If you wanted to convert an atheist who wanted to believe....

Splendour · 07-04-2009 09:13PM

Otaku Girl wrote: »

....what argument/stategy would you use?Bearing in mind the said atheist is atheist soley due to logical reasons not because God did'nt get her/him a pony nor to sound pretentious or pseudo intellectual.

Hi Otaku Girl-very interesting title I must say: 'If I wanted to convert an atheist who wanted to believe.'

Ok first off, if 'I wanted to convert an atheist'- I couldn't. I could certainly tell them the gospel and in general answer their questions to the best of my God given ability. After that, I bow out and pray for them the rest is up to the Lord.

Secondly, 'an atheist who wanted to believe', I would repeat the above, but knowing they wanted to believe I would sing God's praises and take it as a given they'd be converted.

I'm having on/off discussions with a work colleague (who happens to be gay) about Christianity. I would never ever try to 'convert' by pointing out the 'un Christian' parts of someone's life. I've enough of them in my own life to be worrying about!

antiskeptic · 07-04-2009 10:18PM

chop86 wrote: »

That is exactly my point, if we are all atheists to these thousands of gods before todays ones, why not just take it one step further and be done with religion altogether. It is the next rational and logical step.

But atheists believe that things arose naturalistically. There is no evidence that this is the case yet atheists won't give up this belief.

Silent???????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution
And before we get comments on how they are "just theories"......

Big Bang isn't origin. Big Bang is something becoming something else. As to where the original something came from - well there isn't much by way of science to go on here..

As Evolutionists are wont to tell you, lifes origins aren't explained by ToE. ToE tells us (or so the story goes) how pre-existing life evolves into more complex life. It doesn't tell us where life originated from.

Zombrex · 07-04-2009 10:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

But atheists believe that things arose naturalistically. There is no evidence that this is the case yet atheists won't give up this belief.

No, atheists (at least the ones I've talked to) say they don't know how "things arose"

if by "things" you mean the current state of the universe.

What atheists do say is that you guys don't know either. It is a rejection of the belief you guys hold that god X did it and then told us about it.

antiskeptic · 07-04-2009 10:55PM

Wicknight wrote: »

No, atheists (at least the ones I've talked to) say they don't know how "things arose"

The ones I've talked to might not know how things arose but their very keen to show how what they do know about how things might have arisen precludes the need for God.

If they'd like to hide behind a semantical argument about absence of belief - in the face of a demonstrably firm - at times even virulent - commitment to naturalism - then they can be my guest.

I don't think many are fooled - least of all God.

AbE

This atheist below would appear to think he knows. That he's incorrect in his adherence to naturalistic origins (based on this showing) doesn't diminish the nature of his belief system: religious in the sense of being based on (blind) faith

Silent???????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution
And before we get comments on how they are "just theories"......

Húrin · 07-04-2009 11:35PM

Otaku Girl wrote: »

....what argument/stategy would you use?Bearing in mind the said atheist is atheist soley due to logical reasons not because God did'nt get her/him a pony nor to sound pretentious or pseudo intellectual.

You cannot convert anyone. Only God can. What specific theological issues are you discussing with this person? There are certainly reasonable defenses for most theistic views, but trying to convert someone is a recipe for fail.

On the parallel debate, most atheists have logical reasons to be atheist. However, their disbelief seems to begin with an emotional aversion to divine authority. It is a threat to the illusion of personal autonomy that our culture holds dear. That is not a very logical reason, but that's OK. No Christian is Christian for solely logical reasons.

I reject the notion that there is one truth to which we would all come round if only we understood each other's arguments correctly. Most atheists, and many theists, seem to think that the main reason why others don't think as they do is because they haven't thought things through enough. There are objective truths, but no human has access to them. We only know phenomena, not things as they are.

Winters wrote: »

Anyone who thinks rationally and logically would have a hard time believing in a supreme being for which no evidence exists ...etc

To make such a universal statement as this a person would need to have some sort of access to the objective, logical view of things. You don't have that view. I doubt any human does.

JimiTime · 07-04-2009 11:45PM

chop86 wrote: »

I dont think anyone in their right mind could claim to have "it all licked". There is still so much to learn, and im eager to learn it. Infact the only claim to know-it-all has been from the religious corner.

I've certainly heard this said, but I don't think the evidence adds up as so. As I said, I see alot of posturing from atheists about being so smart, and wanting others to recognise such a trait. Lots of 'your dumber than me', and 'I'm smarter than you'. As I said, it reeks of intellectual insecurity.

Science admits it doesnt have all the answers

I thought I was talking about atheists not scientists

but it has answered so much with exactly what any rational human needs: evidence.
Religion has failed to answer any question about our existence with any evidence or coherant info. To believe in it, is to cover your ears and eyes to any sincere reason.

Science has indeed given us much, atheism very little. As for the rest of your post, well QED really.

chop86 · 08-04-2009 02:04AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

But atheists believe that things arose naturalistically. There is no evidence that this is the case yet atheists won't give up this belief.

Atheism is the rejection of the devine belief system, not belief systems as a whole.
Being an atheist doesnt automatically make you a naturalist, atheism only stretches its stance to devine belief while naturalism encompasses all supernatural ideas. Buddhism after all is considered an atheistic religion.

chop86 · 08-04-2009 02:18AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The ones I've talked to might not know how things arose but their very keen to show how what they do know about how things might have arisen precludes the need for God.

If they'd like to hide behind a semantical argument about absence of belief - in the face of a demonstrably firm - at times even virulent - commitment to naturalism - then they can be my guest.

I don't think many are fooled - least of all God.

AbE

This atheist below would appear to think he knows. That he's incorrect in his adherence to naturalistic origins (based on this showing) doesn't diminish the nature of his belief system: religious in the sense of being based on (blind) faith

Of course they are very keen to show there isnt a need for a god, thats the main tenant of atheism; rejection of theistic belief.
But again that does not mean they reject belief systems as a whole or automatically sign up for naturalism.

I personally would not refer to myself as a naturalist, or that i know the origins of our humble existence. All i rely on is reason, evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism in seeking answers to the important questions.

thebaldsoprano · 08-04-2009 03:38AM

chop86 wrote: »

Atheism is the rejection of the devine belief system, not belief systems as a whole.

Interesting, I'm an agnostic, probably one who's more open to the possibility of a God than most, but not in the Christian sense.

By your definition, since I reject the divine belief system, I also get to call myself an atheist. And at the same time entertain the idea that there might be a God?

There seem to be a lot of definitions flying around about what atheists aren't and what they reject, can anyone tell me just what they are?

Fanny Cradock · 08-04-2009 03:42AM

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

There seem to be a lot of definitions flying around about what atheists aren't and what they reject, can anyone tell me just what they are?

A lack of belief in the existence of God(s). That's about it!

chop86 · 08-04-2009 03:57AM

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Interesting, I'm an agnostic, probably one who's more open to the possibility of a God than most, but not in the Christian sense.

By your definition, since I reject the divine belief system, I also get to call myself an atheist. And at the same time entertain the idea that there might be a God?

There seem to be a lot of definitions flying around about what atheists aren't and what they reject, can anyone tell me just what they are?

If, by your own words, reject the devine belief system then you are atheist.
Agnosticism sits on the fence, saying there might or might not be a god and that it cant/wont be resolved.

O'Coonassa · 08-04-2009 04:51AM

It seems some people on this thread are a couple of hundred years behind in their reading

O'Coonassa · 08-04-2009 05:00AM

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

There seem to be a lot of definitions flying around about what atheists aren't and what they reject, can anyone tell me just what they are?

They are just preposterous.

chop86 · 08-04-2009 05:57AM

O'Coonassa wrote: »

They are just preposterous.

Deism isnt any alternative. Its just watered down theism, stating that this universe was created by the volition and efforts of a being has no observable evidence and therefore that position defaults to the null hypothesis and is considered false. Taking anything as truth that does not have evidence to support it was, is and forever will be nothing but faith, in whatever "parlance" or language you care to use.

Bduffman · 08-04-2009 09:15AM

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I do think atheists do in reality believe in God but just choose to deny it.

Wow - didn't think you'd actually admit that.

So why - if its true about god & an afterlife etc - do you think we would deny it? Think about this logically now. If I know there is a god & an afterlife, I still deny it & risk eternity in damnation? And for what? Just to be awkward & annoy christians? Just for a good argument?

How about I said that I actually think you know there is no god but you choose to believe because it makes you feel better. Now that makes sense as the comfort of wanting to believe in an afterlife makes our mortality more bearable.

But the other way around makes no sense

Handsome Bob · 08-04-2009 09:19AM

To me trying to persuade anyone to convert or to become a non-believer is quite futile. I firmly believe that people will only be swayed by personal experiences, and how they react to those personal experiences.

Zillah · 08-04-2009 09:29AM

LZ5by5 wrote: »

To me trying to persuade anyone to convert or to become a non-believer is quite futile. I firmly believe that people will only be swayed by personal experiences, and how they react to those personal experiences.

Surely the people you meet and what they say to you are part of your personal experience?

Zombrex · 08-04-2009 09:40AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The ones I've talked to might not know how things arose but their very keen to show how what they do know about how things might have arisen precludes the need for God.

Given the option between a possible scenario that includes, but doesn't require, a super powerful intelligent entity that just exists and does stuff and a possible scenario that doesn't include and doesn't require a super powerful intelligent entity that just exists and does stuff, is there any particular reason to invoke the first one over the second one beyond a human desire for said deity to exist?

Occam's Razor and all that. Why introduce added assumptions and complexity that are unnecessary to explain something particularly when the assumption introduced is so fantastical?

antiskeptic wrote: »

If they'd like to hide behind a semantical argument about absence of belief

It is not really a semantic argument.

A good analogy is three people looking at a box.

The first person, person A, says "The thing in the box is talking to me and telling me it is a rabbit. Therefore I conclude there is a rabbit in that box". The second person, person B, says "No I really don't think that is true, you couldn't possible know that. Therefore I reject that idea"

The second person isn't saying there isn't a rabbit in the box, simply that the first person has no idea what is or is not in the box and is just making something up based on an imaginary delusion that he has some how communicated with it. Person B is a-rabbit-in-the-box-ist

The third person cannot see into the box but is not prepared to say Person A isn't experiencing what he claims to be. He is agnostic to this belief and would say that person A might actually know what is the in the box, but you can't tell either way. They aren't going to rule out the idea that the thing in the box is communicating with Person A, but they aren't prepared to fully embrace that idea a true either.

None of them are saying they know for certain there isn't a rabbit in the box, while Person A is saying he knows for certain there is a rabbit in the box because it has communicated with him.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This atheist below would appear to think he knows. That he's incorrect in his adherence to naturalistic origins (based on this showing) doesn't diminish the nature of his belief system: religious in the sense of being based on (blind) faith

If you believe Occam's razor is "blind faith" you possibly have a funny definition of blind faith.

Handsome Bob · 08-04-2009 09:45AM

Zillah wrote: »

Surely the people you meet and what they say to you are part of your personal experience?

Sorry I should have been clearer; what I was referring to was personal difficulties or tragedies in life.

You may be touched or affected by the stories of people you meet, I'm sure you have heard some gutwrenching stories yourself, but it's not going to be strong enough feeling to make you want to convert or walk away from faith. It's impossible as you'd have to put yourself exactly in their shoes, and that won't happen until you experience a similar tragedy.

getz · 08-04-2009 09:46AM

Otaku Girl wrote: »

....what argument/stategy would you use?Bearing in mind the said atheist is atheist soley due to logical reasons not because God did'nt get her/him a pony nor to sound pretentious or pseudo intellectual.

every one deep inside believes in god -but but it dosent mean a christian god-you first ask the question do you believe in ghosts ? if not, show him one, there are enough scary places about , chances are he will no go there ,because he deep down believes in a life after death-i believe in some sort of god ,because i see people who lived in the passed now and again-no i am not insane,that to me is more proof that any priest ranting and raving from a pulpit

PDN · 08-04-2009 10:25AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Given the option between a possible scenario that includes, but doesn't require, a super powerful intelligent entity that just exists and does stuff and a possible scenario that doesn't include and doesn't require a super powerful intelligent entity that just exists and does stuff, is there any particular reason to invoke the first one over the second one beyond a human desire for said deity to exist?

That depends if you are reaching your conclusions by rationality and logic, or if you approaching the subject with your mind made up due to assumptions based on other reasons.

If someone is open-minded enough to assess both the Christian and atheist case, then they allow for the possiblity that the super powerful intelligent entity might actually exist. Therefore they will allow for the possibility of either scenario being correct.

If someone is operating on a pre-existing supposition that God does exist, then they will probably choose the scenario that requires the super powerful intelligent entity. However, if they then come to a conclusion that they use to argue for God's existence then they are guilty of circular reasoning.

If someone is operating on a pre-existing supposition that God does not exist, then they will automatically exclude the scenario that requires the super powerful intelligent entity. However, if they then come to a conclusion that they use to argue against God's existence then they too are guilty of circular reasoning.

If you believe Occam's razor is "blind faith" you possibly have a funny definition of blind faith.

Not at all. Sometimes Occam's razor will lead you to a true conclusion and sometimes to a false conclusion. So everytime you base a decision on Occam's razor you are operating in faith that this will be one of the times that Occam's Razor gets it right.

Zombrex · 08-04-2009 10:59AM

PDN wrote: »

If someone is open-minded enough to assess both the Christian and atheist case, then they allow for the possiblity that the super powerful intelligent entity might actually exist. Therefore they will allow for the possibility of either scenario being correct.

I'm not ruling that out (see the analogy about the rabbit in the box)

I'm asking not whether it can exist or not, but rather why introduce it if it is not necessary to explain something?

If you introduce, unnecessarily, a god to explain something you could technically introduce anything supernatural. It becomes some what meaningless. It doesn't add anything to the explanation. A good example of this is evolution. What does the "theistic" part of theistic evolution actually add to the explanation or understanding of life? It seems to be introduced, unnecessarily, simply to placate believers.

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Sometimes Occam's razor will lead you to a true conclusion and sometimes to a false conclusion. So everytime you base a decision on Occam's razor you are operating in faith that this will be one of the times that Occam's Razor gets it right.

Occam's razor doesn't say otherwise. It is a recommendation rather than a rule.

You might still be wrong following, for example Space Mice might actually have seeded life on Earth.

Occam's razor is a guard against introducing unnecessary assumptions on our part that don't add to understanding.

You introduce God and I introduce Space Mice and someone else introduces Gia or Xenu and none of these things is actually adding to our understanding of the thing we are looking at.

It is not saying that one of these thing doesn't exist or do something, simply that it becomes an unnecessary guessing game.

thebaldsoprano · 08-04-2009 11:25AM

chop86 wrote: »

If, by your own words, reject the devine belief system then you are atheist.
Agnosticism sits on the fence, saying there might or might not be a god and that it cant/wont be resolved.

The way I see it, 'sitting on the fence' implies a rejection of the divine belief system, although I acknowledge that this is getting into the area of what exactly a belief is, which is a thorny issue. So this would then make all agnostics atheists. I, and probably a lot of other agnostics are no more atheists than we are theists though.

thebaldsoprano · 08-04-2009 11:33AM

O'Coonassa wrote: »

It seems some people on this thread are a couple of hundred years behind in their reading

O'Coonassa wrote: »

They are just preposterous.

O'Coonassa, what point are you trying to make, apart from "I've read a book you haven't"? Usually when people provide a reference they have the good sense to explain why they're including it and what relevance it has to the argument they're making, assuming they're making one at all that is...

chop86 · 08-04-2009 04:47PM

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

The way I see it, 'sitting on the fence' implies a rejection of the divine belief system, although I acknowledge that this is getting into the area of what exactly a belief is, which is a thorny issue. So this would then make all agnostics atheists. I, and probably a lot of other agnostics are no more atheists than we are theists though.

agnosticism isnt about rejecting a devine belief system, thats soley atheism. Agnostics believe its an unanswerable question, they dont make any suggestion to wheteher he can or cannot exist (like atheism/theism) but firmly believe its something that can never be revealed either way.

chop86 · 08-04-2009 04:49PM

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

O'Coonassa, what point are you trying to make, apart from "I've read a book you haven't"? Usually when people provide a reference they have the good sense to explain why they're including it and what relevance it has to the argument they're making, assuming they're making one at all that is...

By referring us to Thomas Paine's book, i believe he is trying to raise awareness of deism.

chop86 · 08-04-2009 05:06PM

PDN wrote: »

That depends if you are reaching your conclusions by rationality and logic, or if you approaching the subject with your mind made up due to assumptions based on other reasons.

If someone is open-minded enough to assess both the Christian and atheist case, then they allow for the possiblity that the super powerful intelligent entity might actually exist. Therefore they will allow for the possibility of either scenario being correct.

Allowing for a super-natural being in itself defies using logic and reason. It is open-minded to listen to claims of super powerful intelligent entitys, but as soon as you insert logic and reason, the need for such entity becomes redundant. Its easy to see this when you sustitute super powereful intelligent entity with flying spaghetti monster.
I cant see how being open-minded to atheists and theists automatically "allows for the possibility" that a deity might exist. Surely before reaon and logic are applied; enquiry and factual evidence are a prerequisite before the possibility of a deity can be brought to reason and logic.

PDN · 08-04-2009 05:08PM

chop86 wrote: »

Allowing for a super-natural being in itself defies using logic and reason.

Not at all. You are assuming a position as your starting point and then arguing in a circle to reach the conclusion that is the same as your starting point.

chop86 · 08-04-2009 05:20PM

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. You are assuming a position as your starting point and then arguing in a circle to reach the conclusion that is the same as your starting point.

If you met someone who was a firm believer of fsm, you might be able to take the stance and allow for the possibility of their deist, it'd be a push but you could say you allow for it.
What happens now when you insert logic and reason towards the hypothesis of a devine flying spaghetti monster??
Of course i assumed a position as a starting point, the position that nonsense doesnt explain uncertainty.

abcdggs · 08-04-2009 06:48PM

from an atheist: ask them what happened before the big bang?

If you wanted to convert an atheist who wanted to believe....

Comments