What evidence do athiests need to believe in God?

[Flavus Aquila]

Says who?

We have a notion that God is perfect from religious texts. But it is not a very reliable source of reference or is it? If we're capable of lying and deceiving then it surely be within mental capabilities of a God

Says me.

Anyhow, I'm not talking about religious texts - I'm talking about the God that Christians believe in.

 

[~jet]

But think for a moment... consider the various editions of the bible and then compare to your being a parent (if you either are one or can imagine it.)

Step 1: (old testament): SPANK! Don't run out in the road, you might get killed! Don't eat certain kinds of shell fish (you might die) or be too sexually free (you might catch a disease.) The old testament FEELS like humanity is being treated like a toddler that isn't yet prepared to talk about life's lessons yet.

Step 2: (new testament): So, where do babies come from? Oh, well there was stork, my child. We're older as a specie now and capable of asking tricky questions, but not yet necessarily ready to hear all the honest answers. So a kinder friendlier 'god' feeds us a mix of truth and lies, but no longer feels it is quite so necessary to SMITE us for misbehaving.

So the question is... are we in store for a Step 3: (new new testament, middle school!) in which we start getting more raw facts and have the societal capacity to process them more accurately?

I have to wonder.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Direct that argument here.

http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=3206

One religious debate at a time.

The only reason I'm still posting on this one is because it hasn't devolved into petty one-upmanship yet.

I find these discussions quite draining usually.

 

[Poetic Justice]

But think for a moment... consider the various editions of the bible and then compare to your being a parent (if you either are one or can imagine it.)

Step 1: (old testament): SPANK! Don't run out in the road, you might get killed! Don't eat certain kinds of shell fish (you might die) or be too sexually free (you might catch a disease.) The old testament FEELS like humanity is being treated like a toddler that isn't yet prepared to talk about life's lessons yet.

Step 2: (new testament): So, where do babies come from? Oh, well there was stork, my child. We're older as a specie now and capable of asking tricky questions, but not yet necessarily ready to hear all the honest answers. So a kinder friendlier 'god' feeds us a mix of truth and lies, but no longer feels it is quite so necessary to SMITE us for misbehaving.

So the question is... are we in store for a Step 3: (new new testament, middle school!) in which we start getting more raw facts and have the societal capacity to process them more accurately?

I have to wonder.

Step 3: Scientology

 

[~jet]

Step 3: Scientology

Haha; funny... on a barely related note, my job involves occasionally testing software that asks our members about their 'interests' which doth include a subsection on religion. In order to do this, I've signed up with the supposedly impossible combination of interests that could be read as:

Anti-coptic Shinto-Scientological Baptist. Now if I only knew what any of those things were.

 

[slant]

One religious debate at a time.

The only reason I'm still posting on this one is because it hasn't devolved into petty one-upmanship yet.

I find these discussions quite draining usually.

>.> But I really want someone to revive that thread of mine!

 

[Poetic Justice]

>.> But I really want someone to revive that thread of mine!

Feel free to quote me in it or just Bump it.

People will ask me follow up questions and I can't be bothered

Haha; funny... on a barely related note, my job involves occasionally testing software that asks our members about their 'interests' which doth include a subsection on religion. In order to do this, I've signed up with the supposedly impossible combination of interests that could be read as:

Anti-coptic Shinto-Scientological Baptist. Now if I only knew what any of those things were.

I'm sure you'll find out when fifty leaflets, your membership cards and your new "friends" turn up at your house

 

[KazeCraven]

Science and Religion aim to prove two different things:

Science observes the world around and tells the way things 'are'.

Religion seeks to embody a higher power and tells 'why' the way things are the way they are. They don't tell the way things are, they focus on WHY.


Science isn't trying to explain why there is gravity, why would such a thing exist, who created gravity, how did it come into play? Mainly Science is a means of observing and recording.

Yes. However, considering that this thread is asking about evidence to believe in God, you've necessarily asked for methods of inquiry, one of which is science. I don't see why you'd ask a question about needing evidence and then asking us not to comment about methods of weighing evidence. A question about why atheists don't believe in God doesn't have to do with science, but a question about what evidence atheists need to believe in God does.

 

[Jack]

The idea of god can be dismissed until proof is provided.

Evidence is sufficient for me. Proof on either side is far too extravagant to ever be found/shown/whatever.

(That said, I am not an Atheist)

If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.

That point can be countered though based upon the second law of thermodynamics (precluding the idea that the universe has always been), and that (hypothetically) God is outside the universe, and time, so there is no "before", as there is no change absent time. In Russell's defense though, he wrote this during the time the Steady State Theory was popular, not the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Ruv Draba]

Hi Jack Slant,

You may find the following Youtube links useful to answer your question: How to Convert an Atheist [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI"]Part I [/ame]and [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmcOG-na4E&feature=channel"]Part II[/ame].

These arguments are directed toward convincing skeptical people of the numinous and/or magical, however they wouldn't necessarily convince people to serve a numinous magical being, should such a being be shown to exist.

From my personal perspective, I think it very unlikely that "magical" beings exist in our world, but even if they did I doubt that I'd worship or serve them. The first for me is a purely rational question: Do they exist? I strongly believe not. I think it more likely that we would like them to exist and therefore seek evidence that they do.

The second for me is a moral question: if they existed, would I serve or obey them? My personal answer is: absolutely not. I would much prefer to develop and follow my own conscience, and be accountable to my fellow man for my decisions.

So I'm magically agnostic, but morally atheistic: I don't know for sure that magic doesn't exist, but I'd strive to live without gods even if godlike beings were all around us.

Hope that helps.

 

[Quinlan]

I like the idea of lots of gods, each with their own areas and personalities, sounds like fun.

 

[Barnabas]

Even this wouldn't be enough for me. There may be another explanation. Just because a guy with a beard turned up and turned wine into water, it doesn't mean he is really god.

He may be lying.

It increases the odds slightly but it's not proof

it's a lot more then wine, miracle healings, resurrection of the dead, walking on water, driving out demons, ect.... so on and so on. It increases the odds dramatically when compiled with loads of other information.


Edit: re-reading this my post seem a little antagonistic, if It did antagonize someone then I apologize it was meant with that intent.

 

[Poetic Justice]

it's a lot more then wine, miracle healings, resurrection of the dead, walking on water, driving out demons, ect.... so on and so on. It increases the odds dramatically when compiled with loads of other information.

No matter what "miracle" so called god may do to prove himself to be god there is always the possibility that it is done using some kind of technology to trick us. It could be some government, aliens or whatever. We know for a fact that people lie, people trick others into thinking they are god. look at all the cults in the world.

This is a fact and happens fairly often so it has to be considered more likely than it actually being god.

I don't think it is possible to conclusively prove that god exists unless he showed me how he created the universe and taught me how to do it for myself so I could verify what he was saying.

The same goes for the opposite. You can't prove he doesn't exist because whatever scintific discovery is found, you could always argue the case that god may have set it up like that

 

[Jack]

Hi Jack,

You may find the following Youtube links useful to answer your question: How to Convert an Atheist

Hi Ruv, thanks, but I didn't ask the question, nor am I the threadstarter. I am actually a former Atheist, and I know how I was converted already.

No matter what "miracle" so called god may do to prove himself to be god there is always the possibility that it is done using some kind of technology to trick us. It could be some government, aliens or whatever. We know for a fact that people lie, people trick others into thinking they are god. look at all the cults in the world.

This is a fact and happens fairly often so it has to be considered more likely than it actually being god.

I think part of that depends on the avenue, or the amount of back checking one is doing with these miracles. If you're willing to make up conspiracy theories, you could explain away anything, but there is a point where that becomes increasingly irrational.

 

[Poetic Justice]

I think part of that depends on the avenue, or the amount of back checking one is doing with these miracles. If you're willing to make up conspiracy theories, you could explain away anything, but there is a point where that becomes increasingly irrational.

True but it would never reach a point where it could be considered fact. The possibility that it is a trick would still exist.

The proof may be convincing enough that it's worth following whatever random rules "god" insists we abide by just in case but there would always be at least a small doubt in my mind

 

[Matariki]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” - Stuart Chase.

In my mind, even if there were scientific evidence on the existence of god, many would still not believe.
Humans are naturally stubborn and ignorant.

 

[Jack]

True but it would never reach a point where it could be considered fact. The possibility that it is a trick would still exist.

The proof may be convincing enough that it's worth following whatever random rules "god" insists we abide by just in case but there would always be at least a small doubt in my mind

Agreed. It seems like there are two different approaches here though. The "reason enough to doubt" versus the "reason enough to hope". I think either approach can be rational, or irrational (depending on the person of course). One's idea of who God is/would be, may also play into this.

 

[Montag]

Evidence is sufficient for me. Proof on either side is far too extravagant to ever be found/shown/whatever.

(That said, I am not an Atheist)

That point can be countered though based upon the second law of thermodynamics (precluding the idea that the universe has always been), and that (hypothetically) God is outside the universe, and time, so there is no "before", as there is no change absent time. In Russell's defense though, he wrote this during the time the Steady State Theory was popular, not the Big Bang Theory.

Well, God used to live a lot closer. For a few thousand years, He lived in the sky. Once scientists figured out what the sky is and what lies beyond it, he had to move outside the universe. God's details change with every new scientific discovery. He's always nearly state-of-the-art. You'd think His Word would have explained the second law of thermodynamics and how it did or did not apply to Him, but I guess he's not big on explaining the details of His creation.

If a religious text made predictions that unambiguously came true (like the way scientific theories stand the test of time), that would be a start. But I know that God prefers to allow his children to make all of the discoveries ourselves, and to change His story accordingly. Oddly enough, from our limited perspective, His M.O. makes him look exactly the same as if He didn't exist.

 

[Ruv Draba]

Hi Ruv, thanks, but I didn't ask the question, nor am I the threadstarter.

Sorry Jack and Slant. Now fixed.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

The statement "The grass is blue" can only be right or wrong. Even if you think it's right, if it is proven that the grass is actually green, the Universal truth is that the grass is green, despite whatever opinion others might hold.

It would be more accurate to say that grass appears green, to a certain arrangement of biological cells. If those cells were arranged differently, grass might appear to be blue. Neither of those perspectives would be "wrong" or "right", as the colour of grass does not exist within the grass itself, but within the interplay between the grass and our nervous systems.