What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:59 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Did you mean the former, as in that which is NOT blind faith (which seems to be the latter of the two in your sentence)?
No, I didn't. Granted, it may not be likely that a person who has blind faith in something is persuaded by evidence, but it's possible nonetheless. The same cannot be said for the other type of person.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
anidominus Wrote:There are only 3 reasons that I can think of why an atheist would say they would believe God exist...

1. They want to sound reasonable.
2. They haven't thought their response through.
3. They're just lying.

They also love to hide behind the phrase "They do not believe God exist". They say this because they do not wish to say "I believe there is no God." To say the latter implies a kind of faith which they wish to avoid.

Man, you really don't know what this is about.

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Kestrel's post
28-01-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:17 PM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 12:12 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  The creator would know.

Ok, props, that's a better answer than I thought I would get, lol.

So, what if the creator knows that the answer is "as long as people have the free will to be able to choose not to believe, some will use that free will and choose not to believe."?

First, I give you the best possible, most complete answer you could ask for, something that even shocked you, and yet you still have to modify. TM is most correct, you are NOTlookingforanswers.

And how do you modify? By giving me an answer (inside another answer) from a creator to a question that wasn't asked? You're begging the question with a question you didn't even ask!

Free will, whether anyone believes we have it or not, wouldn't even come into play when the creator knows what would convince even the most staunch pessimist or skeptic. Your reply is rendered moot by my first answer. So I'm apparently clairvoyant, which now means I have to believe in the supernatural and therefore your creator really does exist! Wink

Seriously, what's the deal? Why aren't you satisfied with the perfect response? You said you were open to being convinced, so acquiesce and just move on to your next question to which you're not really looking for answers.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WillHopp's post
28-01-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
[Image: God-monty-python-380132_800_441.jpg]

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 02:29 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:54 PM)anidominus Wrote:  There is no amount of evidence that could ever be presented that will scientifically prove to an atheist God exist. All "proofs" could be written off as either....

Advanced Technology
Mind Control
Forced Mass Hallucinations

An alien race with advanced technology could possibly create a planet in a nano second using something like quantum Mechanics. In fact, it may even just be a copy of a planet but we would never know.
Since what we feel hear think etc, is all controlled by our brains, if an alien race could intercept our brain functions they could plug in any emotion or thought they wanted.

Different drugs create different effects on the mind. If an alien race injected us with a certain kind of drug its possible we could see whatever the alien race wanted us to see.

If god is as intelligent and powerful as required to create the universe and watch over everything, he could figure out how to convince me. If you don't agree, then you must lack faith.

Quote:There are only 3 reasons that I can think of why an atheist would say they would believe God exist...

1. They want to sound reasonable.
2. They haven't thought their response through.
3. They're just lying.

That list doesn't make any sense. I am an atheist, I won't be saying that god exists.

Quote:They also love to hide behind the phrase "They do not believe God exist". They say this because they do not wish to say "I believe there is no God." To say the latter implies a kind of faith which they wish to avoid.

I make that differentiation because it is the honest thing to do.
I do not claim there is no god because I can't prove it.

Quote:The truth is, if they say they do not believe God exists because of lack of evidence then they are simply lying to themselves. Evidence of an existing God wouldn't be enough. What they really want is proof. Look at all of their responses. Those responses are not rooted in mere evidence, its rooted in proof.

There is no evidence of any gods whatsoever. The universe looks exactly like it should if naturalism is true.

You seem incapable of accepting, or even understanding, that "I don't know" is a valid, acceptable, honest answer to questions. Your immature mentality requires absolute answers.

Quote:so, Its not that atheist do not believe God exists, They "know" he doesn't exist. They "know" this barring anything disproving the existence of God. If they were truly honest they would say I don't know one way or the other like Agnostics.

This "knowing" that they have is indeed a belief and it is indeed blind faith.

I don't know that no gods exist, but there is no evidence of any. And the evidence I see in the natural world is all evidence against the existence of any gods.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like Chas's post
28-01-2014, 02:57 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 02:25 PM)Crulax Wrote:  [Image: God-monty-python-380132_800_441.jpg]

Crulax,
How would you differentiate that from a bad trip? Actually, never mind. All of religion is exactly like a bad trip (not that I would know).

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
28-01-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 02:09 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:59 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Did you mean the former, as in that which is NOT blind faith (which seems to be the latter of the two in your sentence)?
No, I didn't. Granted, it may not be likely that a person who has blind faith in something is persuaded by evidence, but it's possible nonetheless. The same cannot be said for the other type of person.

OK, I see what I missed there now. Thx.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
Evidence of the existence of some manner of personal entity, and further strong evidence that this entity created reality.

The mathematical evidence proposed by Carl Sagan (at the end of his speculative fiction "Contact"... book only, it didn't get into the movie) would qualify as fairly strong, though not absolutely conclusive, evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 01:54 PM)anidominus Wrote:  There is no amount of evidence that could ever be presented that will scientifically prove to an atheist God exist.

That is simply not true.


Quote: All "proofs" could be written off as either....

Advanced Technology
Mind Control
Forced Mass Hallucinations

Not really. Bald assertion by fiat.

Quote:An alien race with advanced technology could possibly create a planet in a nano second using something like quantum Mechanics. In fact, it may even just be a copy of a planet but we would never know.

Which would pretty much make them "gods" by our standard definitions. Of course, they would have to account for gravity and bend other "laws" of physics in order to keep this from destroying our planet, but that's a whole 'nuther batch of speculations.

Quote:[quote]
Since what we feel hear think etc, is all controlled by our brains, if an alien race could intercept our brain functions they could plug in any emotion or thought they wanted.

[Image: ancient-aliens.jpg]

[Image: yesitis2.gif?1311943181]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 03:12 PM
RE: What sort of evidence would it take for atheists to believe in a creator?
(28-01-2014 12:45 PM)Phil Hill Wrote:  The first thing would be any direct manifestation of the divine to me and not to another that I was not there to witness. As long as I was neither drugged, drunk or hallucinating and there was no natural explanation then I would believe in god on the spot.The second would be if their holy book [any religion] had any verifiable scientific knowledge that was not available at the time it was written. This would serve not only as evidence of god to me but evidence that a specific religious text was correct and therefore the correct religion. This would have to be pretty specific. For instance if there was a concrete description of  Special or General Relativity or a description of Quantum Mechanics then I would have to believe that a god was responsible for the knowledge. To date, not one religious text has that though.The third would be verified genuine miracles. Not anything that can be explained by natural means nor do I mean things like the Virgin Mary appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich. A true miracle would definitely serve as a sign there is a god.The fourth conclusive evidence to me would be any verified, specific and unambiguous prophecies written in a religious text or even spoken [not in tongues for you Pentecostals reading]. To be fair this rules out vague, trivial, contrived, self-fulfilling or past prophecies. Also I must mention that throwing out many predictions in the hope that one of them may be true is an automatic disqualification from consideration that a prophecy may be true.

Here are three more for you only this time they point to a specific religion.

The first would be if a religion’s holy book [notice I am not restricting this to any specific religion] was totally flawless and consistent with itself. This rules out all three of the monotheistic religions immediately.The second would be if the followers of the religion [again not specific to any religion] never committed or have taken part in any atrocities and attributed it to their faith. For example just look at the genocides in the bible, the inquisitions, 9/11 and other Muslim terrorist acts, etc.Last would be no internal disputes that show themselves as factions or sects. For example inJudaism we have Orthodox, Conservative and reform. In Islam we have Shia and Sunni and in Christianity we have the over 33,000 different denominations.

You have seven reasons. Four for god and three for specific religions. That is skeptical, atheist, critical thinking, etc. IOW an evidence based view. Now what would change faith? Nothing - so keep it to yourself and shove your lies up your ass.

For your first sentence you say, "as long as I wasn't drugged, drunk or hallucinating, etc"...how would you know that you weren't hallucinating? If the creator actually did appear to you, are you honestly telling me that you would accept it and not write it off as a hallucination?

As for the holy book thing, that's why I added the disclaimer, I'm not talking about any particular creator, so the holy book issue really doesn't come into play. That having been said, let's think about that for a second. If the holy text had any verifiable scientific information in it, then it would have been known at the time. It's not like these are long lost texts, they have been available to the world at large for ages. If anything in any of those texts did meet your test, the scientists of the time would have taken it and implemented it along with the science of the time. By now, it would be scientific fact that had been generally accepted for thousands of years, and you would consider it far too basic to be considered proof of a creator's existence.

Conversely, imagine that nowadays someone came out with a scientific theory more advanced than anything we currently have a basis for in science, but turned out to be true and verifiable. If the scientist said the theory was given to him by God, would you believe him?

Interestingly enough, I remember hearing a talk a little while ago about the nutritional edicts in the Bible. Apparently, if the Jews hadn't abided by the nutritional rules laid down in the Old Testament they likely would have died off. Medical science has since proven that these edicts were necessary in order to avoid outbreaks of disease, etc, but at the time their medical science was not nearly advanced enough to understand why those edicts were necessary.They did it because God said so, and survived because of it. Like I say, just something I heard at a talk, but I thought it may be of interest to you on the point that you raised.

On your third point, what would it require for you to believe that a miracle was true and verifiable? I listed Hume's theory about it in my first post. A miracle, by definition, is a one time event that defies the laws of nature. What would you need to accept something as a verifiable miracle? If Hume's theory is right, miracles are impossible to verify.

For your fourth point, that one is interesting. Essentially, you seem to be saying that you would believe in the existence of a creator if someone claiming to be a prophet was able to make a correct prophecy? I guess this would have to be a modern day event, because I'm assuming you wouldn't accept events that happened in ancient texts and were predicted in earlier texts (presumably because you would doubt the veracity of the historical event proving the prophecy, such as Jesus rising from the dead after his own prediction). So, I'm intrigued, what future event prediction would you have to see come true to change your mind? Is there anything that you not would write off as being a fluke, trick, self-fulfilling prophecy, etc? My assistant's 3 year old son correctly predicted the colour of gumballs from a store machine 6 times in a row (with about 10 possible colours). If someone said he did it because he was given the gift of prophecy by God would you believe it?

As for your last 3 religion specific issues, are you saying that you disbelieve in the existence of any particular religion's deity because his human followers are idiots? That seems like the ultimate ad hominem fallacy to me (rejecting an argument because of the person who made it). If someone bombed a church in the name of atheism would you stop using this site?

(28-01-2014 01:30 PM)IndianAtheist Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 11:36 AM)lookingforanswers Wrote:  What sort of proof or evidence would you require to believe in a creator?
Anything which is observable,testable and falsifiable.Drinking Beverage

Yeah, so I'm asking you, what would you consider to be observable, testable and falsifiable evidence of a creator's existence? Your signature talks about all the stuff that you don't consider evidence, so give me a solid example of what you would consider evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: