Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Tonus]

It seems (some, not all) atheist say that it's clear and easy to them what evidence of God existence should be like. For instance, just show us a supernatural phenomenon that can defy current known laws of physics. The purpose of my post is to show that it's not that easy. Do you agree that it's easy? If you do, could you please tell us just one phenomenon that, if observed and valid, will prove the existence of God? Or you agree that it's not that easy?

I agree that it's not easy. In part, because there have been so many claims of miracles and miraculous intervention, and because so far none have been verified. I think that something that occurred on a massive (perhaps planet-wide) scale and was recorded by many people and which would leave behind evidence that could be studied would force me to confront the existence of such a being.

My post related to this is actually started with "let's start with something simple" (or something like that, I don't quite remember). It means that this is not the only reason.

Your other reasons still seem based on practicality as opposed to faith in god. Your reasoning gives me the impression that you are pretending to believe because it's the most rational course.

Depend, is there any reason to become an atheist?

The only reason to become an atheist would be to realize that you do not believe in god. If you have any reason to believe in the existence of god(s), then you can't become an atheist.

I'm sorry, I don't embrace the default disbelief position, i.e. that you should disbelief on something if there's no evidence either way.
Without any reason for that view, to me that's a dogmatic position. I won't embrace it unless someone can give me a valid reason for that.

There are many things that people do not believe in even though there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to prove their existence conclusively. Atheism is an issue because religion still has considerable influence on people's lives around the world.

As for accepting the default position, skepticism does not require that a person hold to a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. If you take the default position that you do not believe in something, and evidence or proof of it's existence emerges, you are free to believe. Sure, many people dogmatically hold to beliefs even beyond the point that they have no reason to, but humanity in general has progressed in knowledge by letting go of beliefs that were shown to be incorrect.

In any case, the alternative to having a default position that is skeptical is to have a default position that believes unless shown otherwise. That strikes me as a dangerous approach because it makes a person gullible. Unless you only use that approach in a very narrow sense and only towards the existence of the Christian god, in which case I would wonder why make the exception for only that case?

---

I agree that atheists are not amoral as I said multiple times.. I also do believe that atheists ARE moral, so nobody's insulting you. And yet atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential.

Atheism is not an ideology, and therefore I agree that it is amoral. Atheism does not make any claims regarding morality or the lack of it. That's why there are ideologies like Secular Humanism, that seek to describe a moral code and which some atheists adhere to.

[Locke]

In any case, the alternative to having a default position that is skeptical is to have a default position that believes unless shown otherwise. That strikes me as a dangerous approach because it makes a person gullible. Unless you only use that approach in a very narrow sense and only towards the existence of the Christian god, in which case I would wonder why make the exception for only that case?

In examples people use where they argue unicorns, santa clause, etc. should be accepted if God is accepted, they are not taking into account that God is metaphysical, while unicorns are not. This would give us good reason not to believe in unicorns, since we've basically scoured this planet by now and never found any. It does not, however, say anything about God's existence.. not that you brought unicorns up specifically, but I wanted to address that while I'm here.

Your argument that believing something until proven otherwise.. I don't find it convincing. I think about how science proves that something is reasonable to believe, but it does not necessarily prove it without any doubt. The longer a scientific theory holds, the more stock we put in it, but there are many scientific theories that have been proven wrong later on. However, the reason they were proven with certainty to be wrong is because we put them into practice until then, since it seemed reasonable for them to be correct.

I agree that atheists are not amoral as I said multiple times.. I also do believe that atheists ARE moral, so nobody's insulting you. And yet atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential.

Atheism is not an ideology, and therefore I agree that it is amoral. Atheism does not make any claims regarding morality or the lack of it. That's why there are ideologies like Secular Humanism, that seek to describe a moral code and which some atheists adhere to.

There is nothing in the definition of an ideology that implies it must be related to morals, though most of them are. It is simply a systematic body of concepts, or a way of thought that governs an individual or group. There is also nothing to say one cannot follow two ideologies, considering they don't contradict.
However, whether or not it is an ideology is separate from whether or not it contradicts itself. I understand someone can be atheist and also have morals without contradicting - really, I do get what you guys are saying there.

But morality is tied to God. While I know you vehemently disagree with that, I do believe it is true, from what I have seen in my life over and over again. The reason for this, I think, is simply because a God concept establishes an absolute, external standard, and without an absolute standard, there is nothing to stop people from trying to lower the standard to fit their desires. Any standard humans make for themselves originated internally, not externally.
I believe the same is true of atrocities committed by religious groups; I do not believe the leaders of such movements really believe in God (at least, not the Christian God), but rather see an opportunity to exercise their own desires, and use the guise of religion to accomplish it. I believe Hitler is actually a good example of this, as he was not devout and was recorded to have often criticized his Catholic religion, but never left the church; he hated Jews and he used whatever he could to kill them.
This would be an example (as is all of the Catholic church) of humans establishing a non-absolute standard.

Again, this is not to say atheists themselves are amoral, or immoral, or that they always do this, but hopefully this post better explains why I said atheists act morally in spite of atheism.

[Esquilax]

In examples people use where they argue unicorns, santa clause, etc. should be accepted if God is accepted, they are not taking into account that God is metaphysical, while unicorns are not. This would give us good reason not to believe in unicorns, since we've basically scoured this planet by now and never found any. It does not, however, say anything about God's existence.. not that you brought unicorns up specifically, but I wanted to address that while I'm here.

Sweet! You're in luck, then, because right here, and right now, I'm claiming there's a metaphysical unicorn! You believe me, right? I mean, you have to, if you want your claim here to remain consistent!

Calling something metaphysical is not quite the escape hatch on your burden of proof that you seem to think it is; if anything, it makes your belief in such a claim more ridiculous, since you're now claiming belief in a thing you can't even detect.

But morality is tied to God. While I know you vehemently disagree with that, I do believe it is true, from what I have seen in my life over and over again.

You're alright with slavery, are you? If you say no, you've already invalidated both this claim here, and the one you're about to make regarding absolute, objective moral standards. If you say yes... heh, that won't be a good look for any objective standard you're hoping to propose.

The reason for this, I think, is simply because a God concept establishes an absolute, external standard, and without an absolute standard, there is nothing to stop people from trying to lower the standard to fit their desires. Any standard humans make for themselves originated internally, not externally.

Then allow me to pose Euthyphro's Dilemma to you: is your objective moral code moral because god ordered it? If so, you're not appealing to anything objective at all, but rather what god wants. Or is it moral, and that's why god set it as the standard? If so, then it's moral without being connected to god at all.

I believe the same is true of atrocities committed by religious groups; I do not believe the leaders of such movements really believe in God (at least, not the Christian God), but rather see an opportunity to exercise their own desires, and use the guise of religion to accomplish it. I believe Hitler is actually a good example of this, as he was not devout and was recorded to have often criticized his Catholic religion, but never left the church; he hated Jews and he used whatever he could to kill them.
This would be an example (as is all of the Catholic church) of humans establishing a non-absolute standard.

We ain't fans of the No True Scotsman fallacy around these parts.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Not enough moral consistency throughout our history to point to any objective morality. That idea is shot.

There isn't a single property of God's that is distinguishable from an entity that is made-up. They share the same properties, and anyone accepting God as true, has zero grounds for dismissing Zeus, Shiva, Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, or Celestial Teapots. If you get on that horse, you gotta ride it all the way. Special pleas for what seems more reasonable to you aren't often granted around here, or any other circle of critical thinkers. Accepting claims of imaginary entities is part of the religious job description. There are probably lots of Christians that may very well be a sharp logicians, but their reputation as such will never be established if their thoughts on this topic are the only ones on their résumé.

[Drich]

So I've long dabbled in theological debate, and watched a number of them on youtube as well. One line of questioning has piqued my interest. Atheists know what would convince them that God is real. There is established criteria for which we could not deny the existence of God - his holy presence manifested in some unambiguous, obvious godly form, before a reasonable audience (easy thing to do if you, say, occupy the vast majority of the sky over the US, for example), performing any number of supernatural feats that defy the laws of physics. Maybe an upsidedown volcano in the sky that erupts and disappears before it touches anything. Maybe having it actually rain locusts globally, which turn into broccoli afterwards, etc. You know, supernatural business. Do something supernatural, and make it literally spectacular.

Or, shit, heal an amputee. But I digress.

Anyway, we have criteria which could convince us. Evidence could present itself. The possibility exists. We could be wrong. We'd have to accept it.

But do you have a similar set of circumstances, where it can be proven to you that God doesn't exist? Or at least that there's no reason to suspect that he does? What is it about our existence that demands that there is a god, which if you found a legitimate explanation for, you could let go? Would you be willing to accept that argument, if confronted with the evidence/reasoning/explanation?

Do you allow yourself the possibility that you are wrong? Do you have an out, or are you forever bound to the belief of religion, regardless of the evidence put forth against it?

If so, what would it be? What instance, or discovery, or scientific theory (much more than just conjecture - based on mounds of facts), would it take to free you from your faith? I hope you'll weigh in. I'm quite interested in the responses to this question. Thanks!

The God of the bible telling me I have it wrong.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@Drich, if the god of the bible tells you you're wrong to believe he exists, and you have verified to the best of your ability that it is god telling you this, wouldn't this be a supporting evidence for his existence? You're saying you'll ignore that evidence if you're told to and just stop believing?

[Chas]

So I've long dabbled in theological debate, and watched a number of them on youtube as well. One line of questioning has piqued my interest. Atheists know what would convince them that God is real. There is established criteria for which we could not deny the existence of God - his holy presence manifested in some unambiguous, obvious godly form, before a reasonable audience (easy thing to do if you, say, occupy the vast majority of the sky over the US, for example), performing any number of supernatural feats that defy the laws of physics. Maybe an upsidedown volcano in the sky that erupts and disappears before it touches anything. Maybe having it actually rain locusts globally, which turn into broccoli afterwards, etc. You know, supernatural business. Do something supernatural, and make it literally spectacular.

Or, shit, heal an amputee. But I digress.

Anyway, we have criteria which could convince us. Evidence could present itself. The possibility exists. We could be wrong. We'd have to accept it.

But do you have a similar set of circumstances, where it can be proven to you that God doesn't exist? Or at least that there's no reason to suspect that he does? What is it about our existence that demands that there is a god, which if you found a legitimate explanation for, you could let go? Would you be willing to accept that argument, if confronted with the evidence/reasoning/explanation?

Do you allow yourself the possibility that you are wrong? Do you have an out, or are you forever bound to the belief of religion, regardless of the evidence put forth against it?

If so, what would it be? What instance, or discovery, or scientific theory (much more than just conjecture - based on mounds of facts), would it take to free you from your faith? I hope you'll weigh in. I'm quite interested in the responses to this question. Thanks!

The God of the bible telling me I have it wrong.

Well, since the Bible is replete with errors, misinformation, and contradiction, you have your answer.

Welcome to atheism.

[Tonus]

Your argument that believing something until proven otherwise.. I don't find it convincing. I think about how science proves that something is reasonable to believe, but it does not necessarily prove it without any doubt. The longer a scientific theory holds, the more stock we put in it, but there are many scientific theories that have been proven wrong later on. However, the reason they were proven with certainty to be wrong is because we put them into practice until then, since it seemed reasonable for them to be correct.

I don't have a problem with the example of unicorns and Santa, those are used often here. But we can use other examples, such as the concept of the existence of multiple universes, which may be reached through black holes. I've heard the concept described but have no reason to believe that it's true, based on my understanding of black holes. If it can be shown that there are indeed multiple universes, then I'd accept it to be the case.

And you are right, science doesn't have all the answers, and our limited knowledge at any given time means that we will sometimes have explanations or ideas that are incorrect. Those can be corrected, because we understand that we continue to learn more and sometimes that means discarding things we previously believed. I think this includes religious beliefs and ideas based on them, and in this I also think that religion is at a disadvantage because most (all?) religions presume to have absolute knowledge of many things...

But morality is tied to God.

...including morals. I think the part that is tied to god is the concept that any particular action is moral and immoral because god commands it. To me, this means that there cannot be an absolute moral code.

I agree that an atheist is effectively free to determine his own moral code, though I think that most will follow a humanist code that tries to respect the rights and freedoms of others. Whether it is the selfish desire to prosper that forces a person to observe societal morals or a conscience affected by a strict and lawful (or even religious) upbringing that does so, people can follow a moral code. I don't think that atheists take their atheism into account when determining morals, which I think is the point you are making.

[Drich]

The God of the bible telling me I have it wrong.

Well, since the Bible is replete with errors, misinformation, and contradiction, you have your answer.

Welcome to atheism.

Are you saying you are the God of the bible? Or is your basic reading comprehension and retention less than mine?

[Chas]

Well, since the Bible is replete with errors, misinformation, and contradiction, you have your answer.

Welcome to atheism.

Are you saying you are the God of the bible? Or is your basic reading comprehension and retention less than mine?

You clearly have not read the whole Bible. Or understood it.