RE: What would it take?
February 28, 2014 at 4:32 pm
(This post was last modified: February 28, 2014 at 4:39 pm by eyemixer.)
(February 28, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Fromper Wrote: Why should you have to tell them what type of evidence to ask for? Let them show you the best evidence they have. If it's not good enough for you, explain why, so they can try to come up with something different that won't have the same flaw. Just make sure your reasons are logical.
But really, I can't imagine what it would take to convince me. Something big and obvious, unlike any of the "evidence" (and I use the term loosely) that Christians usually present.
I'm not trying to refute what they are presenting. I have no issues in dismantling the assertions of god(s) I come across, I'm trying to be able to give an answer to them (and more importantly myself) about what my standard of evidence really is, at a low (threshold) level for my lack of belief.
(February 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Tonus Wrote:(February 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm)eyemixer Wrote: The question is asked out of frustration by who? The believer or me?The believer. I don't approach discussion with theists as if they need to convince me; I am simply interested in hearing why they believe what they believe. If their presentation is not convincing, the question "what would it take" can legitimately be answered with "more than you've presented so far."
To elaborate on that, keep in mind that we're not just talking about a few bits of evidence that might be relevant and a few objections that can be explained away. Nor is the theist presenting the justifications for his belief and being met with "nuh uh" as a response. In some cases we're talking about laughably poor rationalizations for very difficult questions or circumstances (to be charitable). I think that most of the time, the question "what would it take" is designed to set up a situation where the theist can simply exit the discussion without conceding the weakness of his argument. And I think it's important to consider this before attempting to make a sincere attempt at answering that question.
Valid point, but then I can't in any fairness ask "What would it take for you to no longer believe in {insert god(s)}?" which is my usual quick check at the start of an argument (in the conversational sense) about religion to see if I can just save myself the hassle. They say nothing, no reason to go any further. Also, I ask myself the question to make sure I'm not letting the fact it's not currently reasonable to believe in god(s) turn into a bias and preclude me from accepting evidence that other rational unbiased people might.
