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

[dzebra]

Or perhaps it is the believer who cannot conceive of what faith really is.

I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.

Do you mean that maybe the believer doesn't know that faith is nothing more than imagination (thus indicating that perhaps the non-believers know more about faith than the believers)? Or are you saying that in addition to the non-believers not knowing what faith is, that the believers also do not know what faith is (possibly because it is very complicated)?

Because believers are known to be the people who have faith, and non-believers are known to be the people who do not have faith (at least faith in God). Therefore the believers would naturally be the only ones who know anything about faith, while the non-believers would have merely hunches about what faith is.

It seems analogous to love. One who does not have love may think he knows about it, but he really doesn't.

[JBI]

A mechanic may not own a certain car, but he perhaps knows more about it than someone who does. The I Believe therefore I'm the authority on the subject is rhetoric, a mere sophism.

I deliberately left my point vague, in order to create a thoughtful aporia. In the sense, I read the line the unbeliever doesn't understand faith, and I realized that to be pure rhetoric. I merely pointed out that perhaps the loss, or non-belief in God can come from a realization of the nature of faith, an understanding, rather than an ignorance, as the rhetoric of the post was suggesting.

[The Atheist]

I seem to forget, is this thread on dogma, commandments, or trying to help someone who is non-religious see a different point of view?

None of the above. I thought the original intention was simply to find out what would convince an atheist to accept that god/s exist.

I think there were even some posts on that score! I've seen the same thread idea many times, and there's not much ever comes out of it, because the atheists have only one option: they will believe when it's possible to prove god/s exist.

Theists have the habit of jumping in at that stage and saying, "but a god is already known to exist, because.............." Fair enough, but it never advances the original thought.

The topic jumps around a lot.

Hey, it's a thread in "Religion" involving atheists and theists, what else would you expect?

If someone doesn't even see God in nature, how can one convince that person of a God? That hurdle is shocking hard to get through to those who cannot conceive what "Faith" really is.

You'd agree with a friend of mine who recently explained to me that one is only able to see god with "the eyes of a god" (paraphrased badly), which I think is what you mean - we either "see" god, or we don't.

I can't say it's a doctrine which makes any sense to me - but maybe that means it's right!

[NikolaiI]

You'd agree with a friend of mine who recently explained to me that one is only able to see god with "the eyes of a god" (paraphrased badly), which I think is what you mean - we either "see" god, or we don't.

I can't say it's a doctrine which makes any sense to me - but maybe that means it's right!

God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite.

[Pendragon]

Or perhaps it is the believer who cannot conceive of what faith really is.

I will not be the first to say that "Faith is belief without proof." Faith is what allows one to believe what one can never prove. If then I don't know what "Faith" is, I trust you will be able to tell me.

[Jilvin]

"God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite."

That is possibly the most vague, ambiguous, desparate, impotent, and hastily contrived rationalization I have seen defending the existence of God.

[Redzeppelin]

"God is undetectable to us at first because in the beginning the infinite is imperceptable to the finite."

That is possibly the most vague, ambiguous, desparate, impotent, and hastily contrived rationalization I have seen defending the existence of God.

Well, Jilvin, despite your rather glib dismissal of Nikolai's statment, it does not appear to be an argument/defense for the existence for God so much as it is a commentary about how we "see" God.

Really, you might want to be clear on the nature of a post before you simply attempt to define it as meaningless. Nothing Nikolai said indicated that he was in process of "proving" the existence of God - he was merely talking about the difficulty finite beings have of comprehending that which is infinite.

[Mathor]

If you believe something it's a belief. How much science have we actually seen firsthand, actually looked at the original documents, at the original research?

I believe even the atheist knows much of faith, because he practices it on a daily basis. He has proven nothing to himself or anyone just as a religious man has proven nothing to himself. Life is a product of faith.

EDIT:

Isn't the belief in an absence in a religion a belief in itself? and what proof is there that there is no God at all? Asking a person to prove something that is beyond their means is a hard task, so why don't you (as in everyone engaged in this argument) just accept your beliefs and accept the beliefs of others as it is something that has no real merit besides in the view of the subject and how they percieve what they believe.

[Redzeppelin]

If you believe something it's a belief. How much science have we actually seen firsthand, actually looked at the original documents, at the original research?

I believe even the atheist knows much of faith, because he practices it on a daily basis. He has proven nothing to himself or anyone just as a religious man has proven nothing to himself. Life is a product of faith.

EDIT:

Isn't the belief in an absence in a religion a belief in itself? and what proof is there that there is no God at all? Asking a person to prove something that is beyond their means is a hard task, so why don't you (as in everyone engaged in this argument) just accept your beliefs and accept the beliefs of others as it is something that has no real merit besides in the view of the subject and how they percieve what they believe.

Well said, except that atheists apparently believe that because God can't be proven that He can't exist - though - as you correctly state - much of what we take for granted as "reality" has not been conclusively proven to us in an empirical manner. Many people subject God to a much more stringent "proof standard" than anything else in life that they easily accept on the basis of faith (like abiogenesis, for instance).

[NikolaiI]

There is a story, of a monk and a mathematician. The mathematician and the monk were friends, they enjoyed discussions and meals; the mathematician said he enjoyed the monk's company and many things about the religious life he led, but he was never convinced, and he remained a skeptic. The monk did not press him. But then, the mathematician invited the monk to the opening of a building which he had designed. When they got there, the monk said he would not go in. He did not trust the design, which he said might collapse. He asked the mathematician to prove to him that the building was stable. The mathematician said it was, in fact he could prove it. However, the monk did not have enough background in math to understand the proofs, it was far beyond him. The point is that there is proof of God, but we must have a great deal of background, wisdom, knowledge or understanding before we can understand it.

[jakobmuller]

There is a story, of a monk and a mathematician. The mathematician and the monk were friends, they enjoyed discussions and meals; the mathematician said he enjoyed the monk's company and many things about the religious life he led, but he was never convinced, and he remained a skeptic. The monk did not press him. But then, the mathematician invited the monk to the opening of a building which he had designed. When they got there, the monk said he would not go in. He did not trust the design, which he said might collapse. He asked the mathematician to prove to him that the building was stable. The mathematician said it was, in fact he could prove it. However, the monk did not have enough background in math to understand the proofs, it was far beyond him. The point is that there is proof of God, but we must have a great deal of background, wisdom, knowledge or understanding before we can understand it.

why is it than whenever i hear one of these religious stories, they have some of the most ridiculously flawed logic I've ever heard? The one about the barber is even worse than this though.

the monk does not need an ounce of imagination or hallucination for that matter to see that the building, is, in fact, standing.

Who writes this stuff?

[NikolaiI]

The question was not is it standing now, but will it stand in the future? The monk wanted proof that it would stand in the future, that it would be safe, that it could be trusted. The mathematician had the proof, and began to explain it, but the monk didn't know the requried mathematics to understand it. In the same way, there is proof of God, but it isn't obvious. It requires devotion to see God. For instance, a murderer might say he is with God, but he is only having a hallucination, for one must be pure to know God.

[grotto]

If you believe in God, or not, why does it matter to you if someone believes the opposite? Does the opposite view threaten your belief or make it stronger? Is your belief nothing but a wall you hide behind, a safe little cocoon you must protect at all cost? Is it a place to throw stones from, go on the offense if an infidel should pass by?

What is the advantage of taking a stance in a belief? When you sit quietly in your own thoughts, who is it that is attacking your beliefs? Are your thoughts just concerned with proving why others are wrong? If so, that is hardly a belief worth living a life for. What a waste of precious time.

[Rorshach69]

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.

Well if nobody gives a **** then why do you get a bunch of lame people trying so damn hard to convert people who don't believe what they believe

[jakobmuller]

The question was not is it standing now, but will it stand in the future? The monk wanted proof that it would stand in the future, that it would be safe, that it could be trusted. The mathematician had the proof, and began to explain it, but the monk didn't know the requried mathematics to understand it. In the same way, there is proof of God, but it isn't obvious. It requires devotion to see God. For instance, a murderer might say he is with God, but he is only having a hallucination, for one must be pure to know God.

i would assume it takes devotion as well to understand the mathematics and architecture of the building.