What would convince you?
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
VitalOne, your argument is quite rediculus.
Enmos has clearly provided you with the information you requested: what would convinve him.
You cannot dismiss this saying 'atheists wouldnt beleive this' Thats circular reasoning, you belief atheists wont, and therefore when one states what would convince him, you tell him it wont. How do you know atheists wont? Are you the mind of every atheist? I didnt think so.
Analogy:
Vitalone: "Nobody likes chocolate, go ahead, try and find one person who likes chocolate."
Enmos: "I like chocolate."
Vitalone: "I dont think so, thats not proof that everyone likes chocolate, thus its wrong. Nobody can come up with an example? Good looks like nobody likes chocolate."
What you think would convince somebody is irrelevant. Enmos has stated what would convince him, and you can't reject that anymore than him liking chocolate in the example above. Even if that doesnt convince a single other atheist, it will convince him. There will be other examples for other people of course but Im sorry, its a little difficult to get one for every single person in the world who is atheistic and post it here.
No, this is a logical fallacy; an argument ad ignorantiam. I say the easter bunny doesn't exist, because I have no evidence for it, that is not blind faith, is a logical conclusion (use of reason.)
-Andrew
If miraculous things happen when you pray to a particular god, of course that is evidence of that particular god.
I am an atheist, and if anything like what I listed was available I would probably convert – and so would most other atheists. You seem to be under the impression that atheists don't want god to exist, which is a very common mistake among Christians – and it really shows you something about the Christian mindset. Most atheists would be happy if they thought that the Christian god was real, that they could have eternal life in heaven, etc. The big difference between atheists and Christians is that atheists realize that something isn’t likely to be real simply because we want it to be real. Since Christians are apparently able to make themselves believe something simply because they find it pleasant or desirable, they naturally assume that everyone else thinks the same way, and thus assume that anyone who doesn’t believe in god must no want god to exist, in the same way that Christians believe in god because they do want him to exist.
Also, how can you possibly insist that atheists wouldn’t accept certain things as evidence when atheists were the ones who gave you the evidence in the first place? Don’t you think that atheists would have a better understanding of what it would take to convince themselves than you would?
Last edited:
He can reject it based on his blind faith that nothing will convince an atheist of the existence of God.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
But he cant reject it based on logic.
ahahahahahahahaha
I'm only stating what atheists would say, based upon what they've said in the past, any evidence of God to an atheist is automatically a "god-did-it" explanation and doesn't indicate that God exists at all....even if I get prayer working I'm sure atheists would insist it means nothing, just as in the past...
Hmmm....can you point to where I said it didn't convince him? Hmm...looks like another delusional atheist is at it again "oh it just seems like you said it, case closed"andbna said:
ahahaha, what you stated is EXACTLY an argument from ignorance, you proved yourself wrong, because believing the easter bunny doesn't exist because there is no evidence is EXACTLY an argument from ignorance...ahahahahahaandbna said:
Believing an unverifiable claim is definitely false is also an argument from ignorance...
So, what was the point of this thread? :shrug:
VitalOne, don't you think it's a little absurd that you - who is not an atheist - are arguing with a bunch of atheists over what atheists believe?
Thats hilarious; on this site its usually the atheists "educating" the theists about what the theists believe.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What would convince me?
Well how about two prophets in two different lands receiving the same revelation at the same time?
All religions come down to just one prophet who had heard all the stories of previous prophets.
It's irrational to believe the word of just one man.
Well how about two prophets in two different lands receiving the same revelation at the same time?
All religions come down to just one prophet who had heard all the stories of previous prophets.
It's irrational to believe the word of just one man.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Also, could you please react to this:
What would be proof to me thatgod exist? Hmmm... If he appears in front of me and tells me to believe then proceeds to do things like strike someone down by merely saying it, make the sky blood red, blow up a star in the night sky just by pointing his fingers, create a new being right in front of my eye. If so then I might believe. Oh he also has to show me angels and devil exist as well physically befoore my eye. I need also an all expense paid tour of heaven and hell with full insurance.
then I guess you have never bothered to venture into the higher education of say science, since it generally takes about three years of theory before they start letting you do interesting things in the lab to see for yourself
How did you know? I'm completed tertiary business studies not science and making good money from it too. Cheers...
How did you know? I'm completed tertiary business studies not science and making good money from it too. Cheers...
next time we encounter a problem related to economic development we will let you know
You cannot say what an atheist would say, you cannot say what anybody other than you would say. You can assume yes, however assumption is not proof. In this your assumption is based upon past evidence, however, not to my knowlege has anyone said what would convert them and, after having been shown said evidence rejected it. Thus your comparison is not valid. An atheist has stated what would convert him, could he be lying? Possibly, but the only way to proove that would be to give them the proof they ask for. Thus you assume they would reject it because you say they have blind faith and reject all arguments (which is the argument you are trying to prove, ie circular reasoning.)
I can indeed:
------------
While I will say I worded that last part poorly, allow me to expand:
We cannot proove the easter bunny does not exist, but since there is no other evidence for it to exist, it would be ad ignorantiam to assume that it therefore did. (hence why I refered to beleif in the easter bunny as ad ignorantiam)
Therefore the issue then comes down to burden of proof, and logicaly, who has the burden of proof? It's the person who claims something exists, because it is possible to proove existance, but impossible to proof inexistance. Otherwise one could claim anything existed and have an argument, eg: "evil flying monkeys from venus are building a blooperglap ray which will wipe out all life on earth and thus we must invest all our money into the military and space programs to destroy them before this is accomplished."
(in other words, a reductio ad absurdem shows why the burden falls on the one who claims something exists.)
Thus, by default the easter bunny (or anything) does not exist untill you proove it to exist.
And that is why an atheist is not 'blind faith' but rather a logical conclusion based on their ways of knowing.
EDIT: Perhaps a better way of putting the above is: An argument that something exists is not falsifiable, while an argument that something does not exist is falsifiable, thus the unfalsifiable argument has the burden of proof.
Falsification is the difference between 'blind faith' and a reasoned conclusion.
-Andrew
Last edited:
no
but a person who seeks knowledge resigns themselves to a good deal of theory and practice before they arrive at direct perception