I think we can safely do away with the “conversion feeling” as any sort of evidence for or against the existence of god. Obviously, everyone feels self-righteous, peaceful, an unthreatened when they either feel finally assured and safe in their belief, or when they give up on old beliefs they feel held them back. Big deal. We need to stop being so overly impressed with our own feelings if we are going to clearly apprehend the world around us. 
Give us a thousand years. Humans are problem solvers . . . .
Apos said: “I think we can safely do away with the “conversion feeling” as any sort of evidence for or against the existence of god. Obviously, everyone feels self-righteous, peaceful, an unthreatened when they either feel finally assured and safe in their belief, or when they give up on old beliefs they feel held them back.”
This was one of the arguments I used to repeat most often in my teens as an agnostic. But I’m not talking about a sense of well-being, and I wasn’t any more or less self-righteous before conversion. I’m a baby of the nuclear era, and I always feel somewhat threatened.
What I was talking about was philosophical, social and moral problems about which I couldn’t arrive at any complete, or non-contradictory conclusion. As a teen, I used to enjoy posing Christians and Jews extremely difficult moral problems that they couldn’t answer. It only occured to me after some years that I’d like to be able to answer my own questions.
I didn’t have a “conversion” in the sense of suddenly believing. I began to accept elements of faith, and discovered I was thinking better, more critically, not more poorly.
If I hoped to convert someone, and I was called to, and I had their time, I could suggest ways someone who was not faithful could see the state of mind of the faithful more clearly. But I could not reason with someone to convince them to believe. That’s a spiritual decision. Equally, following the OP, there’s no way to reason with someone to talk them out of genuine faith.
Bible Prophecies gone horridly wrong. In other words, I think that bible prophecies that don’t come true, or come true to the exact opposite deffinition of what they should. But that’s IMHO.
----But I’m not talking about a sense of well-being, and I wasn’t any more or less self-righteous before conversion.—
Goodness: you were this selfrighteous even THEN?
—I began to accept elements of faith, and discovered I was thinking better, more critically, not more poorly.—
This is a matter of your opinion, which sort of goes to my point. That you feel more content, more critical, more astute, is neither here nor there from the perspective of anyone else. Perhaps you think that’s unfair, but then, I hold the same for those smug in their unbelief.
But that a particular faithfulness requires a special “insight,” a special technique, a special state of mind, only suggests more solidly that it is a state of learning to feel convinced and in a relationship with faith, not an actual state of knowledge. And again, once there, is otherwise consistent with absolutely any state of reality.
Apos, thanks for getting my joke, and my point. I’m not necessarily a better person, or a vastly changed person because of a faith decision.
Once I started being faithful, empirical, demonstrable problems that I hadn’t been able to figure out became clear. These weren’t touchy-feely, moral-twinge problems, but things as straightforward as physics homework.
Before converting, I tried one of the “special technique” approaches to religious enlightment, and was alarmed when the spokespeople for this international movement admitted that artists complained they were less creative after using the technique. This seemed wrong, I quit. Faith is not a matter of technique, but I didn’t know that at the time.
Religious people are seeking insights because they’re moments of personal advancement. Unfortunately, this is often presented to the public at large as some sort of challenge, or merit badge system. Logically, this is a poor way to present the case: Offer a highly rational person an opportunity to acquire something they don’t believe in?
The debates that religious and non-religious people alike enjoy getting involved with are usually about the implications of faith, not about faith itself. So, returning once more to the OP, reason cannot be used to convert, or unconvert someone.
I used to believe. Then I asked myself, Why am I Christian? Why not Muslim? Jewish? Hindu? Buddhist? Had I just adopted Christianity because it was the religion that was nearest to me? I supposed if I had been born in some other country where Christianity had not been the dominant religion, I would have adopted that area’s religion. I wanted to prove to myself that Christianity was the one true religion and not just something I had picked up because it was nearby, what I grew up around.
I accepted that God existed. I wanted to make sure I had the one true religion because I knew at least Christianity taught that you had to worship their way or you’d go to hell. I just wondered whether Christianity was the correct way to worship him. I couldn’t find any evidence that Christianity had some superior hold on the truth over any other religions. And I couldn’t find any other religion that had a monopoly on the truth either. Why not? I figured one of the religions had to have gotten it right. But none of them seemed to have any proof that they were the one true religion, that they were the correct way to God. It was all hearsay.
I eventually decided that the reason one religion didn’t seem to have a monopoly on the truth, was because maybe God wasn’t the truth. Maybe God didn’t exist. That scared me, but eventually I accepted it might be right. I found other more logical reasons not to believe. That cemented it.
Incidentally, I grew up in a secular family. My father was a lapsed Catholic and my mother was never very religious at all. I discovered Christianity through a babysitter. I became an agnostic by the time I was a senior in HS, so I wasn’t very old when I was Christian, nor when I gave it up. I rarely attended church, even when I considered myself relgious, though I did attend Summer Bible Camp every summer for a few summers and I read my Bible a lot and prayed constantly. My brother is now a fundie and my dad has re-discovered Christianity, but not Catholicism. I was more serene when I was religious; there is a lot more uncertainty without God in my life. But I would rather not believe now, than take something on blind faith.
JRDelerious and keeperO have got it right.
The question implies that religious faith is open to scientific methodology, but it is not. It is not a falsifiable concept, almost by definition. Within a religious mindset, God is logicaly proven because it is axiomatically true; it is the basic postulate of the system from which all else follows. Which isn’t to say that some particular God-concept isn’t falsifiable … say, some specific Biblical literalism of historical events … but the general concept of God implies a power beyond our understanding. How can I test something that I define as incomprehensible to me? The model of religious faith is that belief which is held despite what seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is fundamentally different than “faith” in scientific axioms.
MrO, your response was very eloquent. Thanks.
Edlyn said, “In fact, within the past two weeks our family has learned that two of our daughters are expecting a child. One child is due within days of my dad’s birthday (he crossed over 11 weeks after Dawson) and the other child is due on Dawson’s birthday. (Note to Apos: No, both daughters were not trying to become pregnant and no they did not schedule their ovulation.)”
So what? That happens to non-believers all the time! ALL the time! Are you suggesting that these two new babies are going to replace the souls of your two lost loved ones?
In fact, my mom and one of her close girlfriends were pregnant with their first children at the same time. They were due at the same time. My mom had my brother, and time passed and she hadn’t heard from her girlfriend (they had promised to call each other and compare notes). Well, it turned out her friend’s child was a Down’s Syndrome baby and the mother was too freaked out to even call. Where was god during THAT “blessed” event? And how do you know what the future brings for the two new babies in your family (best wishes to all, by the way)?
Well, that would probably include everyone, so I’m not sure this is an answer.
However, Bob th alien would demonstrate only that he is a good liar now. He was not in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
Next up, there sint’ anything that could cause me to not believe. I do. I can lie about it, but I cannot not believe. I can even lie to myself, and try to convince myself I do not believe, but I still believe. I tried being agnostic. I tried being atheist. There was even a week where I was a Marxist (which I realized after about 24 hours was a realy stupid idea, bt i’m stubborn as a mule and mean as a badger). But here I am.
Well, its obvious God made me to be a believer, so if he wasnt sme to be a believer that much, who am I to argue?
Now this is very, very interesting. I was all set to post a nice list of the things that caused me to discard my lifelong belief in Christianity, complete with all the sound, logical reasons… and I read this.
I am going to have to think about this for a bit.
I’m right there with you smiling bandit
Ah, but, Mars Horizon, your “lifelong belief in Christianity” is what DSeid refers to as a “particular God-concept”, a *specific case *within the General Theory of God(s). THAT COULD be logically disproven, it would ony mean your beliefs are proven wrong.
So your responses would be valid answers to the Thread Title Question, for a specific value of the variable “Believer”. So do go right ahead.
Y’know, there’s no point to this discussion because the theists, especially, the fundamentalists, cannot be argued out of their positions because they choose to close their minds to reason. Bringing up the impossibilty of the Noachian flood, foe example will get you nowhere. The fundamentalists will just say that God can whatever He wants, and any logical problems can be explained away by miracles.
The more intelligent Christians will say that, well, yes, Noah’s ark is not meant to be taken literally, but it is still a message about God’s condemnation of sin. They believe that God can make himself known through allegories and metaphor, but that He is still very real.
You’re never going to get a real discussion from them because they will not, cannot, admit that there is even a remote chance that God does not exist. A skeptic looks at the evidence; a theist will never, ever, face any evidence that could disprove his faith. So there’s no point in trying to argue about their religion. If you try you will get these responses:
“God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” from the fundamentalists.
"You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so I’m not going to listen to you, "from the stubborn
or “God’s mercy is real in my life, so I’m going to believe anyway,” from the compassionate."
You’ll never get a “Hey, you might be right; maybe faith in an invisble spirit is a load of bunk, and I can lead an ethical life without belief in the supernatural.”
What would convince me?
If they found Jesus’ body.
They will find it right after they find the movie starring Carrot Topp and Pauly Shore that wins an Oscar…
Y’know, there’s no point to this discussion because the theists, especially, the fundamentalists, cannot be argued out of their positions because they choose to close their minds to reason. Bringing up the impossibilty of the Noachian flood, foe example will get you nowhere. The fundamentalists will just say that God can whatever He wants, and any logical problems can be explained away by miracles.
The more intelligent Christians will say that, well, yes, Noah’s ark is not meant to be taken literally, but it is still a message about God’s condemnation of sin. They believe that God can make himself known through allegories and metaphor, but that He is still very real.
You’re never going to get a real discussion from them because they will not, cannot, admit that there is even a remote chance that God does not exist. A skeptic looks at the evidence; a theist will never, ever, face any evidence that could disprove his faith. So there’s no point in trying to argue about their religion. If you try you will get these responses:
“God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” from the fundamentalists.
"You can’t prove God doesn’t exist, so I’m not going to listen to you, "from the stubborn
or “God’s mercy is real in my life, so I’m going to believe anyway,” from the compassionate.
You’ll never get a “Hey, you might be right; maybe faith in an invisble spirit is a load of bunk, and I can lead an ethical life without belief in the supernatural.”
There have been numerous deconversions recorded amongst those that took the time to critically examine their beliefs and tried to honestly reconcile reason and faith to no avail.
This is but one web site relating such stories: http://www.ifas.org/wa/stories.html]Walk Away
Of course, that is not to suggest that everyone who critically examines their faith will in fact, “walk away.” As we’ve read here, many (most?) will choose to to remain true to their beliefs no matter how incongruous they might be in light of their inherent contradictions.
It’s called faith. And while it won’t move mountains as claimed, it can certainly be as monolithic as the sturdiest of land masses.
And the only satisfactory explanations I’ve found for faith so far, seem to be closely related to satisfying psychological needs, the religious meme and plain old self-delusion. But that’s a whole 'nother topic and it’s just one man’s opinion.
OK ** JRDelirious**, here goes then.
I won’t go into the rather long story of how I made it to “weak atheism” all the way from “fundamentalist Christian” as I’ve posted it before (and it’s not that thrilling), but in the end, these are the main reasons why I came to the conclusion that Christianity, as widely interpreted, is unbelievable.
[ul][li]The unreliability of the Bible - the many contradictions and inconsistencies[/li][li]The disagreement among Christians, who are all supposedly of “one spirit” over which books can be considered authoritative[/li][li]The inclusion in the Bible (as “Truth”) of a creation myth and a flood myth[/li][li]The wildly differing interpretations of “Truth” as espoused by the literally thousands of denominations worldwide[/li][li]The lack of relevance in a modern world where education is slowly replacing superstition[/li][li]The refusal of most Christians to learn from past mistakes, and their overwhelming tendency to hold on to bigoted prejudices against women and gays[/li][li]The lack of conclusive evidence for the gospel stories[/li][li]The complete absence of miracles, which conveniently conicides with the emergence of humanity into a more educated time[/li][li]The complete inefficacy of prayer as an intervention in the natural world by a supernatural entity[/ul][/li]
Now, if we want to start talking about a religion that involves more caring for others, and less blathering on about eternal torment, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, I don’t see that kind of religion being practiced, with some notable exceptions.
[sub]Disclaimer: By the way, the list above, while indicative of my beliefs, was not entirely composed by me. Some of the objections have been borrowed from other sources, including posters to this message board and one retired Bishop.[/sub]
One more thing, before I forget.
Upon reflection, probably the single biggest “proof” I have seen that Christanity is a contrived, man made story, and not the genuine article, is that the vast, overwhelming majority of Christians I have come in contact with, my whole life long, don’t act any different than anyone else. They never seem to act as if there’s a super powerful magic spirit of love existing in them. They act just like anyone else when threatened. They don’t open their homes and give away their posessions, they put alarm systems on them, just like the rest of us. The ones with the little fishies on their cars cut me off in traffic just like the ones without the fishies. The ones who post to internet message boards* react with sarcasm and contempt when their beliefs are challenged, just like the Trekkies do when you intimate that their Enterprise could easily be taken out by a Star Destroyer.
In short, they all seem to act like members of some big social club, an “in group” if you will. They never seem to actually turn the other cheek, and they fight back, despite their holy book’s commandment to the contrary.
- We all know some notable exceptions to that generalization, who post to this very board. You know who you are.
Well, gobear, that was a very, you know, rational blanket condemnation of all believers. I can only assume that you’ve never talked to, for example, Polycarp, or any other of the myriad reasonably intelligent, rational people in the world who have, in fact, a reasoned faith. I’m very glad to learn that all theists are closed-minded, irrational idiots. Makes dispensing with them much easier. Of course, we’ll just ignore the several people here who were at one point theists and have become otherwise… apparently, they weren’t REALLY theists because they could actually think. I guess.
Really, I think if my eyes rolled any harder they would have fallen out.
To answer the original question of what would cause me to not believe at all, all I can say is that, not having been exposed to it yet, I’m not sure, but that I would have to be an idiot to deny that it may exist. If Bob the Martian were to come down tomorrow and were able to prove that it was all a prank on his part, that would do the trick, to give an extreme example. If gobear were to tell me that it’s all a bunch of hooey, that probably wouldn’t do the trick. So my answer is that it would be somewhere in between these two, but I don’t know where exactly. Certainly my faith is not what it once was, and I’ve moved more and more towards being as much a deist as anything else.