List of Evidence Potent Enough to Convince Atheists of the Veracity of a Religion.

[Jilvin]

I was recently engaged in a discussion on this board and was challenging a theist to present to me empirical evidence that his religion was true. He struck back by accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.

To be fair, I have compiled a list of things that would: a)Convert me Immediately b)Would compell me to study more about that religion c) Would not be potent evidence for the veracity of that religion and d) Would repulse me from that religion.

I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling

2. Scientific knowledge in Holy Books that could not possibly have been known by the writers.

A mention of evolution, atomic theory, or heliocentric theory would be impressive and compelling. What I really mean here is something like Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity; which are both so abstract and anti-intuitive that the odds of gessing at them correctly are staggering.

3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.

If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.

4. A direct manifestation of the divine.

Have god simply talk to me in a state where I know it could not be a hallucination, preferably in the presence of as many reliable witnesses as possible.

II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion

1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book.

If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.

2. A religion without internal disputes or factions.

Finding a religion where everybody agreed pretty consistently about it would be compelling.

3. A religion whose followers have never taken part in attrocities
4. If they did commit attrocities, then they should have a nearly flawless record in Jihads or Holy Wars.

III. Completely uncompelling
1. Speaking in tongues or pseudo-miracles.

Miracles should be genuine, verifiable, and a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary.

2. Conversion stories.
Any conversion stories are not compelling.

3. Subjective experiences.

Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS:
"I hate to break it to you but everything that exists in the human world is based on subjective experience, as we are subjects having experiences."

Good point. What I mean by subjective experience here is a stricter version than the formal definition. What I had in mind was the inability of other reliable observers to be subject to that experience, i.e being confined to a single or handful of individuals. That should be clarified.

"Empirical proof is almost impossible to find for either the non-existence or the existence of a diety. Empiricsm is based only on experience. Anyone can claim something exists beyond it which renders anything empirical proof useless. If someone claims everything is an illusion then that would mean that any empirical evidence presented could be specious as well. Finally even if you did witness miracles and supernatural or felt overwhelmed in any divine way, think about this ; what are the odds that the universe have given you divine insight as opposed to everyone else. Better yet why is an exception only made for you."

I am deducing here that you think my propositions of experiencing direct divine manifestations as evidence is unreasonable because only a collective group of humans in all of history are capable of being subjected to divine insights. If this is the case, then I will remain an atheist unless I am one of those lucky individuals. My current beliefs have led me to conclude that nobody has ever been overwhelmed by an experience that has been a legitimately divine inspiration, as all cited cases are completely sketchy and easily contrived. Furthermore; there is no reason why a deity powerful enough to create the universe should be able to prove himself to EVERYBODY at the same time (especially prophecies

[JBI]

If everything is a product of what came before, than something must necessarily have started it all. Time progresses in a linear fashion, therefore something must have been outside of time in order to jump start it. IF the universe was created by a big bang, what created the big bang. What created the creator of the big bang?

What was the first thing that happened? What caused that to happen?

Spinoza?

Why must someone convince you - I can't see why anyone should give a **** if you believe in something or not. The sense of proof is rather pointless.

[NikolaiI]

I was recently engaged in a discussion on this board and was challenging a theist to present to me empirical evidence that his religion was true. He struck back by accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.

To be fair, I have compiled a list of things that would: a)Convert me Immediately b)Would compell me to study more about that religion c) Would not be potent evidence for the veracity of that religion and d) Would repulse me from that religion.

I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling

2. Scientific knowledge in Holy Books that could not possibly have been known by the writers.

A mention of evolution, atomic theory, or heliocentric theory would be impressive and compelling. What I really mean here is something like Quantum Mechanics, or General Relativity; which are both so abstract and anti-intuitive that the odds of gessing at them correctly are staggering.

3. Miraculous occurences brought about by prayer.

If thousands of believers gather to pray for the recovery of a large group of random patients, and these patients alone (and almost nobody else) see a completely abnormal and statistically significant recovery from their ailments, and this experiment could be repeated and verified, I would convert immediately.

4. A direct manifestation of the divine.

Have god simply talk to me in a state where I know it could not be a hallucination, preferably in the presence of as many reliable witnesses as possible.

II. Inconclusive, but compelling evidence for a religion

1. A genuinely flawless and consistent Holy Book.

If I were to find a Holy Book of considerable size without any self-contradictions or errors (by errors I mean blatantly wrong about empirical evidence), it would be extremely compelling evidence for the veracity of that religion.

2. A religion without internal disputes or factions.

Finding a religion where everybody agreed pretty consistently about it would be compelling.

3. A religion whose followers have never taken part in attrocities
4. If they did commit attrocities, then they should have a nearly flawless record in Jihads or Holy Wars.

III. Completely uncompelling
1. Speaking in tongues or pseudo-miracles.

Miracles should be genuine, verifiable, and a real and inexplicable divergence from the ordinary.

2. Conversion stories.
Any conversion stories are not compelling.

3. Subjective experiences.

Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.

I did not state categorically that you would refuse anything I said offhand. I am more than willing to continue discussion, but if you think I said or meant that then I must correct you, I don't think that you would necessarily do that at all.

I.
1. Don't have any of these, closest thing would be the I Ching, the book of changes. I didn't study this for divination, simply something to chew over.

2. Granted I know very little about Quantum Mechanics, but what I've garnered from studies in Buddhism are intruigingly related to Quantum Physics. Basically, the different ways they've said that "there is no deep reality," or found that all phenomena are illusory in nature.

Psychology went through a great deal in modern times to be considered a science, yet practically it's not considered one by most people, I have discovered. But if you consider pscyhology a science, then there's great scientific knowledge in both Buddhism and Hinduism. Hinduism is called sometimes the science of self-realization, or the science of God-realization.

The process I understand to be true religion is God-realization, in stages. The ultimate goal is God-consciousness, which doesn't mean losing one's identity, or merging into an impersonal force; but rather it is always working for the satisfaction of the Whole. God is the root of existence, and just as watering the root of a tree is the only way to sustain the tree, so too when we work steadily to satisfy the root of existence, it is spread out and we are actually seving the parts as well.

The religion I follow follows a different method of knowledge, a descending process, where knowledge is passed from teacher to disciple. I'll mention more of that later.

I realize this may not be convincing to you as you seem to have meant a person somehow getting a guidebook for creating an electric motor more than 2000 years ago or something like this. Again, I've never heard of anything like this, nor actually sought for it.

3. Don't know of these. I believe the power of prayer is greater than the power of thought, but it isn't designed to let us be demigods. God is present in His teachings, in His devotees, also in the heart of every living entity, no matter what his position. We have the power to heal but not to change the laws of nature.

4. I don't think this will ever happen.

II.
1. Bhagavad-Gita is called the "Song of the Lord." It's considered by devotees to be the actual words of God. It's a 700 verse, 18 chapter scripture, in which Krishna explains the roles of living entities, time, karma, the soul (atma), the living entities (jivas), and the supreme controller (isvara). It explains the modes of material nature, the Lord who is completely transcendental to material nature, and the living entities which are transcendental originally but have forgotten their spiritual identity.

2. Don't have one because I can't speak for others.

3. Similar to #2, don't know all the individuals in every religion.

III.
1. Don't know about this either.

2. Won't give you any.

3. Interesting question. The only way you can arrive at truth is by a long process. It takes a while to discover true ideas, to come to something you can be certain is true. We have come a long way from the beginning, with many twists and turns, and the question is if we remember all the places we made turns, ran into questions.

Any theist who has talked to me knows how much I hate to hear subjective experiences touted as evidence.

I hate to break it to you but everything that exists in the human world is based on subjective experience, as we are subjects having experiences. Every person has within them the potentially for complete objectivity, complete understanding. This comes from understanding oneself, others, one's nature, the nature of the world. I can tell you completely objectively that the only thing which is important is the search for God. George Harrison said, "Many things in life can wait, but the search for God cannot wait." Why? Because the individual is less important than the whole. Or at least it's smaller. The only thing that is important is searching for truth, peace, transcendence, beauty, love, happiness; whatever you will call it, and then living, for whatever you wish to believe in. I believe truth is understanding the will of God, which is harmony, peace, love and evolution. First we have to deprogram ourselves of conceptions of God. Anyway the main thing I am driving at is the differences between individual consciousness and super or divine consciousness. Once the individual begins to awaken to the existence of the rest of the consciousness in which they exist; they realize this is the most important thing. You say it's subjective, or unintelligible, but why, exactly? It is the most truthful quest of philosophy: going to the beginning, to find out what we are, with the first conclusion being we are a part of a greater whole. It's actually the first objective fact there is.

I don't have a monopoly on God and I don't wish to do anything but discuss with you. I am not close minded to atheism, I have simply progressed beyond that view. I think we all have different views of God because we view Him through our own filters. However I've read some of the greatest or most revered contributors to human thought; and quite often they have some true or partly true ideas!

[bazarov]

Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?

[Ohmyscience]

Empirical proof is almost impossible to find for either the non-existence or the existence of a diety. Empiricsm is based only on experience. Anyone can claim something exists beyond it which renders anything empirical proof useless. If someone claims everything is an illusion then that would mean that any empirical evidence presented could be specious as well. Finally even if you did witness miracles and supernatural or felt overwhelmed in any divine way, think about this ; what are the odds that the universe have given you divine insight as opposed to everyone else. Better yet why is an exception only made for you.

[El Viejo]

I can't see why anyone should give a **** if you believe in something or not. The sense of proof is rather pointless.

Ah, but evangelicals do give a ****, and rightly so. From their perspective they are the ones carrying the flotation device that we all need. Christians with consciences are continually concerned about how to convince the non-believer. This is not to say they are responsible for the non-believer's decisions. Any religion or irreligion worth a **** teaches its practitioners to give a ****. Consider the Good Samaritan. This is where free market zealotry and objectivism fall flat.

[Jilvin]

Good points made by all. I will post my response to objections by editing my first post if you would like to see if I acknowledged your post.

[Logos]

.... by editing my first post ....

Hopefully Nikolai quoted your OP in full because by editing it it now makes it really confusing as to who you're addressing and what your original statements were.

[weltanschauung]

Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?

its an endless repetition....

"wont you sign up your name..."

[teleios]

I. Evidence Presented to Me, In Which I Would Immediately Convert.

1. Verified, specific prophecies that could not have been contrived.

I will not accept prophecies that are vague, unclear, or garbled, and it must be detailed, specific and completely unambiguous in prediction and wording. The prophecy cannot be too trivial (i.e. "It will rain this year"), or the prophecy predicts an event that has already happened or the writing of the prophecy cannot be shown to have preceded the event. I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling

What are your thoughts about Ezekiel 37, and the re-formation of the nation of Israel?

The entire chapter talks about the prophecy, and while a couple parts of it are still in the process of being fulfilled, the majority of it has come to pass within the last 60 years.

A small quote:
"Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land."

[Jilvin]

"I will also not accept prophecies which are self-fulfilling"

Read that last part. This prophecy and similar ones in the Old Testament are the sole reason that most Jewish people return to Israel. This self-fulfilment is prevalent through other religions, but this is the most prominent example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To Logos, its pretty clear that I add objections to THE END of my post in it's own subsection which is clearly distinguished from the original content. Look at the post before making accusations of flopping around my content to falsely make it appear as if it was in there all along.

[hellsapoppin]

''accusing me that anything he established would be dismissed by me as trivial offhand, no matter what.''


Don't know why, but this has always been the pattern regardless of the religion involved. In fact, I have had this same difficulty with a pundit on this forum as well for the same reason.

Why religious pundits fail to demonstrate some measure of humility and admit that they cannot prove their contentions is beyond all reason. In fact religions like the various Christian denominations and Islam all require humility among its adherents above everything else. But ultimately, that problem is between them and their god. Or so I suppose.

[West]

Jilvin.


There is a good book you can read online by the title "The Bible, The Quran and the Science". "THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE".


http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B...QS/default.htm


It was written by a doctor called Maurice Bucaille. He addresses your questions in both the Bible and the Quran. You can satisfy your curiousity.


PS: In case someone would wonder where my religious affliation would be, I am a muslim.

[1n50mn14]

These are pretty much the same things that would convince me, as well.

[The Atheist]

Jilvn, you're not far from my own position and I'm having the identical discussion on a christian board at the moment.

If everything is a product of what came before, than something must necessarily have started it all.

This is incorrect.

There is no need for anything "before" the big bang*

It's a difficult concept to work with and is counter-intuitive. But then again, so is most of quantum physics - the universe doesn't work like we expect it to. This been greatly beneficial to religion in the past, but the gaps are shrinking.

*I'm not saying that either the big bang theory or my comments on time are incorrect, but it's wrong to say that something must have been before the start of the universe.

Why people have such a strong need to prove that they are right, and others are wrong? Why people who are religious can't live atheists alone?

Nah, it's all in good fun most of the time.