What would it take for you to believe in God?

[Cinjin]

This really sums it up doesn't it? The blinders, the ignorance, the wanton disregard of any kind of reason or logic - all summed up in this sentence:

It is circular reasoning, and I'm okay with that. I believe the Bible to be true, because I believe God to be true.

Congratulations, not only are you a gullible half-wit, but your belief system is supported by the exact same sort of "logic" that the Muslims and the Hindus use to support their belief structure.

I think we all believe in a lot of things without testable evidence. I believe that Plato existed even though the only evidence I have is secondary and isn't testable at all. We all believe and have faith in certain things that can't be tested.

- Words of someone who desperately needs an excuse to maintain his RIDICULOUS beliefs. As if somehow, it makes your absurd notions ok simply because there are others who exist who maintain your same level of stupidity. No sir, MANY of us do NOT believe in "a lot of things without testable evidence," and simply because you write words down on the internet, doesn't magically make them true.

[Mister Agenda]

Do you only believe in things that have testable evidence?

The evidence should be proportionate to the extraordinariness of the claim. It's Bayesian analysis: if you claim you tied your own shoes this morning, it's a trivial claim, I have prior knowledge that the claim is plausible, so I am likely to take your word for it. That doesn't mean you're not lying or deluded, only that I have no good reason to assume it. If you claim you tied your own shoes this morning using the power of psychokinesis, I have no prior knowledge that such a thing is possible, and you would need thorough scientific support before I would accept your claim.

This is really common sense stuff. Is there a reason the obvious answers to your questions aren't occurring to you?

---

Do you believe in hope, joy, love, courage? If so, what is the testable evidence of these things?

Those are emotions of which we all have direct experience. Again, this is an obvious answer to your question. We believe in these feelings because we have them.

---

How would you know if you are rightly judging the evidence if you saw it?

How would YOU?

---

There is more physical and testable evidence for many of the truths of Christianity, than many things that are almost universally believed. The resurrection of Christ, example was seen by hundreds of people. What keeps you from believing that?

Someone said it happened and was seen by hundreds of people. That's not physical and testable evidence, it's hearsay. Can you name 20 of those hundreds of people? Can you point to 10 contemporary accounts of the event in question? Do you believe in nonChristian messianic resurrection claims (Jesus was not the first purported Jewish messiah to come to a bad end only to have his followers claim he was resurrected)?

It's not even adequately-documented hearsay. A few unknown authors recorded that they were told that hundreds of people saw a resurrected Jesus. No one who was supposed to have been there at the time actually wrote it down. We don't know how many retellings it went through before the Gospel authors heard of it. Even if we accept that people saw Jesus walking around after the crucifixion, the most parsimonious explanation is that the crucifixion didn't actually kill him...people have survived crucifixion when taken down early, as Jesus was. Ancient people often had a difficult time distinguishing between 'dead' and 'looks dead'.

If you heard the same story about Krishna, would you believe it? If not, on what basis do expect we would believe it about Jesus?

---

Where's your evidence that hundreds of people saw Christ do anything?

Oh, it's the book that wants you to believe that Christ was god? Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

It is circular reasoning, and I'm okay with that. I believe the Bible to be true, because I believe God to be true. I think we all believe in a lot of things without testable evidence. I believe that Plato existed even though the only evidence I have is secondary and isn't testable at all. We all believe and have faith in certain things that can't be tested.

It's one thing to accept that a Greek philosopher named Plato existed. It's another thing to accept the existence of Atlantis because Plato wrote about it and he was really smart.

And I don't think you believe in Plato the same way you believe in Jesus. If strong evidence that all the works attributed to Plato were written by other people who used 'Plato' as a collective nom de plume, I, and probably you, would have no problem giving up the notion that Plato was a real individual. I slightly lean towards Jesus having actually existed (sans miracles), but if strong evidence turned up that he was fictitious, I wouldn't have a problem changing my mind about Jesus existing. Can you say the same?

---

I certainly don't think that every view is created equal. I think I'm right. You think you're right. But clearly one of us is wrong.

If only there was a method by which one could sift out false claims.

One thing I want to establish is that we all believe certain things by faith or without testable evidence.

There's a difference between believing a plausible claim that there's no particular reason to doubt and BELIEVING an implausible claim no matter what. In other words, 'believe' is a word with multiple senses, and arguing with no recognition of that fact is engaging in the fallacy of equivocation. To clarify the conversation, let's start using the term 'accept' instead of 'believe' for belief in the sense of 'a provisionally held opinion that something is actually the case' and 'faith' instead of 'believe' in the sense of 'commited to the truth of a claim or proposition regardless of evidence'.

So saying that you only believe in what can be scientifically tested is a little disingenuous.

But saying we don't have faith in what can't be scientifically tested is not disengenuous.

---

[quote='Kitanetos' pid='660584' dateline='1398823620']

Because he is an atheist. hock:

That doesn't at all answer the question. There are a lot of atheists who have never heard of this site and if they did wouldn't come.

Maybe he comes here to enjoy conversations with atheists. It's not a particular mystery why an atheist would frequent an atheist discussion board. A more cogent question would be why are YOU here, asking questions for which the answers are obvious?

---

I care if you believe, but God cares even more. I agree that the argument that states God's reason for not revealing Himself is to keep our free will intact is ridiculous. Have you ever tried asking God to reveal Himself to you?

I can't speak for Darkstar, but God is more than welcome to reveal himself. By defintion, he would know the most elegant way to accomplish the revelation.

---

I depend on faith, because I think faith is superior to reason. Reason rests in what my own mental faculties can comprehend. Also, I see a huge problem with what "facts". Facts are always interpreted and therefore subject to error.

Western civilization pretty much agreed with you up to about 400 years ago. Look at what not thinking faith is superior to reason has accomplished in that time.

I don't think there are any ways to prove 100% that God exists. God never seeks to prove that He exists. He just exists.

As a general rule, people that really exist have no need to prove they really exist.

Reason, intellect, and evidences are not enough.

And for rational skeptics, anything that requires more than those three things to believe is probably not true. You can believe anything on faith and presupposition. If your method of determining truth works just as well to support the opposite of your belief, it's not much of a method.

---

Those who have asked me for observable evidence for God, could you give observable evidence for evolution/Darwinism?

There are whole threads currently on that topic. No need to go off on that tangent with this one. I recommend you go visit a thread with 'Darwin' or 'evolution' in the title.

---

For these people to believe in God, all it takes is a storm in the open sea.

Mere assholish assertion, and dismissed as such. You think none of us have faced danger before?

[Mister Agenda]

There is more physical and testable evidence for many of the truths of Christianity, than many things that are almost universally believed. The resurrection of Christ, example was seen by hundreds of people. What keeps you from believing that?

And God spoke to the entire all the freed Hebrews around Mt. Sinai.

There's a story where God spoke to all the Hebrews around Mt. Sinai. There's a story where a war was started because of a beauty contest between three Greek goddesses. It has equal evidential weight as the Mt. Sinai story.

[JesusHChrist]

And God spoke to the entire all the freed Hebrews around Mt. Sinai.

There's a story where God spoke to all the Hebrews around Mt. Sinai. There's a story where a war was started because of a beauty contest between three Greek goddesses. It has equal evidential weight as the Mt. Sinai story.

And even worse for the believer, there is zero evidence for any of the tall tales described in Exodus.

There is no evidence the Hebrews were ever enslaved in Egypt, or that Moses existed or 1.5 million of them spent 40 long years wandering around aimlessly in the desert. Buzzzzzz! No support whatsoever! Phoney baloney!

Repeating this nonsense does not serve the believer well.

[BlackMason]

This really sums it up doesn't it? The blinders, the ignorance, the wanton disregard of any kind of reason or logic - all summed up in this sentence:

It is circular reasoning, and I'm okay with that. I believe the Bible to be true, because I believe God to be true.

It makes you wanna cry don't it?

Anyway with regard to the main issue of what would be required for me to believe: In a nut shell the evidence would be a similar standard as that applied in criminal law. Beyond reasonable doubt.

Having aaid that I do recognise that there some inherent problems in this type issue. If a god appeared before your eyes, you still wouldn't be able to believe. This is because it could've been an alien with technology that we can't fathom that read our scriptures and knows what we'd be looking for. It also could be a malevolent demon acting as the god being sought. The demon would also know how to counterfeit the authentication process required just like the alien. Asking for miracles to be performed is also useless because it could just be really good technology.

[Mr Brightside]

In your mind, is your primary reason for not believing in God moral, scientific, or something completely different?

My belief (or lack thereof) is based on facts and life lessons i've accumulated throughout my life. Also common sense!

What would make me believe? Cold hard evidence. Even then if its the Christian god we are talking about.. or sheesh i guess any current Gods worshiped atm i would rather die then call them "god". These beings are extremely cruel.. i could never follow some one or something like that.

[Losty]

I don't think there are any ways to prove 100% that God exists. God never seeks to prove that He exists.

Yeah, why is it that he, the Easter bunny, Santa and so many imaginary beings stubbornly never seek to prove their existence. Well played secret friends.

This is the best thing of my life. Just, the way it's worded. Lol. I can't stop laughing. I've read it over and over and it keeps making me laugh every time.

[Darkstar]

I care if you believe, but God cares even more. I agree that the argument that states God's reason for not revealing Himself is to keep our free will intact is ridiculous. Have you ever tried asking God to reveal Himself to you?

Do you mean asking audibly, or in my head? Does desiring to know his existence count (since an omniscient being could easily read my mind)? If an omniscient and omnipotent being wants everyone to know that he/she exists, then there is no logical reason that someone who would want to know would have that information withheld from them. It shouldn't take much effort to prove the existence of a supposedly omnipresent being, should it?

[Ksa]

In your mind, is your primary reason for not believing in God moral, scientific, or something completely different?

There is no God. When the first man built the first house, his question was "who made this world?". That man did not understand that he was the first thing on that planet to ever make anything. He thought that someone must have built the Earth like he built that house. He couldn't understand how Earth could build itself. Why? Because the house couldn't have built itself. He had to build it. So someone had to build the Earth also.

But the ants build their houses too and they never wonder. They built their house because they can. It's just short sighting. The man could not think outside the box. He couldn't understand his place in this world, as he was the first living thing to have reason and intellect. But nature gave him the perfect mechanism to detect his purpose in this world: pain and pleasure. What hurts you is what you should avoid, and what pleases you, that is your purpose in this world. Very simple. No Bible or God required.

The problem was that, along evolution, some men had genetic mutations where they developed tolerance to well-being. Building a house was no longer sufficient after a while. They wanted more. They wanted to build a pyramid, to regain their bliss. It is from them that we inherited drug tolerance mechanisms. It is them who picked up the weapons and slayed men who lived in bliss without tolerance and without wanting more.

The problem with developing tolerance to well-being is that man kept wanting more and more, and what he got was never sufficient. After having sex with his wife for a year, he got to a point where he no longer felt anything. So he started chasing women to rape them and kill them. That was more exciting. But again after a year of doing that, he no longer felt anything, he needed a bigger excitement. So he committed even more atrocious acts against humanity.

Since this shitty species was the most violent and obnoxious, it prevailed among more pacifist species. And, in order to keep man's violence and thirst for power in check, religion was made. To sate his thirst and fill his hole. Telling him that he will go to heaven was a good way to make him die of old age without ever reaching bliss. Bliss that the old species of men that got exterminated could reach without any effort.

We, are those violent obnoxious men that constantly want more at the expense of everything and everyone else.

No God would want anything close to our kind populating this Earth. No God would be happy of creating us. No God would tolerate us.

[ThomM]

In your mind, is your primary reason for not believing in God moral, scientific, or something completely different?

First - YOUR statement is incorrect - it should read - Not believing in A GOD - since it implies that one is correct - which cannot be determined since the existence of gods cannot be determined

Since this is the xtian group - I would say - read the bible - from beginning to end - compare the bible statements to reality - check the contradiction with itself and the absolute immoral and unethical acts the god did in the bible.

The claim that morality and ethics came from the bible is nonsense - the bible is a horrendous document that should be kept away from children.

So - why would a god make a law - that a woman who is raped - must marry her rapist?

Why would a god make a law - that a child who disobeys should be stoned to death?

Why did the god - knowing that children and babies are not of the age of responsibilty represent a large amount of the then popoulation (THe average male lived less than 30 years in ancient times) - MURDER all of these children. And it is MURDER - nothing less. To claim a direct live to heaven denies the idea of freedom of choice

How can freedom of choice exist in a world where everything that happens - and is going to happen is already known - so - in fact when humans - who are finite - make a decision - the ONLY thing they can do regardless of the options - it what the god already knows. They do not have the freedom to change their minds and do the opposite - because that would make the god NOT KNOWING. And of course - the god is limited to what it knows as well - so it cannot change its mind.


In law - there is a principle called Depraved Indifference - in which a person who knows that someone is going to do something very bad - is actually abetting the person by keeping it secret. The person who knows must take steps to prevent or tell the situation. If the god is ALL KNOWING - it knew about the Holocaust - and let it happen - it knew about Ethnic cleansing - and let it happen - It knew about witch trials - and let them burn at the stake.

The problem is - once you have actually READ THE BIBLE - if YOu can still believe that this god represents the highest morality and ethics - YOU are stupid. You may as well have stood by and encouraged Adolph Hitler