What would it take?

[quadraphonics]

For any religious person here to become an atheist?

Is there any evidence that could be presented to change your minds?

Serious answers please.

To my way of thinking, the difference between an atheist and a believer has very little to do with evidence and the conscious adoption of specific metaphysical positions. Rather, it's a dispositional thing. Certain people are simply predisposed to wanting "The Answer" while others aren't. The latter types tend to end up atheist, and the former end up believers. There is no amount of "evidence" that could really matter either way, mostly.

The people that switch tend to be of one disposition, but be caught up in a mismatched sitatution through chance. I.e., many people with atheist dispositions get born into and brought up in religious households, and it's the social and family pressure that keeps them in the "believer" camp, rather than any explicit metaphysical convictions. If those social or family pressure crack, for whatever reason, then those people tend to give up on religion. I'm sure the opposite cases also occurs, although probably far less frequently owing to the pervasiveness of religious families.

 

[dhcracker]

That's a good question, and I am sitting here trying to think of something that COULD change my mind, but I can't. To NMSquirrel's point, our belief is actually predicated on a lack of evidence - so the only thing that could dissuage me at least would be proof that there is no God, but my view of God is such that proof (for or against) is impossible. So, if proof that there was no God could be provided, it would obviously change my mind, but I cannot think of anything that would constitute such proof.

This is the elephant in the room right now. I think I can tell you what would make you open to the notion that there may be no God. For instance if I could show you that I knew how we got here, and I performed an experiment that created a universe, then I manipulated matter into life, and if God didn't come down and stop me would that make you wonder if God is really divine? what if I further showed you proof of exactly how we got here without a hint of grand design?

Then what if your chosen spiritual doctrine was shaken by events taking place that flatly shouldn't have.

Further what if you were studying these types of questions and found many answers on your own that implied if nothing else God isn't what our world religions teach us, that religion is outdated and that all mankind even atheists suffer no consequence from their chosen belief but instead are rewarded or not based only on their treatment of other human beings?

I am a little spiritual for an agnostic. I feel there is a possibility we were put here by intent, I also feel there is a possibility that is merely my hope in more than this speck of a lifespan I get to exist in. However I do pray because I know it helps me in my life, I treat people kindly, I am generous and I go out of my way to help the less fortunate regardless of their beliefs or lifestyle, I do not ever judge another person as in "drinking is a sin" or "this act makes you a lesser person", instead I merely relate my story and how my life is and what my experiences are that may be relevent to that person.. if they ask for it. I know I have done good for this world and I have not harmed anyone. Yet I cannot believe in supernatural stories, I do not think a virgin can give birth without being seeded by a human male in some fashion, and I do not believe God would be unfair or unjust even under my own limited understanding. I think anyone that says "god works in mysterious ways" is in blind denial of a real problem to the way they are living their life and treating other people.

If there is a God up there, he would want us to evolve into a better society, he would not want us to hold onto false concepts for thousands of years. I am sure he would want our religions to evolve to the point where we are kind to each other regardless of our chosen faith.

Faith is simply a way we can deal with the unknown and out of control, God will not send anyone to burn forever for being a hindu. If your God does that I am sorry but your understanding of him is flawed. Some faiths not only require a belief in the unknown but also belief in things we know are false. That is a flaw that we will in time correct.

I think somebody should actually rewrite all religious documents into something that follows morality and doesn't allow people to justify hurting people on any level.

Its time for a new religion I think.

 

[wynn]

I do (believe in molecule to man), and I don't even see how there is an issue to reconcile. As we've discussed before (and as most Christians don't see to have an issue with) I believe Genesis describes the different epochs of creation, ultimately culminating in the evolution of Homo Sapiens, with the creation of Adam. Let me ask you - where do you see the conflict? (That may be an easier point for me to address.)

(Hell, the phrase "created from dust" even sounds like "molecule to man" given the understanding that they didn't have a word for molecule.)

Let me ask you this:

What is a soul, in your understanding?

 

[SolusCado]

If this was true, then why are there so many Christians that dispute evolution? Why the whole Dover, PA/ID/Discovery Institute "Pandas and People" thingy?

I think you are witnessing group think mentality at its worst. Of the millions of people who claim to be Christians, there is probably only about 1% (if that) that are actually capable of thinking for themselves, and of those, I'm sure the vast majority have been studying under other people's perspectives for so long that they too just fall right into the propaganda that has been pushed for hundreds of years already. And the rest, the ones that DO actually think along these lines, have their voices (for the most part) buried amongst the louder crowd - particularly since it is a position that gets fought against by both other Christians (who feel like their faith is being challenged) and atheists (who prefer to group all of Christianity into a category they can easily dismiss).

 

[SolusCado]

This is the elephant in the room right now. I think I can tell you what would make you open to the notion that there may be no God. For instance if I could show you that I knew how we got here, and I performed an experiment that created a universe, then I manipulated matter into life, and if God didn't come down and stop me would that make you wonder if God is really divine? what if I further showed you proof of exactly how we got here without a hint of grand design?

Not at all. In fact, I get annoyed every time I hear the phrase "playing god" because I don't think it is possible. Anything you could possibly do would simply become yet another element of God's creation. If it were possible to create parallel universes, then I would recognize God as the entity that created the medium in which universes are created. If it were possible to create universes inside other universes, I would recognize God as the entity that created the highest-level universe (or potentially the entity that created our own universe, who may in fact have been created by yet another entity in a parent universe to our God's).

Then what if your chosen spiritual doctrine was shaken by events taking place that flatly shouldn't have.

I cannot fathom anything that would fall into that category. Can you think of an example?

Further what if you were studying these types of questions and found many answers on your own that implied if nothing else God isn't what our world religions teach us, that religion is outdated and that all mankind even atheists suffer no consequence from their chosen belief but instead are rewarded or not based only on their treatment of other human beings?

You speak as though I assume one or more current religions is "correct and infallible". I do not. I believe Christianity has been so warped and corrupted that the true message of Christ has been long lost. So, if I were to find (as I do on a regular basis) elements that appear to be obviously false, then I recognize those things as part of the corruption that has infected "true Christianity".

I am a little spiritual for an agnostic. I feel there is a possibility we were put here by intent, I also feel there is a possibility that is merely my hope in more than this speck of a lifespan I get to exist in. However I do pray because I know it helps me in my life, I treat people kindly, I am generous and I go out of my way to help the less fortunate regardless of their beliefs or lifestyle, I do not ever judge another person as in "drinking is a sin" or "this act makes you a lesser person", instead I merely relate my story and how my life is and what my experiences are that may be relevent to that person.. if they ask for it. I know I have done good for this world and I have not harmed anyone. Yet I cannot believe in supernatural stories, I do not think a virgin can give birth without being seeded by a human male in some fashion, and I do not believe God would be unfair or unjust even under my own limited understanding. I think anyone that says "god works in mysterious ways" is in blind denial of a real problem to the way they are living their life and treating other people.

For the most part, I don't disagree with you. For example, I believe any story of "divine intervention" presented in the Bible is something that can likely be explained through natural phenomena. Where I believe divinity plays a role is in how the people of the time recognized and perceived these phenomena. For example, the pillars of fire and smoke that the Jews exiled from Israel followed in the desert was probably a volcanic eruption. That was a natural event. However, Moses knew to follow it, and recognized that it occurred when it did as part of God's plan. It was the seed of thought in Moses' mind that was divine - not the pillars themselves.

If there is a God up there, he would want us to evolve into a better society, he would not want us to hold onto false concepts for thousands of years. I am sure he would want our religions to evolve to the point where we are kind to each other regardless of our chosen faith.

I agree, and I believe that is precisely why Christ came. Because the Israelites' religion had become a false religion, led by corrupt leaders. Christ 'rose' when he did because mankind needed a new lesson, and we needed to evolve into a better society - a process that may have been started 2,000 years ago but it still in process.

Faith is simply a way we can deal with the unknown and out of control, God will not send anyone to burn forever for being a hindu. If your God does that I am sorry but your understanding of him is flawed. Some faiths not only require a belief in the unknown but also belief in things we know are false. That is a flaw that we will in time correct.

I'm not even convinced eternal fire is something the Bible actually talks about. There is a lot of alternative interpretations/theories that present other views of the subject.

I think somebody should actually rewrite all religious documents into something that follows morality and doesn't allow people to justify hurting people on any level.

Its time for a new religion I think.

I don't think it is necessary to rewrite the Bible to do this. It can already be shown that Christianity doesn't justify hurting people on any level. Those who try to make it say that select passages that are simply taken out of context, or incompletely - which, incidentally, is precisely what we are told to NOT do in Deuteronomy 4.

 

[SolusCado]

Let me ask you this:

What is a soul, in your understanding?

Well, in short it is the 'essence' of who we are. I used to describe it as the mathematical construct that describes the bio-electric patterns of our brain. Kind of like a fingerprint. It isn't the fingerprint itself, but the pattern itself. So, not the brain itself, or its neurological connections, etc., but rather the patterns themselves.

However, I recently became aware of a interesting component of our universe - in which all of time exists simultaneously. Time doesn't 'flow', or 'unfold', but rather we travel through it (basic Special Relativity). The interesting implication of that though is that there actually ISN'T anything that travels through time. If the me of a minute ago reflects the universe at that point in time, that me cannot leave that moment. I still exist in that timeframe, just as assuredly as I exist in this one, and the one a minute from now. In fact, there is a finite number of "me's" - defined as the total time I will live divided by the planck time (the time it takes light to travel across the planck length). So, if we have this static universe that consists of every point in space and time, what can move? (Nothing) If nothing can move, how is it we attain consciousness in the first place? It is relatively easy to imagine consciousness as something that arises out of the flow of experiences and memories, but if there isn't a physical body moving through space and time, accumulating these memories, and actively engaging in thought (yet more movement through spacetime), then WHAT is experiencing this flow of time? What is conscious? What experiences? My answer would be the soul - that it is some sort of spiritual essence that is travelling through this course of zillions of "me's", processing experiences and memories, and growing (maturing) as a result. At the end of this little gamut, my soul has grown to a point where it CAN experience God directly, or it hasn't. From there on out, I have yet to speculate.

 

[quadraphonics]

Well, in short it is the 'essence' of who we are. I used to describe it as the mathematical construct that describes the bio-electric patterns of our brain. Kind of like a fingerprint. It isn't the fingerprint itself, but the pattern itself. So, not the brain itself, or its neurological connections, etc., but rather the patterns themselves.

That sounds more like "mind" than "soul."

 

[SolusCado]

That sounds more like "mind" than "soul."

How do you distinguish the two?

 

[NMSquirrel]

If there is a God up there, he would want us to evolve into a better society, he would not want us to hold onto false concepts for thousands of years. I am sure he would want our religions to evolve to the point where we are kind to each other regardless of our chosen faith.

AMEN!..

evolving christianity..if it worked 1000 years ago,doesn't mean it works now..

 

[gmilam]

How do you distinguish the two?

To me, they are one in the same. Of course, I don't attach any sort of immortality to a soul. And I think that humans are not the only animals with minds.

 

[SolusCado]

To me, they are one in the same. Of course, I don't attach any sort of immortality to a soul. And I think that humans are not the only animals with minds.

No, I was legitimately asking that question. It is an interesting philosophical point. If the physical aspects of who we are (including the brain and everything that entails) is not a part of our soul, then what DOES constitute our soul? Can our soul move on (perhaps from one life to another, vis a vis reincarnation) with no memories of its prior life? Would that also apply to a soul that doesn't get reincarnated, but simply passes on to an afterlife? What IS the soul is a fascinating question that doesn't really get answered by any religions I think. It is a word that was invented to represent your life, separated from your body - but since everything we know about ourselves is indeed part of our body, how do you separate them? Can you separate them?

 

[SolusCado]

To me, they are one in the same. Of course, I don't attach any sort of immortality to a soul. And I think that humans are not the only animals with minds.

Then that is just a semantic issue, and ends the conversation.

 

[dhcracker]

I believe it will work today. I think the bible MUST be re-written, stories in it are ok reading but the ideaology inside the bible needs edited. What we have is obvious bias from the different authors reflecting sometimes bad or wrong ideas.

For instance the book of Romans was written in a way that makes it very non-tolerant to different cultures or even inquiring minds. It seems this author was set on chastising a group of people or a church into flying right with threats of eternal punishment of some kind.

And btw the LAKE OF FIRE is pretty self explanatory so far as that goes. The romans should have seen the conflicts their actions would spawn, and they may have done it intentionally for war purposes. I suspect that is why the OT is held onto so wartime can be justified.

People like solus are just lost.

 

[gmilam]

No, I was legitimately asking that question. It is an interesting philosophical point. If the physical aspects of who we are (including the brain and everything that entails) is not a part of our soul, then what DOES constitute our soul? Can our soul move on (perhaps from one life to another, vis a vis reincarnation) with no memories of its prior life? Would that also apply to a soul that doesn't get reincarnated, but simply passes on to an afterlife? What IS the soul is a fascinating question that doesn't really get answered by any religions I think. It is a word that was invented to represent your life, separated from your body - but since everything we know about ourselves is indeed part of our body, how do you separate them? Can you separate them?

I'm not the one who asked the original question. I was just throwing in my 2 cents worth. But to those who believe the soul survives death it may not be a matter of semantics.

I remember asking my Sunday School teacher the same question when I was elementary school age... i.e. - What is a soul? I don't remember what his answer was, but I do remember that I didn't find it to be very satisfactory.

 

[SnakeLord]

In short, the notion that God performs magic tricks. Miracles are only seen as miracles by those with faith. Remember the plagues in Egypt? The prophets of Baal? The biblical acts of God were CONSTANTLY dismissed by those who did not believe

Frankly I am unsure exactly why one would refer to the slaughter of a particular group of people, their animals and children as a "miracle" instead of "an act of downright barbarity" but clearly that's just me.

However, you're not really answering the question. Crunchy Cat was asked what it would take for him to believe. He answered the question which you deem "theologically inaccurate" which can only be to say that such god cannot perform said task. Which is to say that it is not omnipotent - which, with respect, is you making a theologically inaccurate blunder.

Why would you expect to see anything more overt now?

1. Being 'all-loving', this god would presumably do all in his power to aid people coming to believe in him, (for whatever reason that is supposedly important).

2. What do you mean precisely by "more overt"? A miracle is a miracle, whatever it entails and I don't see how you could argue that one particular miracle is any more likely to be performed by an omnipotent god than any other.

Oh, and your examples of a "sapient" (I think you meant sentient?)

Huh? I never said 'sapient' anywhere.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I assume we're all "natural men[and women]" here? Or are theists unnatural?

IOW, atheists requiring proof will never find it.

Not a word I use, nor is it anything anyone realistically seeks. "proof" is beyond even a god. Instead just 'evidence', of which there has never been any.

 

[wynn]

Well, in short it is the 'essence' of who we are. I used to describe it as the mathematical construct that describes the bio-electric patterns of our brain. Kind of like a fingerprint. It isn't the fingerprint itself, but the pattern itself. So, not the brain itself, or its neurological connections, etc., but rather the patterns themselves.

However, I recently became aware of a interesting component of our universe - in which all of time exists simultaneously. Time doesn't 'flow', or 'unfold', but rather we travel through it (basic Special Relativity). The interesting implication of that though is that there actually ISN'T anything that travels through time. If the me of a minute ago reflects the universe at that point in time, that me cannot leave that moment. I still exist in that timeframe, just as assuredly as I exist in this one, and the one a minute from now. In fact, there is a finite number of "me's" - defined as the total time I will live divided by the planck time (the time it takes light to travel across the planck length). So, if we have this static universe that consists of every point in space and time, what can move? (Nothing) If nothing can move, how is it we attain consciousness in the first place? It is relatively easy to imagine consciousness as something that arises out of the flow of experiences and memories, but if there isn't a physical body moving through space and time, accumulating these memories, and actively engaging in thought (yet more movement through spacetime), then WHAT is experiencing this flow of time? What is conscious? What experiences? My answer would be the soul - that it is some sort of spiritual essence that is travelling through this course of zillions of "me's", processing experiences and memories, and growing (maturing) as a result. At the end of this little gamut, my soul has grown to a point where it CAN experience God directly, or it hasn't. From there on out, I have yet to speculate.

BG 2.13 As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death.

 

[wynn]

What IS the soul is a fascinating question that doesn't really get answered by any religions I think.

Such answers exist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I do (believe in molecule to man), and I don't even see how there is an issue to reconcile. As we've discussed before (and as most Christians don't see to have an issue with) I believe Genesis describes the different epochs of creation, ultimately culminating in the evolution of Homo Sapiens, with the creation of Adam. Let me ask you - where do you see the conflict? (That may be an easier point for me to address.)

(Hell, the phrase "created from dust" even sounds like "molecule to man" given the understanding that they didn't have a word for molecule.)

God commanded the earth to bring forward different forms of life after their
own kind. Evolution purports that blind natural selection was the driving force
behind each kind.

Do you not see a contradiction?

jan.

 

[SolusCado]

God commanded the earth to bring forward different forms of life after their
own kind. Evolution purports that blind natural selection was the driving force
behind each kind.

Do you not see a contradiction?

jan.

Not at all. If God created the entire universe, and every law that drives it, then evolution is as much an integral part of His plan and His will as anything else that occurs within His creation.

 

[SolusCado]

I believe it will work today. I think the bible MUST be re-written, stories in it are ok reading but the ideaology inside the bible needs edited. What we have is obvious bias from the different authors reflecting sometimes bad or wrong ideas.

For instance the book of Romans was written in a way that makes it very non-tolerant to different cultures or even inquiring minds. It seems this author was set on chastising a group of people or a church into flying right with threats of eternal punishment of some kind.

And btw the LAKE OF FIRE is pretty self explanatory so far as that goes. The romans should have seen the conflicts their actions would spawn, and they may have done it intentionally for war purposes. I suspect that is why the OT is held onto so wartime can be justified.

People like solus are just lost.

What you are saying is awfully close to what I am saying for you to toss out that people like me "are lost". Would you care to expound on that?