Question for the atheists and/or agnostics. Is there anything that would genuinely make you believe in "god", and if so what?
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Describe the “god” of whom you speak. Is it the all mighty, all powerful, forever and ever magic man that should know what it would take to make a “believer”?
Is it apart of nature “renamed” to fit a “god” belief?
Describe what it is that I’m apparently withholding belief in first, please...
Edited to add: “ would make you ”. Why is the “making” of somebody so important?
Generally speaking, atheism is the disbelief in the existence of "god" or gods, so my question would be to someone calling themselves an atheist, is there anything that could change your mind about your belief in the god you choose not to believe in? The "type" of god here is irrelevant but could encompass any of the descriptions you mentioned. In other words, is there any type of evidence that could make you believe in the general concept of a god.
Ajay “ The "type" of god here is irrelevant ”
It’s not “irrelevant”.
What evidence for what god concept are you asking about???? Like a fellow poster wrote “you can call the sun a “god” , fine, whatever but why are you renaming the sun “god”.
You’re the one who started this post - clarify.
Whitefire, not sure if you label yourself an atheist or not but if you look at the dictionary definition of atheist "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods", it makes no specification about the "type" of god here. Would it make any difference to you personally in your belief depending on what type of god I'm talking about, whether its a magic man in the sky versus a sun god or moon god, etc?
@Ajay: The sun already has a name :Sun. The Moon already has a name: Moon. Calling either a god does not imbue them with any more qualities than they already have except for in the minds of the idiots calling them Gods. The word "God" carries with it a whole lot of baggage. You do not get to redefine it so that it fits your idea of Sun or Moon or anything else. The postulate you have cited is inane from beginning to end.
The names "sun" and "moon" are simply that, just names. They are our own linguistic characterizations of physical concepts but neither is a definition.
Why does "god" have to carry baggage, can't it be anything you choose to believe in, not necessarily what they believe in? You seem to believe in science, why not associate it with science?
So what do they mean if the definitions we attach don't apply, because the inference is all words are meaningless, in which case so is your rather absurd claim.
it doesn't for atheists, it's theists like you who maintain the word defines something specific, an oddly incongruous position given your first sentence, but you can't have it both ways, either you maintain a deity exists and can define this deity, or deity has no meaning, and therefore no baggage. It has no baggage for me as an atheist, anymore than the word unicorn has baggage.
Obviously because science validates beliefs with objective evidence, and there is none for any deity, but please demonstrate some?
you want me to be a theist so badly, problem is I'm not, so your entire motivation break down
Then why lie in your profile? I never claimed you were a theist champ, you did in your profile.
non-atheist not same as theist!
Yes it is the same, well unless you are off making your own personal definitions of words. Doing that is a form of dishonesty.
In simplistic terms so you understand:
NOTE: I have not yet read other replies...
Ajay “ non-atheist ”. ..
From Latin non ‘not’.
Not a person who with-holds belief in god/s
Hmmm, so a person who holds belief in god/s...could it be um, a theist????
“belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).”
Try google for definitions before you try to “re-define” shit. And if you need to re-define shit, get some form of “agreement” so a discussion can continue with mutual understanding.
Fuck me - last piece of advice for you - ALWAYS get a lawyer to explain a contract to you before you sign it - you wouldn’t be capable of understanding it on your own.
@Ajay: I am your god. Discussion over. Bye.
Ajay: fuck that is a stupid thing to say:
SUN: aoften capitalized : the luminous celestial body around which the earth and other planets revolve, from which they receive heat and light, which is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium, and which has a mean distance from earth of about 93,000,000 miles (150,000,000 kilometers), a linear diameter of 864,000 miles (1,390,000 kilometers), and a mass 332,000 times greater than earth.
MOON: aoften capitalized : the earth's natural satellite (see SATELLITE sense 1a) that shines by the sun's reflected light, revolves about the earth from west to east in about 29¹/₂ days with reference to the sun or about 27¹/₃ days with reference to the stars, and has a diameter of 2160 miles (3475 kilometers), a mean distance from the earth of about 238,900 miles (384,400 kilometers), and a mass about one eightieth that of the earth —usually used with the
b: one complete moon cycle consisting of four phases (see PHASE entry 1 sense 1)
c: SATELLITE sense 1
specifically : a natural satellite of a planet
THEY ARE NAMES WITH MEANINGS THAT WE HAVE AGREED UPON SO THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER. THAT WAY "WHEN YOU SAY "SUN" OR "MOON." I KNOW YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING BIG MAC HAMBURGER.
Please show the TROLL the door!
AJAY !!! Here’s a pic of The Moon
Ajay. “ Would it make any difference to you personally in your belief depending on what type of god I'm talking about, whether its a magic man in the sky versus a sun god or moon god, etc?”
A little clearer (sort of) ...no to magic man in sky and the moon is the moon and the sun is the sun.
So you are saying there is nothing possible that would allow you to believe in god (assuming the magic man in the sky example but could easily be any "generic" god such as yaweh, zeus, vishnu, etc). That's totally fine if so but want to make sure I have you right.
I generally identify as "agnostic deist". I find Kalam easier to believe than not. But that's where my theological gullibility ends.
I'm very certain that all the religions and god images that humans have invented are human inventions.
If what you mean by "believe" is believe that you are an informed spokesman for God, that's gonna be tough. Too many people have already made that claim.
If you mean something else, please share.
Tom, by "believe" I simply mean accept as true, just like you accept gravity is what causes objects to fall to the ground. Nothing about "spokesman" here.
Ajay: When your god thing exhibits the same consistency in responding to prayer as Gravity does with falling objects we will all believe. We probably will not worship the asshole, but we will believe. So what evidence have you got?
Never claimed to have any evidence. Even if someone gave you evidence, you have only two options, you could either believe them or not believe them, but either way you don't have the real answer to the question.
You believe in gravity, yet no one knows what gravity is? Invisible particles, invisible waves, warping of spacetime? You believe the physical manifestation of it because you see it with your own eyes, yet you don't know what it is?
You seem to be answering your own questions.
Rubbish, there are two separate scientific theories dedicated to explaining what gravity is, and how it functions, you're talking bollocks.
1. The force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass.
That seems to explain what it is pretty accurately to me, even for a layman.
"Rubbish, there are two separate scientific theories dedicated to explaining what gravity is, and how it functions, you're talking bollocks. "
The key word here is "theories". Still doesn't explain WHAT it is.
The definition of a scientific theory is a broad EXPLANATION of a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Did you not know this? You do know you can Google this stuff before you make a complete cunt of yourself?
Oh fuck, Sheldon... Jesus fuckin Christ!!!! Now it needs an explanation of a “theory”.
Here’s a hint...it is not (see above post for explanation of not or non) , oh forget it ... it still hasn’t answered me if:
“Are we a conscious or subconscious projection from your mind?????”
@Columbus: RE: " I find Kalam easier to believe than not????" WTF???
Kalam does not argue for the existence of a God. What in the fuck are you talking about. At no point does the Kalam argument postulate the existence of a God. Kalam is simply a first cause argument.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (This is temporally true. However physics breaks down at Planck time and becomes meaningless. Time itself can run in both directions. There is no cause and effect that we can speak of beyond this point. There is nothing we can identify as a cause or an effect.) First premise is rejected. Cause and effect is a quality of the universe we inhabit. We do not know what is outside the universe. It's a bit like living in a house where everything is blue and then asserting that because everything is blue in your house it must be blue outside of your house as well. JUST NOT TRUE.
2. The universe began to exist. *An un-evidenced assertion. * What is meant by "Began to Exist." Do you mean changed forms from a hot dense mass to the universe we see today? Was there a time when a singularity did not exist? Are you ignoring the Many Worlds Hypothesis? How did the universe begin to exist? How do you know it was not always there in some form or another? Einstein demonstrated that mass and energy are interchangeable. Was there no energy anywhere prior to the occurrence of the singularity? WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE FOR THE CLAIM?"
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
WHERE IN THE FUCK DO YOU SEE THE WORD "GOD" IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT? All the argument asserts is *Gee, I am a fucking retard and everything I see in my existence has a cause. That means the universe had a cause too." NO! Causality breaks down a Planck Time. WE KNOW NOTHING OF THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE and a whole lot about the creation of the universe from a hot dense mass we call a singularity. From the singularity forward we have an excellent understanding of how things formed. ANYTHING BEFORE THAT IS A MERE ASSERTION.
GOD IS A FABRICATED EXCUSE FOR THE WEAK MINDED WHO WANT ANSWERS NOW. KALAM GETS YOU NO PLACE NEAR A GOD!
@Ajay: RE: "Is there anything that would make you believe in God?"
Why didn't you ask your God before you came onto the site and shoved both of your feet in your mouth. You are the one with the direct connection to the all powerful and mighty universe creating deity. Wouldn't he know exactly what to tell you to tell us to convince us all. ONE OF YOU ASSHOLES JUST ISN'T DOING YOUR JOB! Either that, or one of you is just a made up story with no answers as all. Hmmmmm. I don't need to know what would convince me when a magical creator God is all knowing, omnipresent and omnipotent. Go ask your God and get back to us.
Cognostic, first off why do you assume I believe in God (I don't), and second, why not just have an intelligent respectful conversation here instead of resorting to name calling? It's a honest legitimate question, if you don't have anything to add why not just ignore
@Ajay: Intelligent? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .....
He didn't, you claimed this in your profile.
Can anyone really be this dumb, or are you trolling after all?