What would it take to make you believe?

Atheists often say that they lack faith in god(s) because of the lack of evidence. I was wondering; what kind of event would need to take place in order to make you believe in god(s)?

If a physical or auditory appearance is your answer, how many times would it need to happen in order for it to make you believe? how would you know that it wasn't a hallucination?

For those who already believe, what would it take to make you become an atheist?

No one-off, non-repeatable, non-verifiable experience would make me believe. However if we are talking about a physical experience which very clearly breaks the laws of physics than I will instantly believe.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

This is such a powerful statement it renders all religious belief as utterly irrational. People hold that statement in most things in life. Evolution is quite an extraordinary claim which is why some people still arent convinced by it's extraordinary evidence. The big bang has pretty damn strong evidence now but still even scientists hesitate to call it a "fact" simply because the claim is of such a gigantic nature(I am not saying that big bang should be called a fact).

We cant really find emperical evidence of god, since he is god we cant really find him if he doesnt want us to. Even if we find emperical evidence it is more like god wanting to show himself rather than we finding him. The ideal is obviously where god openly lets everyone know that he exists and there is no room to doubt his existence.

However it isnt necessary to have a physical god to convince me. There are so many things out there that would convince me of the existence of some sort of a personal god. If it could be proved that prayer really does help, if there are extraordinary prophecies in a religious book etc etc.

I must say one thing though that even if god actually showed up, I will remain very skeptical about any promise or hope that he would give me because of the problem of evil and suffering.

However if we are talking about a physical experience which very clearly breaks the laws of physics than I will instantly believe.

Gambler_3

I rather doubt that, actually.  That has happened many times over the course of humanity, in fact; what happens when it does is that the laws of physics are updated.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

However if we are talking about a physical experience which very clearly breaks the laws of physics than I will instantly believe.

GabuEx

I rather doubt that, actually.  That has happened many times over the course of humanity, in fact; what happens when it does is that the laws of physics are updated.

However when I think about it, such an event would shatter my beliefs about the world and life but I am not sure if I would "believe" cuz who would I believe? I'll defnitely change my outlook on religion and science but an experience will really have to be very specific towards a particular religion or I will have no option but to continue to be an agnostic. 

A being showing themselves and pulling off a "miracle" that literally would break the rules of the universe. i.e. re-arranging the stars in the sky, or something equally impossible.

This of course assuming that we are talking about an omnipotent Abrahamic "God" and not just a more simple "deity."

EDIT: Also, just having evidence would only make me "believe" in a God, not worship one. Especially the Abrahamic one, given how I so very much disagree with many morals espoused by it in several holy texts.foxhound_fox

That's why I was careful not to ask what would make someone worship. I share your feelings on the Abrahamic one, given his horrific actions in the old testament.

Probably nothing. If I were healed overnight after I prayed it would make me reconsider, but otherwise I have a bias towards any other explaination than "God did it" and will continue to do so until I see many things in this world change, which won't.

Even if I came to believe, I sure as hell wouldn't worship, as I can't come to thank something that claims to love us so much, yet places us in a position so bereft of compassion and which is capable of such horrific sufferings.

Probably nothing. If I were healed overnight after I prayed it would make me reconsider, but otherwise I have a bias towards any other explaination than "God did it" and will continue to do so until I see many things in this world change, which won't.

Even if I came to believe, I sure as hell wouldn't worship, as I can't come to thank something that claims to love us so much, yet places us in a position so bereft of compassion and which is capable of such horrific sufferings.

Rekunta

Mmm, I know that this probably won't mean much to you, but I personally have come to feel in life that, as unfortunate suffering is, it is the only thing that allows us to truly appreciate the good in life.  If we are never away from the good, we cannot understand the true value that it brings to our lives.  I don't like it when it's present, but at the same time, in retrospect, I'm generally glad I went through it.  Nothing makes me happier just to be healthy and well than having the experience of being sick in the near past.

[QUOTE="Rekunta"]

Probably nothing. If I were healed overnight after I prayed it would make me reconsider, but otherwise I have a bias towards any other explaination than "God did it" and will continue to do so until I see many things in this world change, which won't.

Even if I came to believe, I sure as hell wouldn't worship, as I can't come to thank something that claims to love us so much, yet places us in a position so bereft of compassion and which is capable of such horrific sufferings.

GabuEx

Mmm, I know that this probably won't mean much to you, but I personally have come to feel in life that, as unfortunate suffering is, it is the only thing that allows us to truly appreciate the good in life. If we are never away from the good, we cannot understand the true value that it brings to our lives. I don't like it when it's present, but at the same time, in retrospect, I'm generally glad I went through it. Nothing makes me happier just to be healthy and well than having the experience of being sick in the near past.

I can agree with you on this to an extent. I am grateful to be able to see what I wouldn't have been able to otherwise, and can't claim that my sickness hasn't had its upsides. You're right. However, it begs the question of how much suffering is enough, how much is needed to be able to see and appreciate the good? There are some situations in life where it never ends. It will always be there. Would I thank the Lord for being tortured day upon day until my death so I can better appreciate how beautiful the view is out the window when I've been looking out that window for so long previously? There comes a point when all that needs to be seen can and has been, and all else that comes afterward seems like it's just adding insult to injury.

Maybe God knows how much of a blockhead I am and how often I'm in need of constant reminding, who knows. I intend to inquire about this if we meet up for coffee at some point.

I can agree with you on this to an extent. I am grateful to be able to see what I wouldn't have been able to otherwise, and can't claim that my sickness hasn't had its upsides. You're right. However, it begs the question of how much suffering is enough, how much is needed to be able to see and appreciate the good? There are some situations in life where it never ends. It will always be there. Would I thank the Lord for being tortured day upon day until my death so I can better appreciate how beautiful the view is out the window when I've been looking out that window for so long previously? There comes a point when all that needs to be seen can and has been, and all else that comes afterward seems like it's just adding insult to injury.

Maybe God knows how much of a blockhead I am and how often I'm in need of constant reminding, who knows. I intend to inquire about this if we meet up for coffee at some point.

Rekunta

I know what you're saying.  And, to be honest, I don't really have a good answer to the question of those whose suffering never ends until the day they die.  But, on the other hand, one thing that I've always found interesting is that the places where people tend to suffer the most of all in the world also tend to be the places that have the highest rates of religious belief.  Of course, those places also have certain things that do tend to correlate to a heightened level of religious belief, such as poverty and a lack of education.

But even so, it's always kind of struck me regarding how resilient the human spirit tends to be - sometimes even when people have absolutely no rational source of hope whatsoever, they are still hopeful even so.  And sometimes when a person might be completely justified in cursing God for all that's wrong in their lives, they're thanking him for all that they see as right instead.  It sometimes makes me wonder whether it's really God whom we ought to fault for an existence we perceive as miserable, or if it's ourselves instead.  I used to hate the fact that I couldn't get a girlfriend.  Today, however, I'm happy.  Did I get a girlfriend?  No - I just stopped caring about the lack of a girlfriend, and I found other things in life which keep me busy and happy.  Studies have shown that humans tend to massively overestimate the lasting positive effects that something new will bring, anyway - and also that we tend to massively overestimate the lasting negative effects that something bad will bring, too.

There's also the issue of love and happiness as a whole, too - and I don't mean momentary pleasure, but rather the lasting sense of contentment in life that seems utterly removed and unrelated to anything that would better enable one to survive in life.  I've often wondered why love and happiness exist, really.  One could refer to the evolutionary benefits that they provide, regarding the way in which to a certain extent happiness provides stimuli that tell us what is and is not good for our survival, and the way in which love makes two people stay together in order to provide a framework in which offspring can thrive.  But love and happiness in this world seem to go far beyond those basic evolutionary benefits, really.  Two people who love each other may never even want children at all, and can often stay together long, long after the period of child-rearing has passed.  And surely, all that is required for survival are momentary bouts of either pain or pleasure that indicate either good or bad for survival, not prolonged periods of contentment and joy for no reason other than that one exists.

It's for this reason that I feel as though love and happiness in the form described are, in short, positive phenomena in the world whose existence defies, in my view, a simple naturalistic explanation that attempts to portray them as simply naturally acquired products of evolution whose "purpose" (if one wishes to call it that) is only to enable us to better survive and reproduce.  One of my favorite declarations about God is that God is love - to me, this does not simply mean that God is a loving entity, but rather that when we experience true, unconditional love, we are quite literally experiencing God.  Hence the additional declaration that anyone who loves knows God.  I find that a very beautiful thought.

Mmm, I know that this probably won't mean much to you, but I personally have come to feel in life that, as unfortunate suffering is, it is the only thing that allows us to truly appreciate the good in life.  If we are never away from the good, we cannot understand the true value that it brings to our lives.  I don't like it when it's present, but at the same time, in retrospect, I'm generally glad I went through it.  Nothing makes me happier just to be healthy and well than having the experience of being sick in the near past.

GabuEx

The problem is though that we are talking about an omnipotent god. He could have surely created things in a way we cant even imagine, my biggest problem is that life is ultimately extremely unfair. There are people who will never be able to get out of the state of suffering without any fault of their own.

Downright ugliness is an eternal torture, no amount of cosmetics and hard work can fix the really ugly. Love and beauty are easily the most treasured happiness in the world, I cant imagine a god who willingly snachted it from so many people while also torturing them by giving it to others.

The process of death is perhaps the toughest time we all will have to go through. I have failed to find any good in the extreme agony of death, why couldnt there have been a simple death?

If there was no god and just blind brutal natural selection, then things would be exactly like they are with humans and other living things...

But even so, it's always kind of struck me regarding how resilient the human spirit tends to be - sometimes even when people have absolutely no rational source of hope whatsoever, they are still hopeful even so.  And sometimes when a person might be completely justified in cursing God for all that's wrong in their lives, they're thanking him for all that they see as right instead.  It sometimes makes me wonder whether it's really God whom we ought to fault for an existence we perceive as miserable, or if it's ourselves instead. 

GabuEx

There is really no way to get around it, if you believe in an omnipotent and omniscient god, than cursing your fate is nothing different than cursing god. But the beraved would hardly even know the meanings of these words...

It's for this reason that I feel as though love and happiness in the form described are, in short, positive phenomena in the world whose existence defies, in my view, a simple naturalistic explanation that attempts to portray them as simply naturally acquired products of evolution whose "purpose" (if one wishes to call it that) is only to enable us to better survive and reproduce.  One of my favorite declarations about God is that God is love - to me, this does not simply mean that God is a loving entity, but rather that when we experience true, unconditional love, we are quite literally experiencing God.  Hence the additional declaration that anyone who loves knows God.  I find that a very beautiful thought.GabuEx

And even if I accept that it cannot happen naturally, who god which god should I follow? Again this argument is wishful thinking more than anything else...

unqeustionable proof which  can be interpreted by the common man and reproduced by everyone.

sight, sound etc is all possible to be doctored these days, so i guess it would have to be in person, it would have to be something SOOOOOOOOO amazing it could not possible be a coincidence.

EDIT :yes, something even more amazing than the creation of the earth.

The complete and definitive exploration of the universe. If there is shown to be a multiverse; the complete and definitive exploration of that. If that leads to the discovery of an omniverse; the complete and definitive exploration of that.

In short; fat chance of me becoming an atheist.

The complete and definitive exploration of the universe. If there is shown to be a multiverse; the complete and definitive exploration of that. If that leads to the discovery of an omniverse; the complete and definitive exploration of that.

In short; fat chance of me becoming an atheist.

BiancaDK

I think the topic is referring to believing in God, not believing in atheism.

I also find it funny that the standards that are set aside. The atheist's standard is for God to show up which is really simple, even by natural means. The theist's standard is for the atheist to explain every little detail of the universe. That's pretty unrealistic if you ask me.

I think the topic is referring to believing in God, not believing in atheism.

Genetic_Code

I think you are wrong:

Bianca, this is from the same original post: "I was wondering; what kind of event would need to take place in order to make you believe in god(s)?"

I think dracula simply made a mistake in the last sentence. If you look at everyone's responses, they understood what he meant.

Now I'm quoting you Bianca, with your quotes being bolded. GameSpot won't let me use the quote brackets for whatever reason.

I'm sorry--but when did I become the sole representative and spokesperson for theists? Could you generalize any more even if you tried?

What you said conformed to the popular portrayals of the standard by which both atheism requires. You did not become the spokesperson for theists. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. There is nothing wrong with generalizations if they are an accurate representation of whatever's being generalized.

You have no idea what my God is, so you wouldn't know anything about why it would take such measurements for me to disband my beliefs.

"Your" God? Tch. Are you trying to monger fear to me?

Please, I have no intention of telling you what would be the requirement to dismantle your belief in your God, because that all depends on you, the individual that believes in him. No amount of logic can ever persuade you unless you let it. I was simply contrasting the different standards by which the typical atheist and the typical theist require for each of their countering beliefs to be true. I wasn't talking about "your" God Now, stop being so defensive. Seriously, I'm raging at how offended I am of these accusations that you're viciously throwing at me.

I wasn't talking about "your" God Now, stop being so defensive. Seriously, I'm raging at how offended I am of these accusations that you're viciously throwing at me.Genetic_Code

Bianca, this is from the same original post: "I was wondering; what kind of event would need to take place in order to make you believe in god(s)?"

I think dracula simply made a mistake in the last sentence. If you look at everyone's responses, they understood what he meant.

Now I'm quoting you Bianca, with your quotes being bolded. GameSpot won't let me use the quote brackets for whatever reason.

Am I the standard? 

I'm sorry--but when did I become the sole representative and spokesperson for theists? Could you generalize any more even if you tried?

What you said conformed to the popular portrayals of the standard by which both atheism requires. You did not become the spokesperson for theists. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. There is nothing wrong with generalizations if they are an accurate representation of whatever's being generalized.

You have no idea what my God is, so you wouldn't know anything about why it would take such measurements for me to disband my beliefs.

"Your" God? Tch. Are you trying to monger fear to me?

Please, I have no intention of telling you what would be the requirement to dismantle your belief in your God, because that all depends on you, the individual that believes in him. No amount of logic can ever persuade you unless you let it. I was simply contrasting the different standards by which the typical atheist and the typical theist require for each of their countering beliefs to be true. I wasn't talking about "your" God Now, stop being so defensive. Seriously, I'm raging at how offended I am of these accusations that you're viciously throwing at me.

Genetic_Code

The TC made a mistake? ... Alright, whatever floats your boat.

Read ChiliDragon's comment, he/she get's it. If that's the line of reasoning theists use in general, then your generalization would be accurate -- but i personally have never stumbled upon that line of reasoning from a fellow theist when it comes to theists accepting and adopting atheism.

And yes, i am trying to monger fear to you, non-believer.

Two things: 1. I'm a she. And since I live in a world of males in every way, I really prefer people get my gender right. :) 2. Generalizations are never accurate (excepting that statement of course). They might fit better or worse in our world views, but that doesn't make them more right. It only makes them less personally scary. Basically, from my point of view, both G_C and Bianca are over-reacting to someone over-reacting to what they said. If you're not frightened by the implications of what the other person said, then there's no need to be hostile, right?ChiliDragon

1. I meant no offense, but saying he/she was the best i could do for you at the time, since skimming over your profile details didn't provide information on this particular matter. If you prefer people to come correct regarding your sex, i suggest you provide information on it @ about me section. =]

2. What is deemed an overreaction is entirely subjective, which i can tell you are perfectly aware of. In my book, i did not overreact, so there is no premise of fright or alternatively; insecurity in my replies. :3 Sure, i'm a lil' hostile, but it's all fun and games, hostility just happens to be a part of my natural status quo. xD

I meant no offense, but saying he/she was the best i could do for you at the time, since skimming over your profile details didn't provide information on this particular matter.BiancaDK

:oops:ChiliDragon

no worries =)) 

 Nothing. If I found solid evidence I would conclude that I had gone mad and will seek out the nearest mental institution. 

I think nothing will change my non-beliefs, i don't like absolutes but this is oneVladka22

Really? Why the dogma?

What if Jesus walked up to you bodily and was all like "sup vladka22. I've been sent by my father to affirm that God does exist. Here put your finger in my spear wound while I magically materialize enough fish and bread to feed 5,000 people".

[QUOTE="Vladka22"]I think nothing will change my non-beliefs, i don't like absolutes but this is onedomatron23

Really? Why the dogma?

What if Jesus walked up to you bodily and was all like "sup vladka22. I've been sent by my father to affirm that God does exist. Here put your finger in my spear wound while I magically materialize enough fish and bread to feed 5,000 people".

I think it's because my logic thinking refuse to believe a being like god exists, for me it's all about logic, even if what you say will happen i will try to find a logic answer to that or drive me crazy trying to

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Vladka22"]I think nothing will change my non-beliefs, i don't like absolutes but this is oneVladka22

Really? Why the dogma?

What if Jesus walked up to you bodily and was all like "sup vladka22. I've been sent by my father to affirm that God does exist. Here put your finger in my spear wound while I magically materialize enough fish and bread to feed 5,000 people".

I think it's because my logic thinking refuse to believe a being like god exists, for me it's all about logic, even if what you say will happen i will try to find a logic answer to that or drive me crazy trying to

It seems to me that the logical answer in that case would be that God does exist. :P

It seems to me that the logical answer in that case would be that God does exist. :PGabuEx

I'm speechless :O still i don't think that will be the logical answer

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]It seems to me that the logical answer in that case would be that God does exist. :PVladka22

I'm speechless :O still i don't think that will be the logical answer

I've got to agree with Gabu on this one. If presented with such a situation where you're fingering a miracle-working Jesus then the logical thing to do is to believe (even reluctantly) in the existence of a God. Refusal to believe, even then, means that you either have a ludicrously high standard of evidence or that you actually do have an atheistic dogma.

Remember the logical thing to believe is that which is supported by the best evidence, not that which conforms the best to atheism or naturalism.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]It seems to me that the logical answer in that case would be that God does exist. :PVladka22

I'm speechless :O still i don't think that will be the logical answer

As was alluded to, a complete unwillingness to even consider the existence of God as a possible option, such that the nonexistence of God appears to be a fundamental axiom rather than a conclusion, leaves very little difference between one who does that and a theist who believes in God in the absence of any evidence.

If presented with such a situation where you're fingering a miracle-working Jesus then the logical thing to do is to believe (even reluctantly) in the existence of a God. Refusal to believe, even then, means that you either have a ludicrously high standard of evidence or that you actually do have an atheistic dogma.domatron23

[QUOTE="domatron23"]If presented with such a situation where you're fingering a miracle-working Jesus then the logical thing to do is to believe (even reluctantly) in the existence of a God. Refusal to believe, even then, means that you either have a ludicrously high standard of evidence or that you actually do have an atheistic dogma.ChiliDragon

Yup I agree.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]If presented with such a situation where you're fingering a miracle-working Jesus then the logical thing to do is to believe (even reluctantly) in the existence of a God. Refusal to believe, even then, means that you either have a ludicrously high standard of evidence or that you actually do have an atheistic dogma.ChiliDragon

I also agree on this one 

Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe? Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe? Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God... And I absolutely hate the ******.Pitch Black

To quote one of my favorite movies... [quote="Pitch Black"]Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe? Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe? Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God... And I absolutely hate the ******.ChiliDragon

Or "have faith" to "believe without any clue" and believe to "believe with clues being present"?

But it is a valid question as to what "believe" in the topic title is supposed to mean. First of all, denial aside, if God came up to you you cant deny that he exists, but on the other hand you dont have to believe he exists since you know for a fact that he does.

On the other hand "believe" could be equated somewhat to "worship and make part of your life/existence".

In the second case I would believe only if, I bravely admit, the God that came up to me would be one I approve of. For instance if the God of the Bible in its literal interpretation came up to me, I wouldnt believe in Him. Unless he has some very convincing explenations as to why everything happened.

But who knows, perhaps at the point where God may come up to me, I will be so tired of over thinking it that I wouldnt mind stopping doubting or criticisng his actions in order for me to be close to what is popularly deemed as a direction to take if you want to get rid of worries and physical needs. But just a note... I wouldnt do it consciously. I mean I wouldnt consciously sit and weigh the pros and cons of believing/disbelieving in the God that I dont approve of. Me being tired would do the trick. Just a feeling. But I dont if God accepts people who follow him just because they are willing to lower their standards.

Wait so you kind of equate "believe" here to "know"? Or "have faith" to "believe without any clue" and believe to "believe with clues being present"? But it is a valid question as to what "believe" in the topic title is supposed to mean.Teenaged