In response to this thread, about what it would take to change an atheist’s mind about god. I’m always rather amused by the people who have undergone some major tragedy and then show up on the news thanking God that they’re only a quadriplegic instead of dead, or how generous God was to only demolish their house and kill one of their children, leaving the rest of the family alive and homeless, praise the Lord, etc.
So I’d like to hear the other side. What would have to happen to change your mind, believers?
Would you accept the bible’s indication that, in fact, after death you would be ‘nonexistant’, in as much as you would be non-sentient, unaware and simply dead?
One cannot be talked out of what one was not talked into. Religious faith is simply faith, “the belief in things not seen.” If I could prove the existence of God, it would not be a matter of faith, but of scientific fact.
Annoying, ignorant theists wil only be converted to annoying, ignorant atheists…and vice versa.
We need less convincing each other of what is right and more loving each other and taking care of each other.
And yes the theists are the ones most often guilty of trying to “convince” people the theism is not only right, but their particular take on God is the rightest. Would you really want to mimic their arrogance and folly?
The OP is not asking how he or she can change anyone’s mind. They’re asking what would change someone’s mind. This is an important difference.
Look at it from this atheist’s point of view: Q. What could YOU do to change my mind about God’s non-existence? A: Nothing. Q: What would change my mind about God’s non-existence? A: All the stars in the sky moving into position so as to spell out Goldbach’s conjecture* in Serbo-Croatian, independently verifiable by astronomers the world over and by the camera on the New Horizons probe.
(sorry, that reply is more appropriate to the twin thread, but I AM trying to clarify to you the exact nature of the question being asked)
*and why not PROVE it too, while you’re at it, God?
Of the religious people I know, the more religious and the older they are, the more they have invested in those beliefs. Those investments run very very deep, and to give up on them, to turn your back on them, dismiss them as invalid, that takes buttloads of courage.
What does it take to change a theist’s mind? Openness, curiosity, and courage are a damn good start.
I believe in God because-
1.) I can’t conceive that all this emerged from mindless energy in motion;
2.) I can’t tolerate an existence in which there is no intrinsic meaning, morality or justice, where heroic virtue goes unrewarded, innocent suffering goes unhealed & vicious evil brutality goes unavenged.
So I guess it would have to be something that would convince me of the ultimate absurdity & amorality of everything & destroy my trust in an ultimate Reason and Rightness behind it all.
Not to argue with you, but…okay, I guess to argue a little…
Okay, I can see this. I don’t agree with it, but it’s your belief so I can understand where the sentiment is coming from.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, unless you’re saying your faith is what gives your life meaning and without faith in your deity’s existence there’s really no reason to live.
why is it people of faith seem to always rest with a presumption that without faith there can be no morality…or at least not to the same extent it exists within someone of faith?
You may not WANT to tolerate an existence where there’s no justice, but somehow you still exist.
Sounds like planet Earth in the 21st century to me.
What? Innocent suffering goes unhealed every ding dong day; you don’t even have to look for it.
Tell that to the countless thousands of Iraqis who have died and continue to die because of a war started by the hubris of a self-professed man of faith.
Sounds like I’ve made somewhat of a case to ponder.
Since my mind WAS changed, I feel qualified to answer.
Logic. The desire for things to make sense. To absolve inconsistencies. To me, being a theist was like trying to learn english as a second language. All the exceptions and the variances one has to learn to become fluent. Many people find order in their theology and I can’t fathom that. Occam’s Razor and all.
According to the JWs, Ecclesiatstes: “For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they any more have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten.”
Yet another Biblical verse that is self-contradictory with other Biblical verses and requres a lot of squirming and interpretation to make it fit. The ancient Jewish tradition was that dead people are just plain dead intil the resurrection. But Jesus had a chat to Moses and Elisha, who had both long been dead.
So the way Christians squirm out of this is by applying a true Scotsman. The * dead* are conscious of nothing at all, but angels, peoplw in limbo, souls in hell and so forth aren’t dead, they are angels, discorporated souls and so forth.
Yeah, I know it’s ablatant true scotamsn and renders the Ecclesiastes verse utterly meaningless, but there you have it. The trouble is that the Christain view of the afterlife was not the Jeiwsh view.
No- you haven’t at all. If this world, in which virtue goes unrewarded, suffering unhealed & innocence unavenged, were all there was- you would have. But I don’t think that is the case. There are compelling enough reasons for me, but not that I could convince you with.
And I don’t say that religionists’ morality > non-religionists morality.
I say that if there is no God, there is no ultimate Good or Bad. There just is what there is. We can come up with utilitarian moral/legal standards, and we can enforce those against those who violate them, but in the end, it’s just a matter of preference & strength.
Am I to understand from this that you believe that an entity that orders the slaughter of small children and the rape of teenage girls to be the ultimate good, and a better standard of goodness than anything a a human can come up with? :dubious:
