Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

What could convince you of belief/non-belief

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 6:22:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To theists - what argument, fact, or situation would convince you that the God you currently believe in and worship does not exist? To atheists - the same question, but for the existence of God.

I believe every theist and atheist should be able to answer this question easily. Anyone who really believes in something should know exactly what could disprove their belief, or else the belief is probably founded on shaky grounds. For example, every evolutionary biologist knows exactly what they would have to find to falsify evolution.

So, what would you, as a theist, atheist, or anything in between, have to find - via argument or real-life situation - to make you realize that you are wrong and god either exists or does not exist?

I'll go first. First of all, I'm an atheist - this means not that I am sure that God does not exist, but that I see no reason to believe one does, and much that would seem to indicate that he does not. Technically, in that sense, I am an agnostic, like most atheists; but I am only agnostic about God like I am about fairies.

To be convinced that God exists, and a certain religion is true, I would have to be convinced for starters of the following 6 things:

1) there are no contradictions within the holy texts of the religion
2) there are no contradictions between accepted scientific facts about the universe or human beings (in subjects like biology, chemistry, physics, etc) and the holy texts of the religion
3) there are no contradictions between accepted historical facts about humanity or the world and the holy texts of the religion
4) if there is a claim in the holy text about a miracle that happened publicly and in a grandiose fashion, say the plagues in Egypt and the Exodus, there should be verification of these events from other sources; the holy text itself is not enough if absolutely no other sources even hint at the event having happened
5) the holy text would have to be consistent with what one would expect from an omniscient source, and should not be what we would expect to see if the holy text was fabricated by ancient and primitive men who knew nothing about science, history, or treating others in society morally - the text would have to be full of great and profound and even mind-blowingly amazing wisdom.
6) the holy text would have to be consistent with certain aspects of morality that almost everyone living in civilized, advanced countries accepts - so the death penalty should not be prescribed for victimless crimes, women shouldn't be property, slavery shouldn't be condoned, etc.

If all these conditions were satisfied to the best of my knowledge, I wouldn't immediately accept the religion as the truth, but I would weigh the evidence and investigate the claim further. If a religion does not meet clearly these six conditions I will not even begin to consider it as the perfect word of the wise, powerful, loving creator of the universe.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 6:28:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I should note that I didn't exactly provide what would convince me to belief, but what would open me up to the possibility of a certain religion being true. If any theist or atheist wants to do the same thing, that's fine too. This is because nothing short of obvious, direct, incontrovertible evidence from God could convince me 100% that God exists, and has revealed himself through a holy text. (This would be something like God or a prophet predicting publicly that several very unlikely things will happen somewhere in the world, and all of those things happening just as they were predicted.)

Example: theist says that if situations X Y or Z happened, they would start to consider that their religion may be false and investigate further.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:11:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just going to be honest; nothing would convince me that a benevolent God exists. I put it in the same category as Santa and Unicorns. If I saw some direct evidence to the contrary, it would mean I was mentally ill.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:20:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 6:22:06 PM, jat93 wrote:
1) there are no contradictions within the holy texts of the religion

No contradictions in Buddhism unless purposeful contradictions (Koans) for the goal of achieving a certain mental state.

2) there are no contradictions between accepted scientific facts about the universe or human beings (in subjects like biology, chemistry, physics, etc) and the holy texts of the religion

Buddhism is entirely consistent with accepted scientific facts. In fact, it was ahead of modern science. Buddhist texts describe evolution, Multiverse cosmology, expanding Universe theory, and atoms.

3) there are no contradictions between accepted historical facts about humanity or the world and the holy texts of the religion

Buddhist texts do not contradict historical facts.

4) if there is a claim in the holy text about a miracle that happened publicly and in a grandiose fashion, say the plagues in Egypt and the Exodus, there should be verification of these events from other sources; the holy text itself is not enough if absolutely no other sources even hint at the event having happened

The Buddha is mentioned as having miraculous powers in the text, but the Buddha despised miracles and limited his use of them because he understands the nature of the skeptical mind. He also explains the method to achieve the miracles and how it works (mental states, altering perception, manipulating reality). Other instances of the Buddha doing miracles are in the context of a story device used to make a satirical/ironic point.

5) the holy text would have to be consistent with what one would expect from an omniscient source, and should not be what we would expect to see if the holy text was fabricated by ancient and primitive men who knew nothing about science, history, or treating others in society morally - the text would have to be full of great and profound and even mind-blowingly amazing wisdom.

Buddhism has that. Check. (The Buddha is said to be omniscient, but not in the colloquial sense of the word. He doesn't know every single meaningless, minute, detail of everything and trivial knowledge or random facts from jeapordy.)

6) the holy text would have to be consistent with certain aspects of morality that almost everyone living in civilized, advanced countries accepts - so the death penalty should not be prescribed for victimless crimes, women shouldn't be property, slavery shouldn't be condoned, etc.

Buddhist morality is acceptable by every moral person's standards.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:41:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 7:20:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/1/2012 6:22:06 PM, jat93 wrote:
1) there are no contradictions within the holy texts of the religion

No contradictions in Buddhism unless purposeful contradictions (Koans) for the goal of achieving a certain mental state.

2) there are no contradictions between accepted scientific facts about the universe or human beings (in subjects like biology, chemistry, physics, etc) and the holy texts of the religion

Buddhism is entirely consistent with accepted scientific facts. In fact, it was ahead of modern science. Buddhist texts describe evolution, Multiverse cosmology, expanding Universe theory, and atoms.

3) there are no contradictions between accepted historical facts about humanity or the world and the holy texts of the religion

Buddhist texts do not contradict historical facts.

4) if there is a claim in the holy text about a miracle that happened publicly and in a grandiose fashion, say the plagues in Egypt and the Exodus, there should be verification of these events from other sources; the holy text itself is not enough if absolutely no other sources even hint at the event having happened

The Buddha is mentioned as having miraculous powers in the text, but the Buddha despised miracles and limited his use of them because he understands the nature of the skeptical mind. He also explains the method to achieve the miracles and how it works (mental states, altering perception, manipulating reality). Other instances of the Buddha doing miracles are in the context of a story device used to make a satirical/ironic point.

5) the holy text would have to be consistent with what one would expect from an omniscient source, and should not be what we would expect to see if the holy text was fabricated by ancient and primitive men who knew nothing about science, history, or treating others in society morally - the text would have to be full of great and profound and even mind-blowingly amazing wisdom.

Buddhism has that. Check. (The Buddha is said to be omniscient, but not in the colloquial sense of the word. He doesn't know every single meaningless, minute, detail of everything and trivial knowledge or random facts from jeapordy.)

6) the holy text would have to be consistent with certain aspects of morality that almost everyone living in civilized, advanced countries accepts - so the death penalty should not be prescribed for victimless crimes, women shouldn't be property, slavery shouldn't be condoned, etc.

Buddhist morality is acceptable by every moral person's standards.

The Fool: Atheist is a default position. An opinion is just another word for belief. But you could never have believe in something you never thought existed. People are lost in language. The majority of theist, our taught when they are children at a time that they believe what anybody tells them. They then build up there understanding according to that fallacy, and then its really hard for them to get rid of it because so much of what they consider knowledge is resting on the notion of God. Thus god becomes part of there intuition. I becomes a security blanket for life. It makes them think that they are immortle and that they have all the answer figured out. When they are really just blind Bats
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 7:51:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) there are no contradictions within the holy texts of the religion!

Holy Bible does not

2) there are no contradictions between accepted scientific facts about the universe or human beings (in subjects like biology, chemistry, physics, etc) and the holy texts of the religion

This is your first mistake you are relying just only the physical means. You hold science as the ultimate truth.

3) there are no contradictions between accepted historical facts about humanity or the world and the holy texts of the religion

The Bible there is none.

4) if there is a claim in the holy text about a miracle that happened publicly and in a grandiose fashion, say the plagues in Egypt and the Exodus, there should be verification of these events from other sources; the holy text itself is not enough if absolutely no other sources even hint at the event having happened

Why should it? How many texts do we actually have from that period from then?

5) the holy text would have to be consistent with what one would expect from an omniscient source, and should not be what we would expect to see if the holy text was fabricated by ancient and primitive men who knew nothing about science, history, or treating others in society morally - the text would have to be full of great and profound and even mind-blowingly amazing wisdom.

The Bible does and is.

6) the holy text would have to be consistent with certain aspects of morality that almost everyone living in civilized, advanced countries accepts - so the death penalty should not be prescribed for victimless crimes, women shouldn't be property, slavery shouldn't be condoned, etc.

Why should all men accept it? When it would be great then men and hold them countable. Why would man consider that right?

If all these conditions were satisfied to the best of my knowledge, I wouldn't immediately accept the religion as the truth, but I would weigh the evidence and investigate the claim further. If a religion does not meet clearly these six conditions I will not even begin to consider it as the perfect word of the wise, powerful, loving creator of the universe.

That is your ignorance. That you a practical nobody thinks his means of knowledge and gathering of is superior to claim right as such.
TheAsylum
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2012 9:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 7:51:23 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
1) there are no contradictions within the holy texts of the religion!

Holy Bible does not

Didn't you lose two debates on that subject?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2012 12:37:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/1/2012 9:49:57 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/1/2012 7:51:23 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
1) there are no contradictions within the holy texts of the religion!

Holy Bible does not

Didn't you lose two debates on that subject?

Yes! Does not change the facts. My error is not the Bibles!
TheAsylum