Can atheists convert theists?

[Ace Otana]

@ Godhead

[AtheistPhil]

---

Anyway to answer your question, I think that atheists are ignorant of the role of intuition in perception.
I've had conversations in which the atheist acknowledges that intuition can be useful and even accurate, but only in certain areas, yet not in others. It's my view that intuition plays a far bigger role than atheists recognise. Just as it is perfectly possible to "sleep on" a problem and wake up with the solution, it is perfectly possible to have knowledge of things through intuition. If I asked you to prove that your intuition is or can be effective, you wouldn't be able to do it, yet it is common knowledge that intuition exists, and works.
And some people have a more advanced intuition than others. So the question isn't does intuition exist and does it work, because it does both. And the question isn't can I prove what I claim through my intuition, as that is the kind of question that people don't tend to ask as it is not really possible to do that.
So the question is : Given that intuition is effective, and given that it's not always realistic to ask someone to prove what their intuition tells them, why do atheists still insist on asking for the impractical and the impossible? We all know that my intuition of god's existence can't be proven, so the question is futile.
I believe that when atheists ask such a futile question, all they're doing is reaffirming to themselves their prejudices. And all of that is what I think atheists are ignorant of. And that issue has never adequately been addressed by atheists.

The purpose of this thread, which I started, is to demonstrate how atheists react when challenged to convert theists. Now you say that I'm not open to be converted. But actually, whenever I've come across an argument against god's existence, I have given it sufficient and sincere thought. The fact that I haven't been convinced doesn't mean that I'm closed to the possibility. To say that the former equals the latter is to miss the point that I have another way of seeing things, as do you. So when I say that you will probably fail in making me an atheist, that is an expression of my current position and opinion, not a literal statement of fact, because who knows, you might just do it. I'm hardly going to say that you probably will succeed, am I? That would mean that I'm on the fence or having doubts. But that's not the case. Maybe you were expecting that a theist starting a thread saying try and convert me meant that I'm on the fence. No, that's not what it means, it means, I want to see if anyone can come up with an argument against god's existence which I could find convincing. I don't have to agree with you in order to be open to the possibility. In other words, if you fail to convince me, then I'm sorry but it means your argument wasn't convincing in my view. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't chew over an argument which I saw some potential in. It's just that to date, I've come across nothing remotely convincing. Even the god delusion has nothing, which I found surprising as Dawkins is a bright guy. I think his book should have been called "The Organised Religion's (mainly christian) God Delusion".

---

Intuition is a subconscious processing of information. It provides you with knowledge without the use of reason. But that knowledge is a priori neither proven or true. In fact, your intuition fails very often.

1) Your belief in God comes from your intuition, which means without the use of reason (and immune to it).
2) I'm using reason only when I want to find the truth, prove something, convince someone.

conclusion: I cannot convince you. [/thread]


subsidiary question: if you were in a life threatening situation where you'd have to decide between 2 ways to act (one of which will kill you, the other will save you), the first choice is supported by your intuition, the other by your reason, which would you choose ?

[CoolBoy]

I believe that it is very hard for an atheist to convert a theist because an atheist would use reasoning and logic in their argument. Since theists cannot comprehend reasoning and logic it would be like speaking a different language.

An atheist must first encourage the theist to use proper logical reasoning, and then attempt to de-convert/convert/convince or whatever.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Anyway to answer your question, I think that atheists are ignorant of the role of intuition in perception. I've had conversations in which the atheist acknowledges that intuition can be useful and even accurate, but only in certain areas, yet not in others. It's my view that intuition plays a far bigger role than atheists recognise. Just as it is perfectly possible to "sleep on" a problem and wake up with the solution, it is perfectly possible to have knowledge of things through intuition. If I asked you to prove that your intuition is or can be effective, you wouldn't be able to do it, yet it is common knowledge that intuition exists, and works. And some people have a more advanced intuition than others. So the question isn't does intuition exist and does it work, because it does both. And the question isn't can I prove what I claim through my intuition, as that is the kind of question that people don't tend to ask as it is not really possible to do that. So the question is : Given that intuition is effective, and given that it's not always realistic to ask someone to prove what their intuition tells them, why do atheists still insist on asking for the impractical and the impossible? We all know that my intuition of god's existence can't be proven, so the question is futile. I believe that when atheists ask such a futile question, all they're doing is reaffirming to themselves their prejudices. And all of that is what I think atheists are ignorant of. And that issue has never adequately been addressed by atheists.

The definition of intuition belies that of, according to my undertanding, to be of quick and summery judgement of something due to direct observation. This can have its serious benefits as it and common sense are often powerful tools of the scientific trade and methodology.
If a scientist an odd rock in a landscape, he might have a hunch about the area and decide to dig further. He can't really see any other rocks but the one he found is certainly one he can't pick up, as more of it is buried. He later finds that he intuitively found that the reason the rock was different was because underneath the soil, it became obvious that the area was an ancient sea floor where erosion and time brought in a layer of topsoil to cover everything.
Essentially, an intuitive answer is by definition the most seemingly obvious one, but what is an intuitive answer may not always be the correct one.

The definition of 'common sense,' according to my undertanding, is a lot like the idea of occam's razor. The simplest explaination is mostly likely the best or correct answer. I will ignore, for the time being, the old saying 'common sense isn't' because I think that would be off-topic.

Still, I'm not sure where atheists aren't using these things. If I'm getting what you're saying, then you are telling me that atheists are using these tools in some areas but not others. You understand the idea that the existance of god cannot be proven but atheists are asking for more than can realistically be provided.

If this is what you are saying, then this is my answer: I think that where you and atheists differ is where you decide what is the most plausible and simplest answer. Most atheists, in the absense of faith, take the same dichotomy of science in "going where the evidence leads" and refusing to make summery judgements without supporting evidence.
Thus, the question of god, who seems to have made no real imprint on the world, humans, or civilization in any fashion, and whose very existance has no evidence that can be supported by peer scientific or journalistic review is an easy one for atheists to answer.

I don't know if you ascribe to creationism in the christian sense - that god created the heavens and the earth and all the living things in 6 days with one day of rest - but the atheist arguements against creationism is really where this difference in views is the most obvious because of the extreme differences. Even if you don't ascribe to creationism at all or have some sort of compromise between science and your faith, you can understand a lot about atheists by seeing these arguements by a skilled and intelligent orator. Before I address your next major point, I'll give you the link to the first of a chain of videos by a youtube personality by the name of aronra, which was the first of a flurry of related videos I watched on youtube that somehow led me to this forum.

Now, I've a few more questions:
Why do you feel that we're asking for the impractical or impossible?

I understand that the question is, apparently, that you can't prove god's existance through your intuition or common sense, but if that isn't the case, then how were you led to the 'god conclusion' at all?

According to your belief, what role does or has god provided or provides?

Plus, here's the link I promised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

The purpose of this thread, which I started, is to demonstrate how atheists react when challenged to convert theists. Now you say that I'm not open to be converted. But actually, whenever I've come across an argument against god's existence, I have given it sufficient and sincere thought. The fact that I haven't been convinced doesn't mean that I'm closed to the possibility. To say that the former equals the latter is to miss the point that I have another way of seeing things, as do you. So when I say that you will probably fail in making me an atheist, that is an expression of my current position and opinion, not a literal statement of fact, because who knows, you might just do it. I'm hardly going to say that you probably will succeed, am I? That would mean that I'm on the fence or having doubts. But that's not the case. Maybe you were expecting that a theist starting a thread saying try and convert me meant that I'm on the fence. No, that's not what it means, it means, I want to see if anyone can come up with an argument against god's existence which I could find convincing. I don't have to agree with you in order to be open to the possibility. In other words, if you fail to convince me, then I'm sorry but it means your argument wasn't convincing in my view. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't chew over an argument which I saw some potential in. It's just that to date, I've come across nothing remotely convincing. Even the god delusion has nothing, which I found surprising as Dawkins is a bright guy. I think his book should have been called "The Organised Religion's (mainly christian) God Delusion".

To use your words, I'm putting myself out there to be deconverted. But I'm not having doubts, so you're not going to find it easy, and so be it. Again, good luck.

I stated those things because there appeared to be very little debate on that actual topic that seemed to go anywhere and the real lack of talk about what your faith actually consists of, which should be readily prevelant were there any serious attempt to convert you to changing them. But I only skimmed through the thread and I didn't read every post, but the few I did catch seemed to be making blind stabs at some of the more common 'atheist talking points'. In any case, if you have given it serious thought, then I haven't caught wind of it from this thread prior to my recent postings.
Although I've heard Mr. Dawkin's book was good from some reviews, I've not read his material.

If I am wrong about your stance, then you're giving me a conflicting answer - which begs the question:

If you have no doubts about the validity of your faith, then why are you open to giving them up?

The idea that you are certain enough of your beliefs but you're willing to drop everything you believe in if you're satisfied with the reasoning of the arguements presented against you seems contradictory to me.

I mean, I suppose I could change my stance on evolution and relativity if god personally appeared and made public that these things are contrary to his design in a manner that was not ambiguous. But it seems to be very different if I were confront a group of priests and ask them to convince me that evolution was wrong, even though I'm nearly 100% certain that 150+ years of overwhelming evidence can't be wrong. So you can see my confusion if you understand where I'm coming from.

[Godhead]

Darkness of angels -

I feel that what atheists ask which is impractical and impossible is for me to prove that god exists. But I can't do that. And the reason, on the surface, why atheists would ask in the first place, in the knowledge that I can't prove that god exists, is to demonstrate that I can't prove that god exists, ie prove a point. But that's a given, we know that. So underneath the surface, I think the real reason is to ridicule. The problem with that, apart from the fact that it achieves nothing, is that I don't feel any ridicule at all. I'm aware of the attempt but it has no emotional effect on me, so as an end goal on the part of the atheist, it's futile. So, if an atheist asks me to prove that god exists, the only appropriate response is : "You prove it" (as in, ask a silly question, get a silly answer). According to my belief, god doesn't provide anything. Why do you ask me that? (I'm sensing an undercurrent in your posts, namely that you seem to be equating theism per se with christianity - I understand that, but please bear in mind that I'm not a christian). I'm open to giving up my beliefs simply because I too go where the evidence (reason to believe / conviction) takes me. So far, my evidence has clearly pointed to the existance of god. It is evidence which can't be commuicated and shown, as you know. If you can show me anything to contradict that I'm open to it. But as I say I've not seen any. Also, in order for me to drop my beliefs, I would have to see evidence that the universe is godless. Now I fully realise that atheists don't think that way and they don't feel the need to disprove god, however, I do, and to deconvert me you'd have to do that, whether you're comfortable with it or not. It is what would make me drop my beliefs. I think it's the only thing that would. If you don't want to try that's ok but to deconvert me it's what you'd need to do.

[Ace Otana]

[theVOID]

I feel that what atheists ask which is impractical and impossible is for me to prove that god exists. But I can't do that.

Why not? You seem to think that you are justified in your belief, so why is it unreasonable to ask you for "proof" in support of your conclusions?

And the reason, on the surface, why atheists would ask in the first place, in the knowledge that I can't prove that god exists, is to demonstrate that I can't prove that god exists, ie prove a point.

Why would we ask? Because you claim to have a good reason for believing in Magic Man, and we want to make sure you aren't full of shit.

The "point" being made (your belief in the proposition is idiotic) is simply the inevitable result of analysis and reason.

But that's a given, we know that. So underneath the surface, I think the real reason is to ridicule.

No, the reason is to assess whether or not you have reached your conclusion by rational means. The fact that your conclusions are ridiculed simply shows how far from rational you actually are.

The problem with that, apart from the fact that it achieves nothing, is that I don't feel any ridicule at all.

That's okay, we get a good laugh out of it.

I'm aware of the attempt but it has no emotional effect on me,

That's because you are incapable of critical thinking when it comes to God, a byproduct of your emotional insecurity. As long as your 'emotions' suggest to you that there is a God, you will continue to refuse to listen to how asinine your conclusions are, even when the flaws in your methodology are so blatantly obvious.

so as an end goal on the part of the atheist, it's futile. So, if an atheist asks me to prove that god exists, the only appropriate response is : "You prove it" (as in, ask a silly question, get a silly answer).

...and you don't understand the Burden of proof.

According to my belief, god doesn't provide anything.

Anything else you'd like to pull out of your ass while you're at it?

I'm open to giving up my beliefs simply because I too go where the evidence (reason to believe / conviction) takes me.

Then you should care about the methodology you used in determining the truth of the proposition in the first place, which you clearly don't.

Emotions are not a sufficient standard of evidence in determining whether or not a God exists.

If you have any other reasons for believing that God exists you may want to share them.

So far, my evidence has clearly pointed to the existance of god.

What evidence?

It is evidence which can't be commuicated and shown, as you know.

So we're back to "emotions" are we?

If you can show me anything to contradict that I'm open to it.

Easy:

Your emotions conclude "god=universe=us"

Muslim emotions conclude "god=individual=beyond the universe"

Two contradictory conclusions using the same standard of evidence.

But as I say I've not seen any.

I've already pointed out the inadequacy of your methodology multiple times.

Also, in order for me to drop my beliefs, I would have to see evidence that the universe is godless.

You have the critical thinking powers of a brain-dead goldfish...

Now I fully realise that atheists don't think that way and they don't feel the need to disprove god

Then why would you expect us to try? If you know that it is impossible to disprove God, but require it absolutely to change your mind, then you do not actually want to challenge your beliefs. You are setting impossible and irrelevant standards.

however, I do, and to deconvert me you'd have to do that, whether you're comfortable with it or not.

So you admit it's impossible to deconvert you...

It is what would make me drop my beliefs. I think it's the only thing that would. If you don't want to try that's ok but to deconvert me it's what you'd need to do.

That's like saying "my emotions told me my mother was a two-headed time-traveling burlesque dancer, and until you can disprove it i'm going to believe it, even though i have no good reasons for accepting it in the first place"

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I feel that what atheists ask which is impractical and impossible is for me to prove that god exists. But I can't do that. And the reason, on the surface, why atheists would ask in the first place, in the knowledge that I can't prove that god exists, is to demonstrate that I can't prove that god exists, ie prove a point. But that's a given, we know that. So underneath the surface, I think the real reason is to ridicule. The problem with that, apart from the fact that it achieves nothing, is that I don't feel any ridicule at all. I'm aware of the attempt but it has no emotional effect on me, so as an end goal on the part of the atheist, it's futile. So, if an atheist asks me to prove that god exists, the only appropriate response is : "You prove it" (as in, ask a silly question, get a silly answer). According to my belief, god doesn't provide anything. Why do you ask me that? (I'm sensing an undercurrent in your posts, namely that you seem to be equating theism per se with christianity - I understand that, but please bear in mind that I'm not a christian).

It wasn't my intention to give any such undercurrent, as I've attempted to make clear where I understand your beliefs and others to lie.
Still, you and I have made it very clear to one another that god's existence cannot be proven. I believe I can safely say that from now on, this will be an understood point between us. The reason atheists typically go to this arguement is because the only way to prove that he exists is to prove that he has made some foot print somewhere. Anywhere. At any point in time in history. Atheists point to the lack of any foot print to empirically prove that there is no proof of his existence. If he hasn't, then his existence becomes purely an exersize of imagination to an atheist - just as any other thing a rational person wouldn't ordinarily believe in. I'm sure you can fill in the blanks as to what those might be.

What my question asked you to do was to lead me down the same path you took to god. I didn't ask for proof, I merely asked that you tell me how you concluded that god must exist in any matter or another.
I'm looking as much for your personal evidence just as much as I'm looking for your reasoning.

My other, perhaps more important question, was what role does god even have in the world in your view?

I'm open to giving up my beliefs simply because I too go where the evidence (reason to believe / conviction) takes me. So far, my evidence has clearly pointed to the existance of god. It is evidence which can't be commuicated and shown, as you know. If you can show me anything to contradict that I'm open to it. But as I say I've not seen any. Also, in order for me to drop my beliefs, I would have to see evidence that the universe is godless. Now I fully realise that atheists don't think that way and they don't feel the need to disprove god, however, I do, and to deconvert me you'd have to do that, whether you're comfortable with it or not. It is what would make me drop my beliefs. I think it's the only thing that would. If you don't want to try that's ok but to deconvert me it's what you'd need to do.

You need to understand that you haven't given me anything to proove or disprove you of. You've already acknowledged that there is no empirical evidence to support the existance of god, redering that question meaningless, but you want me to provide evidence to prove a godless universe?
I shouldn't have to tell you how impossible it is to proove a godless universe when there is no proof of god. The very question contradicts itself.

If you can resolve this logical issue or communication problem, then there might be some progress to be had, otherwise, this is going to be very futile.

[Godhead]

Void -

You sound like you really want me to share your point of view. I don't see the fuss. There's nothing wrong in just accepting that there are many people who don't.

[theVOID]

Void -

You sound like you really want me to share your point of view. I don't see the fuss. There's nothing wrong in just accepting that there are many people who don't.

And again you fail to address a single point i raised and instead resort to some barely-relevant statement.

The thing that pisses me off most about you is your absolute dishonesty... You lie about using evidence and reason to form your conclusions, you lie about wanting to challenge your beliefs and you lie about wanting to be accurate in your beliefs.

If you think you have a valid reasons for your beliefs then describe these reasons, why they are valid, and why they necessarily result in the conclusion you have reached.

If you aren't willing to do that then for fucks sake just admit that you aren't interested in critically examining your beliefs.