What Would It Take To Be Convinced?

[Pyrrho]

...

Pro tip for Chad:

Just because something is written in a book, it doesn't mean it's true.

David Hume had some things to say about that:


For first, there is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good-sense, education, and learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity, as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind, as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time, attesting facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the [117] detection unavoidable: All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men.

Secondly. We may observe in human nature a principle which, if strictly examined, will be found to diminish extremely the assurance, which we might, from human testimony, have, in any kind of prodigy. The maxim, by which we commonly conduct ourselves in our reasonings, is, that the objects, of which we have no experience, resembles those, of which we have; that what we have found to be most usual is always most probable; and that where there is an opposition of arguments, we ought to give the preference to such as are founded on the greatest number of past observations. But though, in proceeding by this rule, we readily reject any fact which is unusual and incredible in an ordinary degree; yet in advancing farther, the mind observes not always the same rule; but when anything is affirmed utterly absurd and miraculous, it rather the more readily admits of such a fact, upon account of that very circumstance, which ought to destroy all its authority. The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion, gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events, of which they are informed, yet love to partake of the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.


...


The many instances of forged miracles, and prophecies, and supernatural events, which, in all ages, have either been detected by contrary evidence, or which detect themselves by their absurdity, prove sufficiently the strong propensity of mankind to the extraordinary and the marvellous, and ought reasonably to beget a suspicion against all relations of this kind. This is our natural way of thinking, even with regard to the most common and most credible events. For instance: There is no kind of report which rises so easily, and spreads so quickly, especially in country places and provincial towns, as those concerning marriages; insomuch that two young persons of equal condition never see [119] each other twice, but the whole neighbourhood immediately join them together. The pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting, of propagating it, and of being the first reporters of it, spreads the intelligence. And this is so well known, that no man of sense gives attention to these reports, till he find them confirmed by some greater evidence. Do not the same passions, and others still stronger, incline the generality of mankind to believe and report, with the greatest vehemence and assurance, all religious miracles?



Thirdly. It forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations, that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions. When we peruse the first histories of all nations, we are apt to imagine ourselves transported into some new world; where the whole frame of nature is disjointed, and every element performs its operations in a different manner, from what it does at present. Battles, revolutions, pestilence, famine and death, are never the effect of those natural causes, which we experience. Prodigies, omens, oracles, judgements, quite obscure the few natural events, that are intermingled with them. But as the former grow thinner every page, in proportion as we advance nearer the enlightened ages, we soon learn, that there is nothing mysterious or supernatural in the case, but that all proceeds from the usual propensity of mankind towards the marvellous, and that, though this inclination may at intervals receive a check from sense and learning, it can never be thoroughly extirpated from human nature.

It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious [120] events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all ages. You must surely have seen instances enough of that frailty. You have yourself heard many such marvellous relations started, which, being treated with scorn by all the wise and judicious, have at last been abandoned even by the vulgar. Be assured, that those renowned lies, which have spread and flourished to such a monstrous height, arose from like beginnings; but being sown in a more proper soil, shot up at last into prodigies almost equal to those which they relate.



...

I may add as a fourth reason, which diminishes the authority of prodigies, that there is no testimony for any, even those which have not been expressly detected, that is not opposed by an infinite number of witnesses; so that not only the miracle destroys the credit of testimony, but the testimony destroys itself. To make this the better understood, let us consider, that, in matters of religion, whatever is different is contrary; and that it is impossible the religions of ancient Rome, of Turkey, of Siam, and of China should, all of them, be established on any solid foundation. Every miracle, therefore, pretended to have been wrought in any of these religions (and all of them abound in miracles), as its direct scope is to establish the particular system to which it is attributed; so has it the same force, though more indirectly, to overthrow every other system. In destroying a rival system, it likewise destroys the credit of those miracles, on which that system [122] was established; so that all the prodigies of different religions are to be regarded as contrary facts, and the evidences of these prodigies, whether weak or strong, as opposite to each other. According to this method of reasoning, when we believe any miracle of Mahomet or his successors, we have for our warrant the testimony of a few barbarous Arabians: And on the other hand, we are to regard the authority of Titus Livius, Plutarch, Tacitus, and, in short, of all the authors and witnesses, Grecian, Chinese, and Roman Catholic, who have related any miracle in their particular religion; I say, we are to regard their testimony in the same light as if they had mentioned that Mahometan miracle, and had in express terms contradicted it, with the same certainty as they have for the miracle they relate. This argument may appear over subtile and refined; but is not in reality different from the reasoning of a judge, who supposes, that the credit of two witnesses, maintaining a crime against any one, is destroyed by the testimony of two others, who affirm him to have been two hundred leagues distant, at the same instant when the crime is said to have been committed.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341


_____________________________________________________

That a group of primitive people make some miraculous claims, is not sufficient reason to believe them.  This should be completely obvious, to any thinking person.

[IATIA]

Pro tip for Chad:

Just because something is written in a book, it doesn't mean it's true.

You mean Harry Potter is not real?

[The Grand Nudger]

-same thing it takes to convince me that I have toes.  Strange, my toes have managed what god has not.....all these years.

[robvalue]

Oh Harry Potter is real. Just not everything in books

Some people get upset about outsiders using magic.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'll give the same response I usually give when I get asked this question.

What evidence would it take to convince me of the existence of God?

I have no idea. But any god worthy of the title would know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence. As of yet he/she has not bothered to show me this evidence, so I'll be waiting.

[robvalue]

Whoever talks to god next, please tell him this isn't how relationships between sensible entities work. Get him to read cosmo or something.

[Tonus]

An interesting question to ponder is what would qualify as substantial enough evidence to convince atheists like us of the existence of something greater?

People ask this question from time to time, but for me it's pretty simple.  What does it take to convince you of anything in particular?  There are things we believe and disbelieve with varying degrees of certainty.  How did we come to those beliefs/disbeliefs?  Think about it, and then consider how a god might be able to convince you that he's real.  It's honestly that simple IMO.

I find that often the question is posed by theists as a way to imply that the atheist would refuse to believe in god no matter what evidence --or even proof-- was presented to him.  But I find that to be a way to cover for the fact that god has not presented himself, and that they've reached a level of certainty based on what they would consider flimsy evidence in any other facet of their lives.  I am not an atheist in spite of evidence of god.  I am an atheist because of the lack of that evidence.  If we were to apply some of the arguments in favor of god to any other part of our everyday life, I doubt it would be very convincing at all.  I think it would sound a lot like the words of a con man.  Give it a try!  I think you'll find it pretty amusing.

[Cyberman]

Whoever talks to god next, please tell him this isn't how relationships between sensible entities work. Get him to read cosmo or something.

Any god that doesn't know how its creation works on a basic emotional level would be one of the most dangerous entities in the Universe; that ratchets up exponentially for a righteous, judgemental one.

[JesusHChrist]

What would it take for me to be convinced there is a god?

1. 16 monkeys must fly out of my posterior. No more, no less.
2. They must be Bonobos (yes, I know they are chimps! Work with me here...still goddamn monkeys!)
3. They must speak to me in Mandarin, and I will understand them. I don't currently speak Mandarin, but would like to pick it up if not too much to ask.
4. They will then prepare me the most tasty meal EVER conceived! EVER! And ye will know it by its tastiness. It will be completely satisfying and contain zero calories. Summer is coming and I want to look good in me trunks.
5. Said monkeys/Bonobos will serve me and my kind as chefs, valets, maids and chauffeurs for a period of not less than 20 years. Until death do us part.

God -- complete the above, and you done got yourself a belieber!

[Esquilax]

God would have to come down in human form, perform miracles, and fulfill prophecy.

Oh wait a minute...he did that already. And you still dont believe. Never mind.

Yeah, if I'd seen that and could confirm it happened, that'd go a long way toward convincing me.

But I haven't seen that, and I have no way to confirm it. And neither do you. And neither does any human being alive today. All we've got are conflicting written accounts, tainted by a verified history of tampering by the church, by anonymous authors, that are in reality just the claim itself and so cannot be used as evidence for it, as that would be circular.

And you already know all of this, because despite your insistent shitposting over the past few weeks, you aren't actually a complete idiot. You're just set on acting like one recently, for some reason.