Obviously a take-off of Curt's thread, but not retaliatory or anything like that, I (unlike most Christians, apparently) found Curt's question interesting. "What would you do if confronted with undeniable proof that your basic beliefs are wrong?" Only I'm applying it to atheists. If you were confronted with a phenomenon that could only be explained by the existence of God or your own insanity (being visited and spoken to by angels, speaking with a burning bush, miraculous healing, etc.), what would you do? Convert (and by convert, I mean recognize and believe in the existence of a higher power, not necessarily "go to church")? Check yourself into a loony bin? Keep in mind that you have never felt saner, and psychiatrists can't find any actual reason you should be committed. . .
If the truth about atheism was revealed. . .
- Thread starter Keirador
- Start date
I chose the third option. Not for the uncomfortable part, I don't care being proven wrong, but mainly because I just don't see a need to have religion in my life. I am a happy, secure and moral human being, I don't need some higher power to tell me to play nice.
So what would you make of this clearly divine experience? Why would you try to forget it ever happened? Because you dislike the idea of a God, whether it's real or not?jwijn said:
It's you who has the proof. You've had a divine experience that can be explained only by the existence of a deity or your own insanity.Godwynn said:
punkbass2000
Des An artiste
Keirador said:
Though I do recognize this is merely a hypothetical so you can define the terms, this does seem to be a bit of a false dichotomy.
Kan' Sharuminar
Fluffy
I'd be bloody confused for a while, and think it over a lot longer. I couldn't imagine my ultimate conclusion, as it's a bit...extreme. I wouldn't convert, I definately wouldn't declare myself mad, and obviously I wouldn't dismiss it.
I'd probably just wonder what had happened and look for some other reason. Therefore 'other'
I'd probably just wonder what had happened and look for some other reason. Therefore 'other'
Not being an atheist, I didn't vote. But what if this god said "I am the the Truth, but whether or not you believe it doesn't matter."?
That's because it would mainly be simply an intense spiritual conviction that accompanied the seemingly supernatural phenomenon, but atheists, I assume, have never experienced an intense spiritual conviction (hence them being atheists) and it's quite impossible to adequately explain one.punkbass2000 said:
But if you experience such a phenomenon, you'd think you were mad, so why should we trust what you say?Dida said:
I don't see as that changes the question any, does it? I'm not asking if people would go to church or temple or whatnot, just if they would change their core beliefs.Birdjaguar said:
vbraun
Raytracing
I guess I would convert, but I wouldn't worship anything.
ya, but the problem is, Which god ?? Anyway, if there are REAL concrete prove that a higher being existed, then maybe its worth researching on.
time to start asking, where the higher being comes from and maybe capture a live specimen for observation.
time to start asking, where the higher being comes from and maybe capture a live specimen for observation.
Shadylookin
master debater
If god was proven to exist I would believe god existed. I wouldn't conver to this deity's prefered religion though, since I feel that any deity that needs my worship is inferior to me.
Oh, I was sort of assuming that the spiritual phenomenon during which you spoke to an angel/God/Virgin Mary/dead prophet/Mother Nature/Ganesh/Buddha/Radioactive Monkey, the true faith would be revealed right along with the existence of God.Ramius75 said:
So why'd you vote Other?
The deity doesn't need it, you do, if you wish for eternal happiness.Shadylookin said:
Dida
YHWH
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,434
Exactly, becasue Atheism is the absolute truth, it means god cannot exist.
If god actually exists, than it is in conflict with the absolute truth, meaning it cannot be true. A thing cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. So I must have been insane to experience this.
If god actually exists, than it is in conflict with the absolute truth, meaning it cannot be true. A thing cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. So I must have been insane to experience this.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
If there are solid and undisputable evidences that God exists, then there's no reason to convert since we're not talking about faith anymore, we're talking about facts.
Actually, I think that God appearing would risk to pose a more serious problem to believers than to those who don't believe. Indeed, knowing the number of different religions there are, it's impossible for God to be exactly like the one pictured by each religion. Of course you'll tell me that one can still be proven as right... however in terms of probabily the chances are stronger that all religions would suddenly be proven as wrong. Causing a severe disrupt to all their believers.
On the other side, the negative atheist (the one not believing because he hasn't enough evidence to) will be the one being the less disturbed by His appearance.
Actually, I think that God appearing would risk to pose a more serious problem to believers than to those who don't believe. Indeed, knowing the number of different religions there are, it's impossible for God to be exactly like the one pictured by each religion. Of course you'll tell me that one can still be proven as right... however in terms of probabily the chances are stronger that all religions would suddenly be proven as wrong. Causing a severe disrupt to all their believers.
On the other side, the negative atheist (the one not believing because he hasn't enough evidence to) will be the one being the less disturbed by His appearance.
Shadylookin
master debater
Keirador said:
well I can't be happy if I'm groveling so it's a catch-22
The absolute truth is that god cannot exist? Laughable. That is like saying the absolute truth is that ghosts cannot exist. No one actually knows that. There is simply no evidence of that assertion. The best you can do is prove that god is completely unnecessary, and completey unsupported by evidence. That is not logically equivalent to saying that the existence of God is impossible. You would have to prove that the existence of god is mutually exclusive to something we do know exists, which has never been done.Dida said:
But it is not empirical evidence I speak of, it is a personal encounter with what you instinctively feel to be divine, and cannot be explained any other way. You have no numbers that you could show to others, no facts to study.Marla_Singer said:
Indeed. What you call negative atheism is what I call agnosticism, and I have always found it to be the most logical and level-headed approach.Marla_Singer said:
I would probably go for insanity first (perhaps temporary). Someone might have slipped me a mushroom or some LSD. Provided that the therapist says that I check out okay, and there aren't any drugs in my system, then I would convert.
