Convincing Evidence Against God (church, gospels, quote, Christians)

[sealace]

My daughter has become very religious and actually to tell you the truth, I dont think there is anything that could prove to her there is no God. I think it makes people feel so good to think that there is, that they just refuse to believe there isnt. Unfortunatley. I just shake my head and say "Where did I go wrong?", lol.

[Lionpainter]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Some interesting answers indeed, but again, the original post question is: What would it take to convince a theist that there is no God? (PS:I like the idea of finding the faith healer buying meds out behind his tent quite the mental image! Cute!)

C-A; just a simple question is all. I'm not trying to insult anyone or to raise a ruckus here. This question has been presented to atheists countless times on City-Data, the other way around:

("What would it take to make you believe, you Godless, morally bereft atheists!")

Is it possible to ever convince a Godly believer that it's just not possible? If not, then a lot of us have been wasting our time here in occasionally pleasant, but often frustrating, (and possibly pointless?) debate.

If that's truly the case, then we've been duped, I'd say.

As in: why bother if there's no intelligent life on the other side, willing to openly listen to anything?

Are the theist's responses just going to always be a long list of excuses or counter-statements with the sole purpose of defending what we atheists see as the indefensible? Is there no possible ***** in the armor?

(Ed note: yah gotta love the auto-deletion software here, removing the word CHIINKK! I suppose our Asian friends might object, huh? Funny.....)

We've certainly told you what would convince us, and I know that many Christians de-convert every day. How?

Well, as of right now, I'm off to do a very long drive (1450 miles) down I-5 to SoCal from central WA St. It will take myself and thotful1 about 3 days, and we won't be on-line for that time.

Got to take care of the aging parents on both sides. May the Force (and the diesel truck Gods) be with us in the F350!

May you have a safe trip.

[ChristieCT]

Originally Posted by rifleman

OK.... so all us d@mned atheists have had our say on why we don't believe in Christianity, a supernatural god capable of ignoring or temporarily bending the laws of physics, or of making the impossible or implausible happen overnight, on a whim.

We've asked for proof. Christian believers give us quotes from the bible, or vague references to equally vague propheses that could well have come about for a thousand reasons. Or they come up with statements like "Our existance proves there's a God!"

Well, hardly. Perhaps it's in that definition of the word "proof".

So. Here's your chance to show us your personal objectivity and standards for unquestioned intellectual honesty!
_______________________________________

What, exactly and specifically, would convince you that there is no God, no Jesus, no overall supernatural Christian existence, no heaven, no h$ll? What proof would you accept?
__________________________________

Or, sadly, is it conceivable that there's no possible evidence that would ever convince you?

Even if we, for example, eventually came up with a time machine and took you back to, say, 10 million years ago and found actual Cro-Magnon men, or 50 million years, and found a bunch of saurian dinos, or if we used the same machine and never found a global flood or an improbable barge or a functioning Garden of Eden? Realizing that, according to YEC conjecture, if we tried to go back past about 6,000 to 10,000 years, we'd of course find nothing here. Before the Creation, don't you know....

Or if all the old testament stories were found to be nothing but allegories?

Would you then agree that it was all a great big sociological hoax? Could you agree and go on living?

I ask this because "science" has now provided a virtual mountain of evidence that, at the least, should have produced at least a glimmer, a tiny "titch" of doubt in your mind, and yet you categorically argue or dismiss or criticize it. Or, if it's particularly convincing, you claim that it's a hoax study done by some imaginary global conspiracy of bad scientists.

"There's no transitional fossils!" "Evolution's only a theory!" "God works in mysterious ways!" "Science is always biased!"

What thing(s), what evidence, what facts, would or could possibly convince you that Christianity's all a big hoax?

I'd then like to hear from the more open-minded and rational of you what you'd then do, hypothetically, if you came to that conclusion. Could you possibly go on living absent your past beliefs?

(Remember, we atheists have played this game for you several times in the past, according to your rules. Now it's your turn! Can you honestly answer this challenge?)

Rifleman, your posts are some of my favorites!

This is a tough question for me because much of it doesn't apply to me. I don't accept the Bible as historical or scientific proof of anything, and have zero faith in its reliability in those regards. I call myself a Christian because I believe in and attempt to follow Christ's message. To me, that is the important aspect of Christianity, not the details of who allegedly did what in what amount of time at what period in time, etc. Most of the Bible is, to me, nonsensical. I'm more interested in the teachings and sayings attributed to Christ (which, interestingly enough, contradict much of what's in the rest of the Bible). There's enough in the historical record for me to believe that such a man as Jesus really existed (at least as much as there is for me to believe that a lot of historical figures existed), and his message resonates within me in a way that I don't know if I can precisely articulate, but other than that, there isn't much else about the religion that carries any validity for me.

That being said, I have no pre-defined concept of who or what God is. "God" is just the term I give the force I believe instigated the universe, one which I believe has such intelligence that it's impossible for us, as humans, to truly comprehend his purpose or reasoning for anything. The way my three-year-old could not even begin to understand concepts like sex, death, and hate no matter what words I used to try to explain them. He's not at a developmental stage where he has the capacity to grasp such concepts yet, and I guess that's how I see human beings when it comes to God, at least at this stage in our evolution.

Is there the potential for me being convinced that there is no such force or being behind the inception of the universe? I don't know. There could be, but I can't conceive of what it would be.

When I was little, picking up Bible stories from my aunt's side of the family and from friends, not many of them felt particularly true. Once I reached adolescence and started really studying science, most of what is in the Bible was thus disproved to me.

Studying history only further disabused me of any belief in the literal credibility of the Bible.

I find no more contradiction in believing that an intelligent force created the universe--despite its perceived flaws--than I do in accepting that human intelligence created the computer--despite its flaws: viruses, bugs, vulnerability to hackers, crashes, etc.

Given that I believe the human brain and body to be infinitely more complex than any computer that has ever been designed, an intelligent designer of humans (of all lifeforms, really) just makes more logical sense to me. That does not automatically translate that any religion's version of who and what God is is accurate. That's why my "impression" of God is amorphous and vague, and not constrained by any one religion--there's just too many possibilities out there, and my intuition only fills in some of the gaps for me. On that score, I'm very open to having "versions" of God discredited within my mind.

The best I can do to answer your question is this: there are aspects to my current belief system that are open to discrediting based on the receipt of new evidence and information, and aspects that are based on my own intuition and personal experience that would be much tougher to debunk--because my personal experiences and feelings are far more real to me than anything else could ever be.

I don't know if I really succeeded in answering your questions, but I really did try. I'll think more on it, and if I come up with a better answer, I'll certainly share it.

That being said, have a great trip!!!

[victorianpunk]

The OPs post is titled "Convincing Evidence against GOD", NOT "convincing evidence against the Literalist/fundamentalist view on the Nicene/Orthodox Christian god"

Therefore, I will give the answer that usually stops all posts like this in their tracks. In the words of one of the greatest, if not THE GREATEST scholars of religion:

"GOD is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." -Joseph Campbell

Now, does the word "metaphor" exists? Well, according to the dictionary, it does! metaphor - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Hence, under that definition, GOD does indeed, exist, and no proof against it's existince can be found.

Metaphor or personal, principal of life or multiple deities, omnipresent or other worldly, inter or external, GOD has so many definition and means so many different things to so many people that I doubt anyone could ever find evidence against all the definitions of GOD.


So, next time, make it clear which definition of divinity you are "proving wrong"

[rifleman]

We're outbound a few hours later than expected, and I saw and read a few of these so thought I'd respond briefly ("That possible for you, rflmn?").

1. To ChristieCT: your very thoughtful post is exactly what I'd hoped to see. Thank you. I agree, and do not discount, in any way, the utility and indeed deep psychological counsel that a spiritual "take" on this world can provide, esp. in troubled times.

I have my own personal views, which indeed are the result of my own deeply moving experiences that a scarce few people have had the incredible opportunity to partake.

Few folks have had access to the near-open-ended funding of Big Oil to go wherever and whenever they wanted to (helo, icebreaker, Sno-Dog exploration vehicles, dog sleds, snowmobiles, Canadian military APC vehicles, on foot, by float plane, snowshoe, skis, and on and on), to park out in/on the Arctic icecap or the frozen Canadian & Alaskan tundra for season after season, to watch the passage of time, wildlife, seasons, the cosmos, the plant & insect life and the native cultures that grew up intertwined so deeply and effectively there.

And to personally find the ice-age remains of mammoth teeth and dino bones, as well as tribolites and giant dragonflies that surely and absolutely existed in an ancient jungle up there is to finally be convinced that we should perhaps not artificially limit our knowledge to just what others think happened or is important.

To then hear that these were placed there by God to confuse me because I was beginning to doubt His word? Hmmm.....

To flatly deny this stuff on it's face, as I've seen them do with with the evidence on the table in front of them simply because it has no reference in the very limited and highly selective Christian mythology (which is also exactly one book long, and hardly a natural history text, and yet is represented as the inerrant and total book of all books, and truth of all truths) is to thus also demo one's personal choice of relentless beligerence and stubbornness, as well as cloisterized and book-ended knowledge, in being open to the available and vast new and fascinating discoveries of the real world.

(Stops for breath and a light swig of bourbon....I'm not driving for hours)

Then, to see the totally artificial overlay historically demanded by Catholicism there, along with it's punitive reactions to attempts by those very intelligent Inupiat to kindly explain their past, one that long outstretched the stupid YEC chronology, is to then perhaps realize the amazing limits that Christianity has purposefully placed on itself and it's minions for purely selfish reasons.

2. To VictPnk: again, I may well actually agree with you, but let me say this.

I just yesterday took after a fellow who said some thoughtless things on another non-philosophical but technical thread. He was indeed in error in his post, and eventually fessed up to that, but I also was unnecessarily mean-spiritied. I'd got sorta caught up in the moment as a few others were after him as well. Feeding frenzies, you know; it's in our ancient primordial genes!

Well, it turns out there was a reason his on-line name looked familiar; he'd given me some very friendly advice on another unrelated thread, and I'd chatted amicably with him previously. On that topic he was a fount of knowledge.

So now I've apologized to him. And learned something as well. The limits to communication herein, because we cannot see each others' body language, the slight inflections in our voices, or the turn of our heads in minor submission or happy dominance, are all lost here.

As well, you and I, we don't know each other. For all I know, you are quite likely quite the fine person. You may even have friends!

The misunderstandings are legion here, yet it also offers a unique opp for us to get our laundry out there. My intent here, no matter how you might feel challenged or insulted, was to discover if the typical Christian fundy I've grown to dislike so intensely here (for reasons you must understand, even as you dislike the flaming literalist atheist perspective you assume I represent) was open at all or ever to a convincing argument.

Of course there are limitless additional and more rational spiritual perspectives, and I do not take them on as I do the desperate fundy dogmatists.

If you were to go back to some of my truly lengthy threads a few months ago (3 or 4 installments each, at least. I had high hopes for logic, but it, or I, failed) about "How Science Works" or my discussion of the groundbreaking 2008 Lenski proof of the mechanisms of DNA mutation in the process of Evolution, you'd see that a patient, point-form discussion may not yield expected results either. So how to do it, given my personal spiritual convictions?

3. To kd: You perhaps say it best, and sadly at that. Many are simply not open to logic, and yet that's all there is to argue with, lest we devolve into fist-fights.

This is not about logical rational thought, and yet that's precisely what we atheists hold as our stock & trade in, feeling, quite strongly, that "only an idiot" could reasonably refute a clearly stated, logical argument complete with evidence, perhaps photos, satellite images, isotopic dating results, and on and on.

For me, as a one-time Christian, to actually have held in my hands, or stepped over, or tripped on, some real-world artifacts that Christianity chose to ignore because it couldn't fit with their very limited myth, brought it all into focus, finally. The bible is, factually, full of big, gaping holes unless one takes extraordinary artistic and philosophical licence.

For me, it was the undeniability and irrefutibility of what I'd seen, learned, listened to and experienced, coupled with the subsequent and obvious denials of those limited types who then frantically tried to dispute it all. Oh, and their personal insults to my credibility as a scientist or honest person didn't help their cause either.

It wasn't some single bit of illogic, but rather the totality of the irrelevance that broke the camel's back, and when that happens, one generally moves on quickly, finally seeing the bright, shining light and the evidence it exposes so well.

Perhaps that cannot ever be achieved by atheists on City-Data with the persistent communication problems. Of course, the same goes for the theist perspective, which sadly for them, still has come to grips with the very real limitations their limited verbatim game-plan mandates, as well as the growing body of real evidence for many observed and once-mystical phenomena.

Of course, if one wants to have a direct spiritual experience with God, one will find a way, wouldn't you all agree? The power of suggestion, group acceptance and persistence also have a long-term effectiveness that's proven quite effective, and is thus used regularly in everything from evangelism to car sales. We humans are not generally known to be people of vast personal independence, mostly, but rather we prefer to be "in the gang".

Well, now I can go. I'll catch up with y'all later!

Thanks again to all, even those who hate my literal guts!

(Was it short enough? Apologies...)

[Visvaldis]

Another sensible OP from rifleman. Well written with excellent composition.
German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche uttered a quote which could be applied to this: (paraphrasing) Ten good reasons will never overturn what people have learned to believe.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by ChristieCT

Rifleman, your posts are some of my favorites!

This is a tough question for me because much of it doesn't apply to me. I don't accept the Bible as historical or scientific proof of anything, and have zero faith in its reliability in those regards. I call myself a Christian because I believe in and attempt to follow Christ's message. To me, that is the important aspect of Christianity, not the details of who allegedly did what in what amount of time at what period in time, etc. Most of the Bible is, to me, nonsensical. I'm more interested in the teachings and sayings attributed to Christ (which, interestingly enough, contradict much of what's in the rest of the Bible). There's enough in the historical record for me to believe that such a man as Jesus really existed (at least as much as there is for me to believe that a lot of historical figures existed), and his message resonates within me in a way that I don't know if I can precisely articulate, but other than that, there isn't much else about the religion that carries any validity for me.

That being said, I have no pre-defined concept of who or what God is. "God" is just the term I give the force I believe instigated the universe, one which I believe has such intelligence that it's impossible for us, as humans, to truly comprehend his purpose or reasoning for anything. The way my three-year-old could not even begin to understand concepts like sex, death, and hate no matter what words I used to try to explain them. He's not at a developmental stage where he has the capacity to grasp such concepts yet, and I guess that's how I see human beings when it comes to God, at least at this stage in our evolution.

Is there the potential for me being convinced that there is no such force or being behind the inception of the universe? I don't know. There could be, but I can't conceive of what it would be.

When I was little, picking up Bible stories from my aunt's side of the family and from friends, not many of them felt particularly true. Once I reached adolescence and started really studying science, most of what is in the Bible was thus disproved to me.

Studying history only further disabused me of any belief in the literal credibility of the Bible.

I find no more contradiction in believing that an intelligent force created the universe--despite its perceived flaws--than I do in accepting that human intelligence created the computer--despite its flaws: viruses, bugs, vulnerability to hackers, crashes, etc.

Given that I believe the human brain and body to be infinitely more complex than any computer that has ever been designed, an intelligent designer of humans (of all lifeforms, really) just makes more logical sense to me. That does not automatically translate that any religion's version of who and what God is is accurate. That's why my "impression" of God is amorphous and vague, and not constrained by any one religion--there's just too many possibilities out there, and my intuition only fills in some of the gaps for me. On that score, I'm very open to having "versions" of God discredited within my mind.

The best I can do to answer your question is this: there are aspects to my current belief system that are open to discrediting based on the receipt of new evidence and information, and aspects that are based on my own intuition and personal experience that would be much tougher to debunk--because my personal experiences and feelings are far more real to me than anything else could ever be.

I don't know if I really succeeded in answering your questions, but I really did try. I'll think more on it, and if I come up with a better answer, I'll certainly share it.

That being said, have a great trip!!!

There were some good comments posted and I appreciated this one. This is one honest person who has obviously looked at the whole matter with an Open Mind and has seen clearly the contradictions and the nonsense of the Bible.

'God' is the creator of the universe. Whatever that is. And it it is supposed to be intelligent. Well, I can understand the reasoning behind that. I prefer to leave the question open and Christie, you appear to leave it a little open as well "That's why my "impression" of God is amorphous and vague, and not constrained by any one religion".

While accepting the reasons why someone might think that something must have done it all, that's the question I'd next raise. If so, where does that leave you in regards to religion? It seems, Christie, (correct me if I'm wrong) that you don't see 'God' as the god of any one particular religion (or three).

So as to being a Christian, you say "There's enough in the historical record for me to believe that such a man as Jesus really existed (at least as much as there is for me to believe that a lot of historical figures existed), and his message resonates within me in a way that I don't know if I can precisely articulate, but other than that, there isn't much else about the religion that carries any validity for me."

I can relate to this, too. I may say that there are one or two bits in the Bible that do make me think that Jesus might have been real (and some things in history that make me doubt it) and I can understand the idea of finding a resonance in the message.

You call yourself a Christian and I call myself an atheist, but, you know, there is hardly any distance between us.

[Nikk]

There is nothing that would cause me to change my presuposition, my axiom: God exists and my secondary axiom: Jesus Christ is God, the Messiah and my third axiom: The bible is the inerrant word of God.

Just like you might have as an axiom: There is no God and Evolution is the mechanism that expains what we see in the world around us.

An axiom is the basic unprovable truths that each one of us accepts. Once they are formed it is very difficult to change. For me it is impossible, because I have seen Jesus and I have gone to heaven and I have seen the veil of this natural world pulled away and I can see the supernatural world. Just like neo, I no longer see this world just all the streaming binary numbers and code(of the spirit world). And no, I do not use drugs, I do not meditate, I do not go into trances, I do not drink alcohol or smoke anything. Not even one blue little pill (or whatever it was that neo took).

[ChristieCT]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

You call yourself a Christian and I call myself an atheist, but, you know, there is hardly any distance between us.

I've found that to be true as well. I know there will be those who get angered by my saying this, but I truly see that as a good thing.

It's interesting, but once I rejected the Bible in its entirety as a requirement to be a Christian, once I really considered that the Bible was compiled by human beings (and its integrity was completely in the hands of powerful men with political agendas during periods when the masses were largely illiterate) and that churches are both designed and run by human beings, it was easy to take those elements out of the equation when coming to some kind of understanding of what my spiritual beliefs were.

It has always been the message of Christ I've never been able to reject, that has always just felt right to me. I try my best to follow his teachings in my day-to-day living.

I haven't always lived up to those teachings, but whenever I've fallen short, I've paid a spiritual price for it that I've never been able to talk myself out of. And I was not raised by religious people, and my moral code differs drastically from that of those who raised me, so my code of right and wrong came from somewhere else, and I can't really attribute it to any one person. The people with the greatest authority and influence over me in my formative years would have steered me in an entirely different direction than the one I eventually pursued. The conviction that there was a wrongness in their teachings came from a place for which I have no name, from somewhere within me, which has provided the foundation for my relationship with God.

That being said, there are other religions (or non-religions, as the case may be) with tenets that are very compatible with my particular belief system. I guess I see the spiritual "puzzle" as being one whose pieces have been disseminated amongst many different peoples of the world. No one group has all of the answers, but almost everyone has a piece. We're all just trying to find the pieces and put them together so we can see the whole picture. I truly believe that both science and faith play important roles in that endeavor.

[ChristieCT]

Originally Posted by rifleman

We're outbound a few hours later than expected, and I saw and read a few of these so thought I'd respond briefly ("That possible for you, rflmn?").

1. To ChristieCT: your very thoughtful post is exactly what I'd hoped to see. Thank you. I agree, and do not discount, in any way, the utility and indeed deep psychological counsel that a spiritual "take" on this world can provide, esp. in troubled times.

I have my own personal views, which indeed are the result of my own deeply moving experiences that a scarce few people have had the incredible opportunity to partake.

Few folks have had access to the near-open-ended funding of Big Oil to go wherever and whenever they wanted to (helo, icebreaker, Sno-Dog exploration vehicles, dog sleds, snowmobiles, Canadian military APC vehicles, on foot, by float plane, snowshoe, skis, and on and on), to park out in/on the Arctic icecap or the frozen Canadian & Alaskan tundra for season after season, to watch the passage of time, wildlife, seasons, the cosmos, the plant & insect life and the native cultures that grew up intertwined so deeply and effectively there.

And to personally find the ice-age remains of mammoth teeth and dino bones, as well as tribolites and giant dragonflies that surely and absolutely existed in an ancient jungle up there is to finally be convinced that we should perhaps not artificially limit our knowledge to just what others think happened or is important . . .

You're welcome, rifleman. And thank you for always posting questions and ideas that help me to thoughtfully analyze my own beliefs.

I wish I could have seen the things you've seen! Especially the prehistoric fossils. When I was in kindergarten, I passionately wanted to be a paleontologist, a dream that persisted until I learned that much of the work is sweaty, dirty, and thankless. But I've never lost my fascination for all things prehistoric. You are one lucky man!