Not for nuthin’, but why not?
Sure, maybe you can’t do anything about it, He being all-powerful and all, but you have free will. You get to choose whom to worship.
Am I to understand that if God started killing off the non-believers or sent them all to hell when they died, even if they had led good lives, you would choose to worship the Guy?
That, more than “what would make you not believe” is the ‘opposite’ of the question you pose here.
But why?
Would you still have your head examined (assuming, naturally, an heretofore healthy head) if you and one other saw it? And her head, too? And if you and fifty others saw the bunnies, but a hundred besides yourselves didn’t, would you recommend that all of you who saw them rush in for an examination, or the hundred? If everybody saw them but you, would you still have your head looked at? And would you have your head looked at if you, and everybody else saw the bunnies? If not, why not?
Given healthy heads all 'round, why isn’t a single vision of pink bunnies more miraculous than the physical emergence of them for everybody to see with their ordinary eyes? If pink bunnies have emerged as physical entities, why is your inability to explain them evidence of God’s hand whereas your subjective perception of them is not? If God is a pesonal Savior of individual souls, why would He not work with you (and others) on the most personal possible level?
Do you think God would rather have people believe in magic or Love?
According to the fundies, God wants people to believe in magic- that’s why he sends loving people to hell. That’s why the OP (remember that?) asks whether people would believe in God if a large display of magic were performed.
Perhaps your questions should be directed at the fundies, rather than at the non-fundie non-Christians?
-Ben
Yes.
Yes.
Everybody should probably get checked ou then.
Probably.
Depends. Is there any objective evidence of the bunnies existing, or is it just a vision? If there is no evidence, it might be wise to conclude that we all saw them, but they do not objectively exist.
Because seeing things that are not there is not all that uncommon. I have had hynogogic hallucinations before. At least, I assume they are hallucinations, whereas perhaps you would believe that a stone medusa-head really did appear floating in my bedroom. But I decided that it was more likely that I experienced a well-established psychological phenomenom than that a giant stone sculpture appeared and diappeared in my bedroom in apparent defiance of all natural laws. So it would be with the giant pink bunnies. I think it more likely that people would hallucinate them than that a heretofore completely unknown species would suddenly appear, and that some people could see them and some couldn’t, and that they leave no objective evidence behind.
I don’t think pink bunnies or subjective perceptions of pink bunnies is evidence of God (unless the pink bunnies appear in such a way as to make it clear that it is done at the will of some Omnipotent Being. Like if they showed up in response to this post. ::waits:: Nope, no bunnies.) It might be evidence of pink bunnies, though.
Becuase when one person sees something other people do not see, it is often a sign of mental abberation. Should God decide to use a method of communication that is widely associated with insanity, he should not be too surprised at the results (particularly if He is all-knowing!).
Well, seeing as I don’t believe God exists, I can hardly have an opinion on His personality andmore than I can tell you what color I think faeries’ wings are. But your God would rather have people believe in Love, of course.
Where the hell is JerseyDiamond? Did he get raptured since the time he started this thread?
(sigh)
Why do the Fundies always start these fires and then walk away?
Because they eventually realize that screaming “GODDIDIT!” and “BELIEVE OR GO TO HELL!” doesn’t do much in the way of conversion and can’t figure out what else they can do…
If I prayed, it would be for more Christians like Polycarp here or Mars Horizon over at the Parlor.
jayjay (pizza lurker)
I believe that proves only that you are not omnipotent, i.e., your waiting did not produce any bunnies.
All the more reason to use exactly that method. I submit that others telling you that you are sane because they saw it too might cause you to believe more in their veracity than His.
Is that the kind of response you would want from the man of your dreams as you whisper in his ear, “I love you.”? “Honey, could you speak up? You see, if you’ll say it loud enough for the others in the room to hear, it will prove that you love me.”
COOL!!
So the vision I keep having of Martha Raye in a leopard-print mu-mu, where she’s holding the severed left arm of John Wilkes Booth and screaming at me to “kill the librarians . . . KILL THE LIBRARIANS” is actually a sign from God?
Of course it does not disprove anything. I was merely giving an example where the appearance of giant pink bunnies would be evidence of God.
Given our often capricious and falliable human perceptions, verifying the actual existence of things by cross-checking with other people and confirming with objective evidence is a useful thing. I do not think it is a good trait to believe everything you see, even if other people don’t see it, and even if there is no objective evidence to show that it was not a hallucination. If God wished us to trust our perceptions utterly, he should have made them more reliable; then we would not have to do such cross-checking. It is not a matter of believing in God as opposed to believing in other people; it is a question of “should I trust my falliable human perception even when no one else can confirm it and I have no objective evidence, or should I beleive everything I see without question?” If I only believe in Giant Pink Bunnies when other people see them too, am I trusting in the veracity of others over the veracity of the bunnies? Of course not. First we must use the perceptions and techniques we have used to confirm the existence of something to decide if it actually exists–then we can determine whether the Bunny/deity is truthful. But doubting the existence of something is not doubting something’s truthfulness; it is a non sequiter, IMHO, to say that I am doubtung God’s truthfullness by doubting His existence if He chooses to appear in a manner that has the exact characteristics of a hallucination.
A better analogy would be if no one else could ever see than man who said he loved me and he left no objective evidence (dirty clothes on the floor, used toothbrush, etc.). Then I might strongly suspect that I was hallucinating, since as a general rule men are considerate enough to both leave objective evidence of their existence and be visible/touchable/hearable/tasteable to all persons with the requisite senses/brain structure.
Libertarian, if you don’t mind me asking, why are you arguing with Gaudere? Why are you trying to prove that her epistemology is wrong, if you believe that all epistemologies are valid? Why are you trying to present a logical argument for your case, if you feel that logic itself is spurious?
It just seems to me that I remember cases where the tables were turned, and you defended your position by saying that it was unassailable by logic, because logic was invalid. Why, then, do you try to attack Gaudere’s position with logic?
-Ben
You mean because you “rubbed the bottle”? Gaudere, c’mon!
I dunno. His bit with Saul of Tarsus was pretty effective.
But men are made of atoms.
Good lord, let me deal with this before your synapses explode. I am not attacking my sister, thank you, I am loving her. We are discussing, amicably, what might constitute evidence enough to convince an atheist that God exists. Having been one, I have some understanding of the concept and how it worked in my own life. I offered that. Gaudere countered it. I countered her counter. She countered my counter of her counter. And I countered her counter of my counter of her counter of my proffer.
Debate with Gaudere is incredibly stimulating. Her mind is the equal of any here, and her heart is immeasurably beautiful.
**
Why would my synapses explode? I’m merely trying to understand what motivates a person to present arguments when he rejects the logic on which they are based.
**
I didn’t say you were attacking her.
I still don’t understand. You speak of how stimulating it is to “counter” her arguments. Is this sort of discussion a ritualized dance to you? Is it, perhaps, like chess, a mere game based on arbitrary rules, having no direct bearing on anything of consequence, but nevertheless enjoyable and requiring a certain degree of skill to play well?
-Ben
Gaudere wrote:
I didn’t think “worhsipping” was legal outside of Nevada. 
OOOOOooh, I see…you don’t speak English. I didn’t say that anything equals bashing Jesus. In fact, I don’t even think I mentioned Jesus by name at all. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills.
It’s not my place to judge Polycarp. He and I have vastly dissimilar beliefs. What I think beyond that is between Polycarp and me, and is, quite frankly, none of your business.
Sure thing.
Mekhazzio: I would party! Good riddance!
Rocket88: Of course, for a time I suspected that a '54 Buick I once had was posessed…
betenoir: might…make me think those fundumentalists were right…consign myself to hell, given that I couldn’t whorship such a mean, petty, bastard of a god
Badtz Maru: super-advanced aliens
Morrison’s Lament: would take a lot of intoxicating substances
Asmodean: would believe it a fakery
Libertarian: wouldn’t believe it if he were an atheist
Degrance: hopes the rapture comes soon so pagans can have the world to themselves
Some Guy: His thesis has not been submitted yet, but summary is: possible, but unlikely
xenophon41: might believe that the Christian God exists, but would not change anything else
Freyr: it still wouldn’t change my faith
I didn’t call anybody an “imaginary non-Christian”. I simply pointed out that people did, in fact, say they still wouldn’t believe, even in the face of evidence. Gaudere and I even mentioned a few of the same posts. Obviously we interpreted some of them differently, but it looks pretty clear to me that .
If I saw the world ending as described in norse mythology, I would have to think that it was utterly incompatible with my beliefs, so I would be forced to rethink them.
And the left behind books don’t enter into it. They are a novelization of events described in the bible, and I don’t see why you focus so strongly on them in this thread. Could it be that you’re attacking a strawman of your own making? I’m not looking for the left behind books to come true. I’m looking for events in the bible to happen. The OP mentioned them only because to a general audience, pop culture is more likely to be familiar than the bible.
My apologies. I’m sure you were only concerned for her spiritual welfare when you posted that, and should not have assumed you were making a snide or mocking remark about her not posting for a few days.
In that same sense of concern, I would suggest that you brush up on your reading as well, since I (mistakenly, of course) accused you of mocking Christians (JerseyDiamond, in particular), not religion.
But since you’ve seen fit to tell me twice how seriously flawed her OP was, why don’t you elaborate? How so? I saw only a premise (assumed: The events of the end days, as outlined in the bible and novelized in Left Behind are taking place) and a question (would you a: believe that the God of the bible is real, and b: modify your behavior and religious views accordingly?).
Where’s the flaw in a sincere question? I guess the old adage is false. The only stupid questions are the ones you don’t ask, and the ones you ask about religion on SDMB.
Andros:
I draw the line where the text is clearly using a symbol. Especially in places where the key to the symbol is written down nearby, as is the case in much of Revelation and in Daniel. The rule I use is common sense, combined with the context of the passage.
Unlike you, I have no set vision of what God is/must be. Perhaps a genie God exists, or perhaps your God would choose to have bunnies appear right then for his own reasons. I do not think the bunnies would appear because I demanded them, I would think the bunnies would appear if whatever God theoretically exists decided it would be a good idea right then.
I am a little more versed in the workings of hallucinations and other mental tricks than Saul. And more so than those who have seen devils, witches, unicorns and ghosts, too. If the quality of evidence for God is the same as the evidence for boogiemen, and I do not beleive in boogiemen, it would be inconsistent for me to believe in God based on that same evidence. If the evidence offered is better, that would be another matter, but thus far the question seems to be “would you believe in God if you witnessed an event no one else watching could see leaving no objective evidence?” In which case, I would no more believe God exists based on such evidence than I beleive the floating stone medusa-head I saw in my bedroom exists.
At any rate, I still think your “whispered ‘I love you’” analogy doesn’t work.
Gaudere wrote:
You let other people taste your man?
Wow, you must have a really open relationship.
Just FTR, I believe JerseyDiamond is female.
Carry on.
Oh, and much like Degrance I’d find the world a much quieter place. I don’t disbelieve in the J/C/I God. I just don’t believe in Him as a necessary force in my life, or in the world.
But that’s just MHO, and certainly not an attack on Christians (since I seem to need to state that explicitly).
JerseyDiamond hasn’t posted anywhere on the SDMB since she last posted to this thread. FWIW, she’s been on the SDMB for a while, and isn’t a hit-and-run fundie, so I’m inclined to think she’s merely indisposed.
-Ben
My original statement: “You’d think so, but anyone who doesn’t already believe is apparently supposed to be some sort of flaming moron. “Even if you came back from the dead they wouldn’t believe,” and all that…”
Your response: “If you’ve read the whole thread, then you can see that it’s full of “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” or some variation of that.”
Your evidence in support, and my comments:
No reference as to whether Mekhazzio believes, does not believe, would not believe. n/a
No reference as to whether Rocket believes, does not believe, would not believe. n/a
betenoir says s/he would beleive. That’s a yes.
Mentioned only as a possibility.
Still accepts the possibility. Just doesn’t like the fundamentalist God. (Scant few do, on this board, including the bulk of the Christians)
Unknown belief system, and I always thought she was Christian. Simply points out that the LB series doesn’t follow revelation exactly, so if the events happen like in LB, it wouldn’t be following the bible. n/a
Lib is a Christian, and later clarified that he would believe in the fundamentalist God if the evidence supported it. n/a
No reference as to whether D believes, does not believe, would not believe. n/a
We have a possibility!
We have a yes!
Already believes the Christian God exists. n/a.
Saying “I don’t like fundamentalists. I’d be glad if they went away” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!”
Saying “It might be aliens” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!”
Saying “We are easily misled. We should investigate it carefully” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!”
Saying “I don’t like the fundamentalist God. I’d have to drink heavily to worship him” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” (The first is a sentiment often implied by many devout Christians, as well.)
Saying “I don’t like the fundamentalist God. I wouldn’t worship that jerk, ever” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” (The first is a sentiment often implied by many devout Christians, as well.)
Saying “I don’t like the fundamentalist God. I would still try to do good anyway” is not the same as “even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!” (The first is a sentiment often implied by many devout Christians, as well.)
Oh really? The only ones who might arguably be saying that was Lib (who later clarified, at least to my satisfaction, that he would believe that god existed if evidence supported it) and asmodeon (who seems to be simply pointing out that the LB books don’t follow the Bible, and therefore if it happened like in the LB, it be easier to believe in Jenkin’s God than the Bible. In other words, God would likely follow His book rather than LaHaye’s, so unless the LB writers are privy to divine inspiration, it’s a fake.)
I believe your statement, “If you’ve read the whole thread, then you can see that it’s full of ‘even if I saw it happening exactly the way the bible says, I still wouldn’t believe in God!!!’ or some variation of that,” and the implied slur on the intelligence and openmindedness of the nonChristians and Christians on this board has been conclusively refuted.