Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Tue, 20 May 2008 00:40:50 +0100

Pascal might assuage the agnostic, but not this little black atheist duck.... and morals as a god given construct or result of a celestial bully punishment/reward system is just insulting to our intelligence.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:45:36 +0100

Pascal's Wager is dishonest? Come on now, if we're going to make a logical argument for religion to an atheist, it's almost a requirement. Besides, denouncing divinity as a concept and attacking Pascal's Wager as immoral and dishonest rings a bit hypocritical; that is unless you've found a way to prove the existence of morality beyond enlightened self-preservation while simultaneously not allowing for the same argument to be used for the existence of God.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 05:26:43 +0100

AndrewClunn... Blaise Pascal ring a bell?
actually some of us think that an intellectually dishonest position to take... when the evidence says there is nothing, go with the evidence.

and Illusio argues my case more elegantly than I can.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Thu, 15 May 2008 02:55:06 +0100

Illusio I feel these are warped views of Christianity, but you would not be wrong in saying many Christians follow these thinking patters...

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Wed, 14 May 2008 22:19:26 +0100

Personally I'd be convinced if there was a shred of evidence that the ritual magic, such as prayer, had any effect whatsoever beyond what you expect of any placebo.

However, in practice I'm so sure there's no god that I'm betting my life that not one of the 10000s existing religions have a shred of truth in them.
I do this even though I have no practical reason not to be a christian(In the Pascal's wager sense). From a morality standpoint it wouldn't cost me anything to "accept Jesus as my personal saviour".
What's stopping me is that:

1. The christian concept of third party forgiveness is evil, immoral and removes accountability from humans - making existence meaningless.

2. The christian worldview, in which the creation is a stage upon which an utterly pointless and silly game of morality is played is even less attractive to me than deterministic materialism. I can accept meaningless determinism, but I have severe issues with pointlessness specifically created by a god to test random creations and make the majority burn in hell.(The threat of hell also deminishes all good deeds done in the name of christianity. They're motivated by God holding a gun to your head.)

3. In the absence of evidence, the entire bible(or any other religious document) is meaningless hearsay.(And, yes "personal testimony" is not evidence. Hard statistics have demasked such lies too many times to take it seriously.)

4. Virtually all natural phenomena that originally inspired gods now have naturalistic explanations. I have no need for a god to explain daily phenomena and I do not see any reason to attribute the origin of existence to an anthropomorphic god. It's clear that nobody has any knowledge that can lead to such conclusions.

And of course your friends three points are good as well.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:21:56 +0100

4 basic points:

1 - If there is no God, then the only reason to believe in God is if not believing in God will get you into trouble.

2 - Openly denouncing the existence of God will in fact get you into a lot of trouble in many places even in industrialized democratic nations.

3 - Being open-minded to the existence of God could pay off in the event that there actual is a God.

4 - The best way to stop people from trying to convert you is to not need to be converted.

So even if you aren't convinced you should believe in God, you should at least pretend like you do or say you're agnostic. And that's how you convert an atheist.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:50:47 +0100

It is not possable to change what people chose to believe ,i came from evolution to god ,but only after i proved to my own being that evolution was fraud.

That having been said ,how do we proove freewill?...only by proving we have it by using it totally uncensored ,[ok we dont really have freespeech but we do have free will ,athiests prove we have freewill.

God could easilly reveal the 'proof'' athiests are seeking [in fact he does , but they accord it to science or as science accords , give the credit to chance [or spontanious mutation [from some first cell that supposedly appeared by chance].

The matter is made more difficult because we are here to confirm we have total freewill and thus chose what we believe or not ,[it isnt important we chose here and now it is enough [while incarnate] to proove god gave us our own freewill to believe [or not].

In the next life we are again given the truth about our god [and yes athiests god is one] never having a son [yet fathering all life] also we allowed to keep our freewill [god is love and life , all grace mercy and light sustaining life]we are allowed even as spirits to reject good and love and the light and seek our own way in hell

[But our freechoice to reject the light love [life] [god]is not by gods judgment [god needs judge no man [nor beast] god gives us life [from his love as a gift] we can chose to reject his love [but his love remains with us eternal .

[totally unconditional ,god remains true pure love , while material life can be destroyed our living spirit lives eternal [blessed be by the will of our god]but as we have learned it is freely [and unconditionally granted us by god ,

till we see god is love [and not ever death , nor judgment nor any evil or darkness whatsoever ,that vile comes only from our [and every other 'freewill', we chose to reject the light of truth thius chose to remain in the darkness by our own choice, till one day we see we arnt doing it god is [and allways has ,

then in a small voice we pray to god the most high ,and lo he hears
[for he loves a repentant sinner seeking the good , the true , the light and life , we then spend eternity loving all good , all living and true because we then are ready to see that all that is good comes from god.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:05:23 +0100

DNR.... you nailed it with the very last two words of your post mate! well said... eloquent beyond measure.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Thu, 08 May 2008 04:06:03 +0100

I have a theory on God's concept of time. It is a theory based on a program that I saw on the Discovery Channel or Animal Plannet (I can't remember which. But I do remember that it stated that a fly's metabolism is so fast (because it is so small) that it sees the world in slow motion, compaired to how we see the world. If God is everywhere then theroetically he/she would have to be really big (theoretically). And according to my theory, if God is really big then he/she might see the world in fast motion. This could explain many scientific discrepencies.
According to the Bible, the world was created in 6 days. This is 6 days according to God. Early man, in the Bible, grew extremely old. Abraham was a hundred threescore and fifteen years old (175) when he died. So there are definately time differences between the beginning of the Earth and now.

With evolution, it only explains how species came to be. It doesn't explain the origin of life. In fact the origin of life is completely unknown to scientists. In Ben Stein's new movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" there were at least 3 different theories other than intelligent design that could explain the origin of life. Also science can neither prove nor disprove God's existance because God can't be observed or measured therefore there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of God.

As for the 2nd statement, God is described in the Old Testament and in Revelation as a vengefull God, where as, in the New Testament Jesus is the merciful part of God. God is vengefull and Jesus is merciful. Also, God gave man free will. If he interviened in everything then our free will would be compromised.

Most of these are just my thoughts. They make perfect sense to me, but to others it could be complete jibberish.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:29:57 +0100

As I have asked in other threads: which god are you talking about? Why would anyone want to pick one to believe in? The majority of people are influenced either for or against the belief in a deity by the culture they absorbed as a child. If you are relatively free of cultural influence there are range of current and past pantheons to choose from.

There are as many different ideas of what god (or gods) is (are) as there are believers. Some have retreated the sphere of their god beyond rationality %u2013 its existence can neither be proved nor disproved. Some have internally inconsistent beliefs and are hence nonsense (for example an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent god that also allows free will). Some have elements that are inconsistent with current scientific thought.

Everyone seems quite content to discuss the existence or not of a deity without specifying what sort of deity we are talking about. I really do not think that there is as much commonality as is taken for granted.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Mon, 05 May 2008 03:56:51 +0100

This is so exciting seeing so many people participate in this dialogue. I am posting this comment to everyone, but it is also is specifically addressing natespaceorama, who left me a reply:

We are not talking about a science experiment are we natespaceorama?

We accept that science has limitations, primarily because human beings have limitations and science is one way that humans have come to understand portions of our environment (so is religion which is why I am not asking about religion here either). I think any reputable scientist would agree that science is by no means irrefutable. There are things which we believe to be true before we can prove them.

For example, Einstein believed that space and time were interconnected long before he could actually prove it, and some people are still not convinced by the proof he did provide before he died. Still others would and will never believe Einstein%u2019s theory of relativity despite being shown or told %u201Cproof.%u201D But some will%u2026

Because we do not know everything a human is capable of, we do not know what our own limitations are. We all have to accept certain things according to faith, until we discover or are shown enough evidence to persuade us and others. In fact, I would argue that there are many things which we are comfortable accepting on the basis of faith, which we may never attempt to prove empirically (but I can%u2019t prove that %uF04A).

I do really like the simplicity of your statement in terms of reminding us that most people do not have to see lightning come down from the heavens to be convinced, we just want to feel something that convinces US on a personal level-even if it is otherwise unexplainable to others.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:42:42 +0100

Admir,
I tend to agree with Dawkins and Dennett that science can use it's tools to satisfactorily remove god from any equation we can think of as a functioning part of the universe... in other words it works beautifully without the god.
can we remove the idea of god from the minds of men, which is where it started?... I doubt it. So we only speak different languages because of the willful capacity of the faithful to call black white.

and even being the most devout of worshippers is no guarantee of getting a 'spiritual' experience.. most believers are as untouched by this condition as atheists..

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Mon, 05 May 2008 01:12:44 +0100

Hi pokoj. Nice to meet you.

"Therein lies the essence of the problem that our two opposite belief systems have to embrace. We are speaking different languages when it comes to the way we identify with our beliefs."

I think you hit the nail on the head here. The only problem I have with religious people is that some might try to impose their beliefs on others. This is impossible by definition. To become a believer, an atheist will ask for evidence and since it can't be found (at least not yet) in science, the evidence must be spiritual. I myself have never had a spiritual experience so I can't really understand your point of view.
For this reason i can conclude that religion and science are too different to be interchangeable. Science is a game of statistics and probabilities and so far all we know is that the existence of god is very improbable - not impossible and not disproven in any way. natespaceorama posted links to a couple of videos that I think support my point nicely.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:58:39 +0100

How to Convert an Atheist Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI

How to Convert an Atheist Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:54:37 +0100

Two things must happen: First, it must be shown that "god" is not an unfalsifiable concept (ie it must offer testable predictions). Second, the predictions must be tested and shown to be true. With repeated tests, verification, and peer review, it will become accepted as a fact.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:11:29 +0100

I'll start with pokoj and the metaphor question.. Jesus also spoke directly and distinctly.. he said 'The only way to the father is through me'... how is that a metaphor?
In The Truths summary I didn't get that he was a JC pusher? is he denied heaven? well if JC is to be taken at his word, then as much as an atheist like me, he is.

I know we're talking religion as opposed to 'god', but some atheists like to expose the flaws in the arguments of the religious to make god less likely to the vascillating or those that have not heard these types of notions before.

If you sign up to a Jesus-centric view then you are excluding from your heaven all who don't kneel at his feet and call him Lord? am I wrong?

The Truth.. hope I haven't mis-read you? would you call yourself a pantheist or spiritualist?

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 19:58:39 +0100

First of all I want to thank EVERYONE for your insightful comments so far; it proves to me that there are many others in this world who are interested in discovering their own spirituality%u2014even if they currently are atheistic%u2014and want to connect with others who are spiritual.

I think we forget that many of our fellow human beings do not even consider themselves to be spiritual. Furthermore it is rare (but becoming less so) that I encounter someone who is completely confident in what they believe and willing to discuss it with others who are on the same path.

I want to redirect everyone to the premise of my question which says NOTHING about religion. Religion is not the question here.

I think everyone of us will admit that religion is man's way to explain his relationship with God. What I am asking us to consider is the rationality of nonbelievers. My friends and acquaintances who are atheists are completely rational and thoughtful people, they simply refuse to accept the dogma and doctrines of organized religions who seem more interested in filling up their coffers than teaching us how God sets us free.

That being said, I know that religion is, by definition, a set of rules and standards that faith-based organizations enact and follow to keep people focused on the church's agenda. What I am more interested in is the people themselves, who feel that they are spiritual but do not need a church to qualify their sentiments.

I do not believe that God wants or expects people%u2014that He has blessed with a free and strong spirit%u2014to turn around and subject themselves to the spiritual demands of an organized religion.

As free and strong individuals we also recognize that we are not perfect and that there are things which we have allowed into our lives that are destructive and counter productive to our spiritual development. We do not need religion to tell us that or to make us feel guilty about it.

Isn%u2019t the whole premise of the Bible that Christ died for ALL of our offenses and ALL of our guilt? He knew that I was imperfect and he died for me ANYWAYS!!! I want to understand why.

Again, this is the beginning of a dialogue amongst several Big Think users who are thinking outside the box and have strong hope that Big Think will live up to our expectations.

Let's keep it going and remember, nobody wants to convert anyone else here, we come together to speak respectfully and to be persuaded%u2014if we hear the words that affect our hearts and minds.

If we want to feel guilty or get a dose of religion we can go to church but if we want to trade ideas about how someone can be known by God then we come to The Truth.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 14:49:14 +0100

oh boy here comes another long one...

Sorry guys I have to clarify I didn't mean atheists hat all believers, me and musycks have this ongoing interchange where I feel abashed by his means of discrediting Christians/believers and he then insists its not personal and we hug and make up... we just happened to be on at the same time yesterday (or was it today... damn you time zones!) so we were going back and forth a bit, but no worries I don't think all atheists feel this way...

I fully appreciate an atheists standpoint, i would be there as well if it weren't for certain life experiences which led me to trust in faith, but nothing that would hold up when trying to explain to others why I believe in God.

In any case, in all these discussions we are having, I'm never trying to push my beliefs on others, the only thing I'm trying to do is gain a little more respect for the believers/spiritualists as atheists, even when having a discussion such as this, often revert to using derogatory means for discrediting Christianity. I believe that you have very rational and reasonable and scientific reasons for you belief (or lack thereof,) and are able to present them without demeaning the believers.

And that is not to say that we don't often do the same...

anyway...
Admir:
don't believe we've met... howdy...

"I think tactile evidence should more than do it and by that i mean that scripture is nowhere near enough evidence."

Therein lies the essence of the problem that our two opposite belief systems have to embrace. We are speaking different languages when it comes to the way we identify with our beliefs.
This is how I break it down:

1. Atheists are concerned with matters of fact and tangible scientific evidence, and in order to accept any idea of God in its various forms, would need to be presented with at the very least, no other possible scientific explanation to even venture down the road to believing in God.

2. On the side of the believers: (I'm trying hard to be as simple as possible, so if any believer is reading this please correct me if I speak out of turn for you)
Our beliefs stem from personal experiences outside of the realm of quantifiable proof. They venture into the metaphysical, and therefor are inadequate proof for an atheists belief system.

3. In trying to have discussions, both sides need to be wary of the other's requests. Let me explain. The best example is how musycks presents his disbelief, and how I feel a bit debased by it. He insists it is a cultural difference, that I take his harshness to heart... I insist that he could have better ways of presenting his disbelief that constantly belittling and berating our beliefs, particularly in his contempt for the Bible and the way it is abused.

We all need to accept, at some point, that we are speaking different languages. I will continue to try to hold believers as being more rational than atheists are willing to admit, but I am not at any point trying to convert you godless heathens :) nor should you try to convert us ignorant Jesus freaks.

"Being an atheist, i believe in logic and critical thinking and god just isn't logical."

I agree, from the scientific standpoint God is not a reasonable conclusion. I believe He/It (I haven't really settled on a suitable way to refer to something I don't fully understand in essence, so I usually stick with "He/Him.") is not within the current realm of human understanding, the most we can do is interact spiritually and that leaves room for human error. Some see this as a "flaw" of Gods, I see it as a result of our turning away from Him when our species was young. That is one of the metaphors of the book of Genesis.

"Evidence is leaning strongly towards science and more so as time goes on. Scripture is being pushed more and more into the realm of metaphor rather than God's literal truth."

I've noticed more and more that atheists are claiming Christians have to revert to using metaphor... I'll say it again...

Jesus taught with metaphors, parables, and stories as such. Our faith was FOUNDED on teaching in this manner. We are not being forced to "retreat into metaphor," it is the only way we have of explaining the unexplainable. I've said before, the english word that the Bible uses to describe Jesus' relationship to God is "Son." I feel the word, itself, is inadequate in this description. I don't believe He is not the "Son of God," I only wish we had a better way of describing the closeness and oneness of the Trinity. The closest example I can offer is one my brother-in-law put forth...
Light. Scientists have accepted that light exists as both a particle and a wave at the same time. This dual nature is a great stepping stone for further understanding of the mysteries of the Trinity.

"Also, recent events are doing nothing to promote the cause of religion. We only need to look at 9/11, Israel, Child abuse at the hands of catholic priests and the Westboro baptist church to see a pattern of antisocial backwards behaviour."

9/11 notwithstanding (I'm still not convinced that Al Quaeda had anything to do with the planning of that tragedy, just look at the "confession tape") Many horrible things have been done in the name of God/Religion. I have to separate myself from organised religion because of this. You won't find me fully discrediting it, however there has been so much corruption within all the different forms, that the true believers are forced to provide disclaimers at every pass. As far as the Westboro Baptist Church: The idea that homosexuality is in essence a sin is not shared by all believers. Yes, we are a minority, and some of my fellow Christians that I feel very spiritually connected to will still disagree with me on this point, but I can provide biblical analysis for why this should not be so.
See my comment in:
http://www.bigthink.com/love-happiness/4444

"Not to mention the Intelligent design movement which is so obviously an attempt to cram religion down childrens throats. As we know from experience, any regime that forbids free speech is doomed to drag society down."

Personally I've never seen the Intelligent Design/Creationism vs. Evolution as a valid argument. It assumes there are only two possible explanations, and also that these two ideas are not compatible, which is wrong.

"The muslim world used to be a haven for science and free speech - would you believe - untill fundamentalists came to power and banned free speech."

I didn't know that. That is both inspirational and depressing at the same time.

So my conclusion is this:
-To this day no-one was ever able to prove the existence of god through scientific means.

I don't believe anyone will. At least for a loooong time.

-For god to exist, allowances need to be made in science such as earth only being 6000 years old and so on.

I firmly disagree with this statement. It is well known the use of metaphor that Jesus Himself used to teach, why is it so hard to accept that other parts of the Bible were written this way. However, this doesn't detract from their relevance; on the contrary, it makes them perpetually relevant. There are very view stories of the Old Testament that can be considered even based in historical truth. Again, this doesn't take away from their meaning. It just leaves it up to the part of the believer to be more open-minded which, more often than not, is a problem for them.

-To achieve this, scientists need to be controlled through censorship. This would effectivelly end free speech.

-If this were to happen, the world would suffer the fate of Soviet Russia, North Korea and Irak and we all know that that isn't a good thing.

I think your going the extreme route; this would never be allowed to happen as even members of their own religions would rise up against these methods.

"So the case for god's existence is weak. The case for religion being true -or even in any way useful- is also weak."

Organised religions relevance in our modern world is waning, but is not entirely bereft of humble, honest people that are truly doing good. I have seen a few of these sort of Christian communities at work, and it is quite inspiring to see they still exists amongst the vast corruptness of the greater Churches.

"This brings me back to my first point - the evidence is leaning very heavily towards science."

Correction... the scientific evidence is leaning very heavily towards science ;) this is again the problem of speaking different languages.

SIde note:

Someone mentioned that atheists hate believers and don't give them any respect. this may well be because believers sometimes try and re-convert atheists and as Syrian mentioned, this is extremelly annoying. People have their beliefs and that's fine. People believe for their own reasons. But when they try to pass those beliefs off as science and try to force it into schools, people are gonna get annoyed. Especially when the best representatives of "Creation science" are the likes of Ben Stein and Kent Hovind. They barely qualify to be a little more than a joke.

See my explanation above...

Stewie: Did you forge my name? How dare you! Is this backwards "S" supposed to be cute? I'm going to crap double for you tonight.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 11:57:19 +0100

I have posted a counter question entitled "What would it take to convince a faithfull person that god doesn't exist. Please comment.

Comment on: What do you think it takes to convince an atheist that God exists

Bigthink — Sun, 04 May 2008 11:44:23 +0100

Well done the truth. excellent question. I think tactile evidence should more than do it and by that i mean that scripture is nowhere near enough evidence. Being an atheist, i believe in logic and critical thinking and god just isn't logical. Evidence is leaning strongly towards science and more so as time goes on. Scripture is being pushed more and more into the realm of metaphor rather than God's literal truth.

Also, recent events are doing nothing to promote the cause of religion. We only need to look at 9/11, Israel, Child abuse at the hands of catholic priests and the Westboro baptist church to see a pattern of antisocial backwards behaviour. Not to mention the Intelligent design movement which is so obviously an attempt to cram religion down childrens throats. As we know from experience, any regime that forbids free speech is doomed to drag society down. The muslim world used to be a haven for science and free speech - would you believe - untill fundamentalists came to power and banned free speech.

So my conclusion is this:
-To this day no-one was ever able to prove the existence of god through scientific means.

-For god to exist, allowances need to be made in science such as earth only being 6000 years old and so on.

-To achieve this, scientists need to be controlled through censorship. This would effectivelly end free speech.

-If this were to happen, the world would suffer the fate of Soviet Russia, North Korea and Irak and we all know that that isn't a good thing.

So the case for god's existence is weak. The case for religion being true -or even in any way useful- is also weak.

This brings me back to my first point - the evidence is leaning very heavily towards science.

SIde note:

Someone mentioned that atheists hate believers and don't give them any respect. this may well be because believers sometimes try and re-convert atheists and as Syrian mentioned, this is extremelly annoying. People have their beliefs and that's fine. People believe for their own reasons. But when they try to pass those beliefs off as science and try to force it into schools, people are gonna get annoyed. Especially when the best representatives of "Creation science" are the likes of Ben Stein and Kent Hovind. They barely qualify to be a little more than a joke.