrong doctrine. Unless the "true" god took some time to explain things, proof of god would resolve nothing.