What Would Convince You To Not Believe?

Originally posted by CLL53
There may come a time when he does need God. The question may become, when/if he does need God someday, will God listen then, after being summarily dismissed for years/decades?

Nope, there will never be a time or situation where I would need/want/or find god useful.

And this falls into the category of snide passive aggressive insults and threats that theists
aim at atheists.

God does not exist.
There is no afterlife.
There is just this reality and our pitifully short time in it to make as much of, or as little of, as you desire.

There are atheists in foxholes, we don't (often) have deathbed conversions to theism, and we
don't secret wish for or pray to gods.

And frankly, I have never heard of a description of heaven that sounds any better than hell.

You and your imaginary god do not have a product or service I want to buy.

When I die I will cease to exist.

I am at peace with that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can not believe in something without some knowledge of it, numbnuts! 🙄

P.S. I doubt that you have enough knowledge to think. But if you do, then you only think you have knowledge that something is true. Logically then you can not believe anything. It is impossible to believe you can think.

sure you can. a lot of people have beliefs without a shred of knowledge associated with them. your bible even encourages this behavior.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The argument we are having is semantic in that we seem to have no real disagreement in our underlying meanings.

that would appear to be so. i did point out the semantic angle in my earlier post.

it is not enough to refrain from using the term. when someone asks you what you believe, it is appropriate to provide an answer in relation to the term used. in which case the answer of "i have no beliefs" is appropriate.

it is also appropriate in the context of this topic. "what would convince you to not believe[in your deity]?" or "what would convince you to disown your belief in a god?" the answer is rationalism.

but why stop at a biblical defined deity? if you follow rationalism to its logical conclusion, you will end up disowning all beliefs.

Originally posted by divegeester
Why do you feel compelled to ridicule? This is something I don't understand about a lot of atheists; hanging out here taking the piss...I don't get it.

Whether vivify intended ridicule or not, I don’t know. There’s plenty of ridicule to go around on these threads. As you know, it is not an arrow that I draw from my debate quiver. But—

His Santa Claus example is not entirely off-point with regard to your comment, as an argument from analogy. Children often believe in Santa up to some age—likely mostly because of faith in the authority of the adults who offer them the Santa myth (which often includes the granting or withholding of rewards—gifts—for assent). At some age they disbelieve—perhaps because of a realization that there is no actual evidence; perhaps in the face of a shifting authority: a peer group.

Reasoning skills are developmental (both in terms of capacity—“age of reason”—and learning: e.g., I have come to learn some propositional logic skills, and analytical philosophy, rather late in life; that knowledge has led to my changing some beliefs, and I certainly hope that errors will be corrected and beliefs (opinions) change as I progress. I don’t know yet what evidence and/or increased reasoning skills might lead to such changes.

_________________________________________________________

I am a strong atheist with regard to any god-concept that is logically incoherent. I am a weak atheist with regard to the rest.

Most of the theists on here seem to be strong theists. There is at least one weak theist that I am aware of.

Originally posted by divegeester
If God appeared to me and said "I don't exist", I would explain to him the concept of faith.

Nice! 🙂

Originally posted by CLL53
If there is an issue with phrasing, the fault was mine per synopsizing/paraphrasing, not with the source.

My point was that lacking belief in God is not the same as believing God does not exist.

Originally posted by CLL53
I do not think it possible to believe and convince oneself that you don't believe. I think those are mutually exclusive. Not sure if that problem is best defined/resolved as a psychological issue or philosophical one. To me at least, it seems the issue being if one could both believe and not believe, as I don't see how one could convince themself that he/sh ...[text shortened]... elieve or not believe (fence sitters, don't know either way and/or don't care either way).

I do not think it possible to believe and convince oneself that you don't believe. I think those are mutually exclusive.

Agreed. And vice versa (hence the futility of commanding one to believe, or offering rewards/punishment for belief/disbelief).

A proviso: If it is possible then I suspect it points to some psychological fragmentation or pathology. It isn’t rationally possible.

There has been debate on here in the past about whether or not agnosticism violates the “excluded middle” with regard to propositions about the existence/nonexistence of God. I think that it does, which would reinforce your opinion here.

Originally posted by JS357
My point was that lacking belief in God is not the same as believing God does not exist.

Yes; and that’s why I think it is demonstrable that agnosticism reduces to weak atheism (lacking belief).

I don't think anything can happen that would strip me completely of my faith. But one thing that would challenge me the most, is if aliens with superior technology visited us, and proceeded to convince us that they did all this, and they inspired the bible for their own purposes.

In fact, I've often thought about what an interesting movie it would be; human beings in the future, having mastered space travel, have to leave Earth because it is no longer a suitable planet; to keep mankind alive, we seed planets; and to ensure that the people of these planets behave as friendly as possible toward one another, we swing by from our spaceships now and then, and convince them we are gods and command them to follow the rules we lay out for them.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that would appear to be so. i did point out the semantic angle in my earlier post.

it is not enough to refrain from using the term. when someone asks you what you believe, it is appropriate to provide an answer in relation to the term used. in which case the answer of "i have no beliefs" is appropriate.

it is also appropriate in the context of th f you follow rationalism to its logical conclusion, you will end up disowning all beliefs.

You should end up in an insane assylum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institutions

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem like a reasonable and logical person in your recent explanation, unlike VoidSpirit and some others. So I do not understand why you think my belief, in a creator God and that the theory of evolution is stupid, is so logically unreasonable.

You are kind of like Hitler saying, I don't understand, what did I do wrong?

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes; and that’s why I think it is demonstrable that agnosticism reduces to weak atheism (lacking belief).

Certainly agnosticism implies weak atheism but there are two varieties of agnosticism. One is represented by I or we do not know, and the other is represented by I or we cannot know:

"Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism" )
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism" )
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, when there is evidence, we can find something out."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

But as you say they both are entirely consistent with weak atheism. Strong atheism implies more.

And this is not to say that weak atheism implies either kind of agnosticism. Or does it? Maybe that's a separate topic.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't think anything can happen that would strip me completely of my faith. But one thing that would challenge me the most, is if aliens with superior technology visited us, and proceeded to convince us that they did all this, and they inspired the bible for their own purposes.

In fact, I've often thought about what an interesting movie it would be; hu ...[text shortened]... then, and convince them we are gods and command them to follow the rules we lay out for them.

Well you say "and proceeded to convince us" but how would you know they were not minions of Satan or (choose your own words) and their convincing you was evidence of their trickery? That seems to be no challenge at all if you have faith that girds you.

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't think anything can happen that would strip me completely of my faith. But one thing that would challenge me the most, is if aliens with superior technology visited us, and proceeded to convince us that they did all this, and they inspired the bible for their own purposes.

In fact, I've often thought about what an interesting movie it would be; hu ...[text shortened]... then, and convince them we are gods and command them to follow the rules we lay out for them.

I believe that is closer to Truth. 😀

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't think anything can happen that would strip me completely of my faith. But one thing that would challenge me the most, is if aliens with superior technology visited us, and proceeded to convince us that they did all this, and they inspired the bible for their own purposes.

In fact, I've often thought about what an interesting movie it would be; hu ...[text shortened]... then, and convince them we are gods and command them to follow the rules we lay out for them.

"...and to ensure that the people of these planets behave as friendly as possible toward one another, we swing by from our spaceships now and then, and convince them we are gods and command them to follow the rules we lay out for them."

How's that working on Earth?