The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

[Pyrogenesis]

A pretty good article about what a theist would have to demonstrate in order to convert an atheist. Nicely spells out the terrible weakness of essentially all theist arguments. To sum it up, a theist must demonstrate to atheists:

• Verified, specific prophecies that couldn't have been contrived.
• Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.
• Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
• Any direct manifestation of the divine.
• Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.

Convincing yet not necessarily converting things:

• A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
• A religion without internal disputes or factions.
• A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
• A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.

[Garnet]

Ahhhh Ebon Muse. I love his (her?) stuff. I'd forgotten all about the web site. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

[Behemoth]

Originally Posted by Pyrogenesis

[*] A religion without internal disputes or factions.[*] A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.[*] A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.[/list]

It sounds good but; as a freethinker I don't do RELIGION!
And even if God could be proven, as a rebel, I think I'd like to piss on his foot for the past fuck ups, then spit in his face for letting so many people die so awfully. Still, you can't please everyone unless...unless he gave me dominion over my own private world where religion would be banned for ever. Goodbye God.

[Demi-Cerveau]

Originally Posted by Pyrogenesis

To sum it up, a theist must demonstrate to atheists:

• Verified, specific prophecies that couldn't have been contrived.
• Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.
• Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
• Any direct manifestation of the divine.
• Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.

Convincing yet not necessarily converting things:

• A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
• A religion without internal disputes or factions.
• A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
• A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.

Absolutely not! Even with all of this, I would simply see that religion as an interesting natural phenomena worth being studied. Only a mathematical demonstration of every little statement, which starts from premises that I can't deny, would make me "believe". But this seems impossible because religion doesn't have clear and consistent statements (in the mathematical sense). No way for me to believe then !

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

It sounds good but; as a freethinker I don't do RELIGION!
And even if God could be proven, as a rebel, I think I'd like to piss on his foot for the past fuck ups, then spit in his face for letting so many people die so awfully. Still, you can't please everyone unless...unless he gave me dominion over my own private world where religion would be banned for ever. Goodbye God.

Not really on topic, but you'd better be coming to the meet-up in Scotland. I miss ya, mate.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

I sometimes wonder what Christianity might have become if it had whole-heartedly embraced the Enlightenment rather than reacting against it.

It would have meant admitting the Bible was not perfect or divinely inspired. But they could have taken the basic story and rewritten it to reflect modern values and knowledge (in exactly the same way that the early Christian communities wrote their own gospels to reflect their interests and values). There would, of course, be no pretense that a gospel written 2000 years after the fact was in any way historical, but then, that's no great loss. The real value of a "gospel" is as a cultural narrative.

It would also have meant changing the very concept of what God is, and what role the church plays in society. Obviously, a science-based understanding of the universe has no room for God as a big beardy father in the sky, so that understanding of God is going to become obsolete, whether you want it to or not. But if they had just come right out and said that God was, say, a personification of human aspiration, what have they really lost by that? Science-based knowledge forces God into abstraction anyway, so they might as well have chosen a meaningful abstraction. And when they admit, outright, that God is not a material being but a personification, science is no longer a threat to religion.

In a similar way, churches could have changed from places of indoctrination and "worship" to the social hub of their communities. That's the only real function churches play anyway -- births, deaths, and marriages -- and they could perform those sorts of functions much better if they weren't weighed down with so much doctrinal bullshit.

So I guess that's what it would take to convert me -- for Christianity to become atheistic.

[Wet Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Kim o the Concrete Jungle

I sometimes wonder what Christianity might have become if it had whole-heartedly embraced the Enlightenment rather than reacting against it.

It would have meant admitting the Bible was not perfect or divinely inspired. But they could have taken the basic story and rewritten it to reflect modern values and knowledge (in exactly the same way that the early Christian communities wrote their own gospels to reflect their interests and values). There would, of course, be no pretense that a gospel written 2000 years after the fact was in any way historical, but then, that's no great loss. The real value of a "gospel" is as a cultural narrative.

Yes, but this would have meant that the Church fathers would have lost their monopoly on "salvation" to other faiths which made similar claims.

It would also have meant changing the very concept of what God is, and what role the church plays in society. Obviously, a science-based understanding of the universe has no room for God as a big beardy father in the sky, so that understanding of God is going to become obsolete, whether you want it to or not. But if they had just come right out and said that God was, say, a personification of human aspiration, what have they really lost by that? Science-based knowledge forces God into abstraction anyway, so they might as well have chosen a meaningful abstraction. And when they admit, outright, that God is not a material being but a personification, science is no longer a threat to religion.

This is what I have believed all along--"God" isn't real, but the concept is.

In a similar way, churches could have changed from places of indoctrination and "worship" to the social hub of their communities. That's the only real function churches play anyway -- births, deaths, and marriages -- and they could perform those sorts of functions much better if they weren't weighed down with so much doctrinal bullshit.

This is a good idea, but understand that this would decrease the amount of power and control religious leaders would have over their followers.

So I guess that's what it would take to convert me -- for Christianity to become atheistic.

Interesting post, Kim.

[Kim o the Concrete Jungle]

Originally Posted by Wet Walnuts

Yes, but this would have meant that the Church fathers would have lost their monopoly on "salvation" to other faiths which made similar claims.

*Shrugs* In this modern age of communication technology, mass transport, and social mobility, they've lost that control anyway. I imagine that any modern priest who takes his flock for granted won't have a flock for long.

This is a good idea, but understand that this would decrease the amount of power and control religious leaders would have over their followers.

As I say, they're already losing or have lost that control. If they'd anticipated it better and planned for it, they'd be in a better position today.

But in a way, the kind of radical agenda I hinted at would have been impossible to implement in real life. Like anything else, the churches have their own institutional inertia and internal political squabbling.

[Demi-Cerveau]

Originally Posted by Pyrogenesis

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.

By the way, muslims already claim to have it ...

[Pyrogenesis]

Only a mathematical demonstration of every little statement, which starts from premises that I can't deny, would make me "believe".

Do you apply this demand consistently to all your beliefs, including, say, evolution, big bang, that democracies are better than dictatorships, that helping others is a virtue, and so forth?

[Demi-Cerveau]

Originally Posted by Pyrogenesis

Do you apply this demand consistently to all your beliefs, including, say, evolution, big bang, that democracies are better than dictatorships, that helping others is a virtue, and so forth?

No. But I do not believe in any of what you've stated ... I have no beliefs, only models. At a certain point of my life, I was even totally solipsist ...just for the sake of, say, living with others, I do act as if I believe in something ...

[Pastafarian]

I've been thinking about this lately, having engaged in a bit of debate on public forums. What if someone asked me what it would take to convince me there's a god? Come right down to it, nothing. If a giant old white man with a long white beard appeared, descending to earth on clouds, I'd be interested to learn how the trick was performed.

It really comes down to what you accept as authoritative. To me, it's verifiable, repeatable observations. To a Christian, it's a book written by a motley assortment of...well, you know where that goes.

I suppose that makes me stubborn and closed-minded, but you have to set your foundation on something.

[Ikari Gendou]

It sounds good but; as a freethinker I don't do RELIGION!
And even if God could be proven, as a rebel, I think I'd like to piss on his foot for the past fuck ups, then spit in his face for letting so many people die so awfully. Still, you can't please everyone unless...unless he gave me dominion over my own private world where religion would be banned for ever. Goodbye God.

It is best if God does exist, not for it to interfere in our affairs. If He was constantly meddling in our affairs with his overpowering will, we would cease to be free. Sure, God could eliminate all suffering from the world, but we need our pain. Think of the Yin and the Yang. God must be both Good and Evil, that is, if I believe he existed.


The following is from a blog. "K" is the Atheist answering the "E" Evangelist, in a fiction dialog:

K: Heaven is for eternity, right? And it is supposed to be perfect?
E: Of course. There will be no tears, pain, sorrow or sin. Everything will be good. Now, getting back to standing before God: if we read Romans 3:23 –
K: Sorry to interrupt. But I just want to make a humble point here. If someone shows you an incredible act of kindness, how do you feel?
E: An act of kindness?
K: Sure. Lets say your car runs out of petrol on the side of the road, and after many cars have passed you by, a stranger stops to help. He rides to the nearest station and gets you a canister of petrol. How would you feel?
E: I will be very appreciative of his kind act.
K: Why would you feel that way?
E: Well, he has gone out of his way to help another person. What has this to do with heaven?
K: Bear with me. You say he has gone out of his way. What do you mean by that statement?
E: Well, he could have just driven past and ignored me. That would have been the easiest thing to do. But he chose to help.
K: So, in a sense you are saying that the act of kindness has value because the man chose to be kind.
E: Sure
K: Do you think this will be the case in heaven?
E: In heaven, my Ferrari will never run out of petrol.
(both laugh)
K: No, what I mean is, do you think you will appreciate acts of kindness in heaven?
E: I can’t think why not.
K: Let me tell you why I don’t think you will. You have already answered the question to why humans value positive human attributes like kindness, love and compassion. We value these because they are voluntary. A person who shows love could have easily been cruel, right? However, you have also said that there will be no cruelty, jealously or any kind of sin in heaven.
E: That’s what the Bible says: Revelation 21:27 says that nothing impure will enter heaven.
K: If this is the case, then everyone will automatically love everyone else, nobody will be able to choose to be cruel, nasty or jealous – simply because these attributes will no longer exist. In this sense love will loose all of its value.
E: Carry on.
K: But it’s not only love that will suffer as a result of perfection. In heaven, how can someone be truly courageous in the absence of fear? How can someone build character without experiencing hardship? How can anyone in heaven possess gifts and talents if everyone is perfect? If there is no bad, how can anyone appreciate or measure good? Attributes such as courage, happiness, goodness, creativity, inspiration and joy will become absolutely meaningless in a perfect world. By gaining perfection in paradise, we will loose all the contrasting attributes that make us human.
E: I never thought of that before.
K: I have. And that is one of the reasons why I don’t want to enter your God’s heaven.

[Quath]

Originally Posted by Garnet

Ahhhh Ebon Muse. I love his (her?) stuff. I'd forgotten all about the web site. Thanks for refreshing my memory.

Yeah, I like Ebon Musings as well. He is one of the first atheist authors I found on the net. He has a pretty good blog going on as well also. I wish I kept up on it more, but I always enjoy reading it.

Originally Posted by Ikari Gendou

Sure, God could eliminate all suffering from the world, but we need our pain.

Yeah, I think if God existed, he would have to be both good and evil or just plain neutral.

The dialog between K and E was interesting. I had a similar debate with a Christian but tried from another angle. I asked if people were robots in heaven (not that I think robots are bad, but Christians associate them with lack of free will). They tried to argue that people were both free to sin but unwilling to sin and yet not lose free will. They also tried to make the claim that Adam sinned because he had free will, yet in heaven, free will does not lead to sin. They could not explain why God could not make heaven on Earth to avoid original sin.

I think heaven fails as a bad concept when you ever really think about it deeply. It is only superficially a good idea.

[Smilin]

Well done Ikari!

That summed it up in a nutshell for me.

My biblical knowledge is slipping. Doesn't it state in Revelations, as well, that everyone in heaven will be able to view (but not interact with) everyone in hell?

I believe it does, but can't recall the wording or context of that particular piece of scripture.

That is the reason I'd REFUSE to enter into "their God's" heaven.

[Garnet]

IIRC, that's not really stated in Revelations. It's the parable of Lazarus and the drink of water. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.

[Storm_Raven]

Originally Posted by Pyrogenesis

A pretty good article about what a theist would have to demonstrate in order to convert an atheist. Nicely spells out the terrible weakness of essentially all theist arguments. To sum it up, a theist must demonstrate to atheists:

• Verified, specific prophecies that couldn't have been contrived.
• Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.
• Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
• Any direct manifestation of the divine.
• Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.
  

Convincing yet not necessarily converting things:

• A genuinely flawless and consistent holy book.
• A religion without internal disputes or factions.
• A religion whose followers have never committed or taken part in atrocities.
• A religion that had a consistent record of winning its jihads and holy wars.

The second list is generally not possible, especially "A religion without internal disputes or factions", organised religion seems to be all about internal disputes and factions.

From a personal perspective as someone who is of a faith that is definitely not organised much beyond the personal level, why the hell would I want to convert anyone, thanks but I have enough problems without trying to tell anyone else what they should believe in.

Storm Raven

[Smilin]

Originally Posted by Garnet

IIRC, that's not really stated in Revelations. It's the parable of Lazarus and the drink of water. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.

Gog, this is bothering me know.....

Do I spend the time digging through http://www.biblegateway.com/

Or take the quicker route and pop over to some Christian sites I'm still a member of (and that aren't blocked here at work....)

*decides to take the first option*

sighhhhhhhh....be back (hopefully) later on....

Chowwow.....

[Smilin]

Originally Posted by Garnet

IIRC, that's not really stated in Revelations. It's the parable of Lazarus and the drink of water. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment.

Yes. You are correct.

WARNING....WARNING....DANGER WIL ROBINSON.....
*Flashbacks from discussions I've had on ChristianForums and Ex-Witch...*

Luke Chapter 16:
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

What a cruel bastard of a God, eh? How fucked up is that, allowing the people suffering in hell to witness the "jolly ole party" going on up in heaven, and even worse to allow those in "heaven" to witness the suffering of their friends and family? This is a prime example of how FUCKED UP the Christian theology is, specifically how fucked up THEIR Bible AND THEIR sadistic God is....

And it even gets better....

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

and this is Christian love, HOW?

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

BULLSHIT! If my Grandfather were to appear to me and warn me that their is INDEED A HEAVEN AND A HELL, I'd repent instantly.

This is a prime example of how fucked up Christianity is, how sadistic and psycopathic their God is, and how big of a FUCKING IDIOT he is to have "inspired such horseshit"

Excuse me, I've gotta go find a bible. I seriously need to take a dump and am suddenly in the mood to wipe my ass with such horseshit!


*Flash-backs fade.....*
My apologies everyone....religion just pisses me the fuck off

:rant over;

Normal happiness now ensues....

Time to return to reading the *My What big Nipples you have* thread....

[Meathead]

Originally Posted by Smilin

Time to return to reading the *My What big Nipples you have* thread....

LOL. Yeah, we're gonna have to decontaminate you and your hazmat suit, so please head directly to said thread.

[Smilin]

Originally Posted by Meathead

LOL. Yeah, we're gonna have to decontaminate you and your hazmat suit, so please head directly to said thread.

I've actually had that done when I was working in the nuclear industry, a valve we were working on burst and showered everyone in the "protected area"

It ain't fun first having all your clothes confiscated, then stripping naked, being hosed down and have Q-tips shoved up your nose just so that you don't carry home any radioactive water/residue/sludge.


BTW, they gave us all paper gowns to wear home. That was the most humiliating part of the whole ordeal.

Try explaining something of that nature to your wife....

[Meathead]

"Uh...honey..."

That's pretty funny. I guess things are back to square one other than your 12 fingers, right?

[Ikari Gendou]

Yeah, I think if God existed, he would have to be both good and evil or just plain neutral.

I came to this conclusion when I was at the end of my time as a Theist. The words Good and Evil are tricky. Do they mean Right and Wrong or Benevolence and Malevolence? If they mean the former then God allowing some evil could be considered right. If the latter, God is confined to being Good and Evil.

I think heaven fails as a bad concept when you ever really think about it deeply. It is only superficially a good idea.

The Theist can always argue that we won't get bored with always experiencing good because God will change us, but in reality Black can really be White.

Smilin, I always interpreted the Lazurus and the Rich Man story to be a metaphor. It is too awkward to be considered a Christian depiction of the afterlife.

[Smilin]

Originally Posted by Ikari Gendou

Smilin, I always interpreted the Lazurus and the Rich Man story to be a metaphor. It is too awkward to be considered a Christian depiction of the afterlife.

Ikari, it was suggested to me that it was a true story based upon a real-life character whom Jesus knew personally but failed to mention by name out of respect for the rich man's family.

True, it is interesting that the poor man is named in this parable and the rich man wasn't, isn't it?