Since I've been on this forum I've read and been involved in several arguments about the nature and existence of god. This makes me wonder if there has ever been a genuine conversion on this site. It further gets me thinking about why we believe what we believe and what it would take to switch.

What would it take to convince a theist that they are wrong?

What would it take to convince an atheist that they are wrong?

Rhizo

I've been considering that too probably as a result of dialogue with yourself. I've also thought I haven't really seen much in the way of good reason for disbelief here, although I know there is; as I've converted both ways as an adult. Twice to Christianity and once to atheism.

I really want to be as open as possible to reasoning and in a position where I can change my mind and not be entrenched for any reason. That'd be such an easy trap to fall into I think.

I personally converted to Christianity for the second time about 2 years ago discussing religion on a technical forum with a few atheists. I didn't tell them this. They probably thought I was a theist all along.

(August 2, 2009 at 1:49 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Since I've been on this forum I've read and been involved in several arguments about the nature and existence of god. This makes me wonder if there has ever been a genuine conversion on this site. It further gets me thinking about why we believe what we believe and what it would take to switch.

What would it take to convince a theist that they are wrong?

What would it take to convince an atheist that they are wrong?

Rhizo

I can't offer an answer to your first question.
If, When I die and come to, I find it all true...god,heaven,hell etc.etc.

(August 2, 2009 at 1:49 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Since I've been on this forum I've read and been involved in several arguments about the nature and existence of god. This makes me wonder if there has ever been a genuine conversion on this site. It further gets me thinking about why we believe what we believe and what it would take to switch.

Well I genuinely was a believer when I was young but I kind of stopped about the age of 13.

(August 2, 2009 at 1:49 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: What would it take to convince a theist that they are wrong?

That I can't answer ...

(August 2, 2009 at 1:49 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: What would it take to convince an atheist that they are wrong?

... but (for me) that I can ... evidence and a reasonable explanation of the same.

Kyu

(August 2, 2009 at 1:49 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: What would it take to convince a theist that they are wrong?

A self-consistent and coherent refutation of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) which does not engage in fallacious tactics (e.g., question-begging) would be a substantial start. I have observed numerous attempts at refuting it, including Michael Martin's TANG, but they have all demonstrably violated logical reasoning at some point.

Arcanus,

I could do a web search for TAG and TANG (and will) but could you please give me sources that you find appropriate?

Thank you,
Rhizo

I doubt many conversions have ever happened WHILE anyone was on the site. I believe anyone on the threads debating is looking for a fight and to support and defend their own side, they aren't looking to convert. I could be wrong.

Good point Maldives,

Since I have been posting here I have come to the conclusion that I no longer care to even attempt to "win" a debate. I have yet to see anyone concede much, other than minor points. It seems that more value would come from just debating for the knowledge. Or...

"To the pain!" have at thee!

Rhizo

I agree.
It's def. entertaining to listen to the debates-especially if you are an atheist, but as I've heard and said many times before, you can't argue 'faith', it's pointless.

(August 3, 2009 at 1:01 am)Arcanus Wrote: A self-consistent and coherent refutation of the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG) which does not engage in fallacious tactics (e.g., question-begging) would be a substantial start. I have observed numerous attempts at refuting it, including Michael Martin's TANG, but they have all demonstrably violated logical reasoning at some point.

The TAG argument fails because it cannot prove a consistent morality (morality can be seen to vary across time and by culture) plus you have to identify and evidentially support your ultimate moral arbiter BEFORE you can claim it is one so have fun with that. Ultimately the TAG argument is based on circular reasoning i.e. that morality, reason and so on mean god exists and they exist because god created them, which proves god exists and around we go again ad nauseum .. in short, it's bollocks!

Kyu