catfood

Suppose you define god to be dog; I always found it humorous that it's reverse of the other, but anyway, then would you believe in god? If you define god to be something that is contradictory, and consequently does not exist, well, there is no god. But if you define god as something that exist despite the contradictions or logic, well, there you have god. I hate to bring up god of the gaps, but who's to say contradictions is not possible in other universes of god just as quantum mechanics (I really hate bringing up Q.M.!) show both existence and non existence? Deeply religious folks can't see past their existence of god, just as you can't seem to see past non-existence of god.I agree the burden of proof is on the existence. But if the definition of proof is no way Jose, (ie, I will reject every proof you throw at me), then it becomes blind faith. Why do you think some Christians reject evolution? It's because of the same argument you are making. In fact, take your argument and apply to religion (say, Christianity). You will see that they say pretty much the same as what you say. This is why I keep bringing up blind faith and atheism as religion. It's quite interesting the response I'm getting here. It's pretty much the same as when I was arguing against Christianity. They also want to shut it down with FAQ or restricting discussion contrary to their beliefs and so on. And the reasoning for their belief is pretty much the same as here (ie, question is invalid, logically impossible blah blah). Very few claimed blind faith, yet I can clearly see it's blind faith. It seems folks can't seem to see past their dogma. If that dogma is beneficial, well, that's good for them. But as an atheist shown to be hated the world over, what benefit does it bring? Do I meet more hot chicks? Of course not. If anything, this reduces one's chances of meeting / procreating and socializing. Do I keep it going for the benefit of others? Well, I'm no red pinko commie who want to sacrifice myself for others. Then why? I suppose I can bury my head in the sand and pretend to accept some argument made here, but then if that's the case, why not accept argument made by theist since they are all invalid anyway? Even knowing that atheism is faith based and it's not beneficial, I still can't seem to get to church or claim as theist.

Yes. If there is a way out. Test your hypothesis, and see if there is plausible criteria for you to believe it exist or doesn't exist. There is no way for theist to test this, and there is no way for atheist, so that's why both are blind faith religions. I'm only claiming one thing: all questions related to god is based on faith. That includes theists, atheist, agnostics, ignostics, or whatever you will about god. Bottom line is not about what existing religion is most popular. Bottom line is given that all questions regarding god are fundamentally the same, what religion works best for a given person? If one lives where his current religion is the most hated, rational being would have to reconsider his current religion. Again, this is important, because atheism is most hated group according to news article I read recently. And if fundamental belief is just belief the same as any question regarding god, then what rational reason does one have to hold onto atheism? Why not go with Christianity? They ignore much of what's in their bible that's objectionable anyway. This topic has never been encountered in any of my searches. If you have any reference that covers the topic, "what evidence would you accept to become theist" I'd like to know (that's my other thread). If you have any reference that says atheism (or any discussion of god) is not based on blind faith, I'd like to know that, too. Simply saying it's not a valid question doesn't address the issue. If it's not a valid question, then why are we atheists (and hated) and not Christians? Are we just insane?

If I don't affect anyone else, what you say is true. Who cares what I believe and what others believe? But if I affect others by my belief, which we all do by being social animals, we have a problem. In my original post, I describe an example of artificially crippling one's children through atheism is demonstrated. After all, children tend to follow the religion of their parents, including atheism. Now if one goes beyond one's own children and affect others, then atheism is destructive in that it makes the converts to become hated group throughout the world not to mention social stigma. Even Hitler hated atheism. As a religion, atheism becomes awful. You miss my point. When one claims atheism, no amount of evidence is possible, hence it's blind faith. This is exactly what the creationists do. "You didn't find a transitional fossil; you found a new species. Now you need to find two more transitional fossils to explain the one you just found." God doesn't have to be any one thing that some lunatics preach today. What would cause you to believe in god? You can define that to be anything you want that will cause you be claim that you are now theist. If you say the question is meaningless, well, that's just what the religious say, and you become part of that religion. Religious claim god exists, period, and questioning is meaningless. This is why atheism is a religion. I agree with shortcomings of Dawkins. But having studied eastern religions and physics, I can assure you, all religions are bunk; this is why I have such difficulty accepting atheism as religion, and need to examine it carefully. Take Buddhism for example. They claim reincarnation and that people who suffer is so, because they did bad in past lives. Well in that case, one shouldn't help them, because they are suffering what they deserve. Kids starving in the streets? F'em. They deserve it! But if I feel like it, I'll feed them. What Buddhism have in common with atheism is that both are based on blind faith. That is absolutely the point. If there is no difference between atheism and religion at a fundamental level, why go through all the pain of holding on to atheism? In fact, purposely becoming a member of one of the most hated group (maybe THE most hated group), atheism is beyond sadistic, maybe even evil. This is getting worse and worse down the rabbit hole! He's asking the wrong question. It's easy to debunk any lunacy. The question is to debunk one's own lunacy. I would like to ask what would it take for you to no longer be atheist? If you have something to contribute to this, please use my other thread regarding proof / evidence. This debate has serious social consequences due to practical concerns. Are we, the atheists, really immoral and insane as religious claim, but for different reasons? By participating in immoral activity on purpose are we evil? I don't know if it's all religions. If a religion has some plausible way out, that won't depend on blind faith; I don't know how that might be, though. Unfortunately, there is no way out of atheism, so it is a religion.

That's exactly the same as religious saying they don't need evidence for believing. If evidence was requirement for religion, most (all?) religions won't exist today. So in effect, atheism is a religion. Flake, you bring up yet again an interesting point. But the point becomes that if it's virtually impossible, but not really impossible to become theist, that seems the same. Even at a personal level, I wouldn't be intellectually honest with myself if I tell myself that there is a way to be theist. In this regard, virtual impossibility become true impossibility, which brings back to atheism (agnosticism, ignosticism, etc) being a religion based on blind faith.

If you feel atheism is based on evidence, and you can provide evidence that will make a believer out of atheist, please post in "what proof / evidence do atheist need?" thread. While I believe that's not possible and no one has proposed plausible scenario, you may know something that works that's not been posted yet. If you feel there is no way to know the existence or non-existence of god is possible, let's discuss. Religion is about blind faith. There is no way to change the religious because the basic premise is no evidence to the contrary is possible. For example, "bible is the word of god, never mind the contradictions, so there!" One can argue that the bible and all other religions have many contradictions (aka, flaws), so one chooses to be atheist. But if there is no possible way to not be an atheist or agnostic or ignostic or whatever (and be a theist), then the blind faith is just the same as religious. Therefore, atheism becomes a religion at the most basic level: blind faith. Now this is very troubling, especially for atheist like me. If atheism is just another religion at a fundamental level rooted in blind faith (no way to be otherwise), then why not Christianity? There are many benefits to being a Christian in US. First of all, one is no longer the most hated group (atheists are hated even more than muslims). 70% of the population identify as Christians, so social circles become much larger. Christian, even Westborough Baptists, do not go around stoning people for missing Sabbath, despite what the bible says. If I have kids, I would have them also be Christian, because it benefits them in life (social circles, etc) while at a fundamental level, it's the same as atheism. In fact, teaching them to be atheist is immoral as that's purposely placing disadvantage to children's life. If I'm living in India, I might say something like this for Hinduism. This is really deeply troubling.

Besides LSD and hallucinations, you also have to consider the possibility that the being could be alien from advanced civilization affecting the bio-mechanical machinery in you (or us) to make it seem like he's god. If what you suggest came to pass, I'd certainly question it as possibly being an alien. By the way, it's not she, although if she let me F her, she's a step closer to god IMO. I'm watching star trek now, and it's amazing how much of this Gene covered in the 60's.

Unless you don't live in this universe or don't have dreams, catfood has shown you all that you require. He even told you so to make it easier for you. What else do you want? Moving the goal post?

"I am catfood, your god. I show myself before you. I created this universe that which you occupy. I also create many other universes on a whim, some of which I let you see through your dreams."I doubt you're ready to start believing in catfood as your god and stop atheism. I certainly won't. And if catfood shows the multi universes to me all the time and on my request, I'll question my sanity before believing it as god. But maybe you're less rigorous and now believe catfood to be your god.

If you see a being that shows itself and claims to be god and shows you and your neighbors that it creates universe on a whim, you will believe it to be god? There are many crazy people who believe such nonsense and they have collaborators. Even better (or worse?), one only has to inquire about speaking in tongues and holy ghost in fundamental church. In fact, I've had some dreams that were as such; in them, guys who spoke out that they saw god were homeless guys I saw earlier in the week yelling in skid row. They were dreams, but if they go on all the time on my whim, I'll check into a mental hospital than to believe that god is really doing as such. But it seems you'll believe in god over questioning your sanity? I'm also annoyed. Almost every atheist / agnostics I encounter say they became as such due to lack of proof and they would believe if there is proof, including Stefan. So far, I've only read one description of scenario which is by you. And that description, IMO, is highly lacking. Do you have non supernatural proof that will convince you of god? Basically, describe a scenario that will make you believe in god and no longer claim as atheist / agnostic using whatever you think will make it so. If you say it's not possible, isn't that the same as theist who say not believing in god is impossible? Fundamentally, both arguments are the same. I see two ways out. One is to come up with a scenario which would convince one to believe in god (scientific method of hypothesis testing). Second is to know about everything (ie, become a god). If one claims we don't know and we can never know, that's pretty much the same as theists who claim they know and there is no way to be otherwise. Maybe there's nothing wrong with being a religious atheist, but in that case, I might as well go join religion / church and have better social life. By the way, I wonder if theists have this kind of discussion. Proof of god is all around them, but do they ever discuss what proof would be needed to not believe in god? That's probably a topic for another forum.

So is your answer to Q1 that there is no scenario that will convince you? What if you go beyond physical evidence, such as going to heaven, etc (or is that also considered physical)? I still can't come up with any that will convince me.For Q2, If you say premise doesn't allow itself to allow any to be valid, that would mean there can't be any valid scenario, both for presence of absence of god. So the question of presence and absence of god are both invalid? What does that mean? Both exist and not exist at the same time? Either way, this smacks of argument by theists. I had hoped for better for atheists.You say there are infinite scenarios to convince. I can't come up with one. Can you give an example that would convince you?I wonder what Stefan meant when he said he'll believe in god if he finds evidence. Stefan, are you reading?

I'm not pushing physical evidence, etc. I am trying to say not being able to convince despite evidence (in this case, failure to provide a scenario) is same as blind faith. Science and testability means there is hypothesis and some test to confirm as such (or not). But if there is no way to prove or disprove, then it is no longer science and belongs in the realm of religion. Hence, atheism's failure to provide falsifiable path is religion. Taking Bible's story of Job as an example, if something is good, it's because of god. If something is bad, it's because of god. There is no way to be otherwise, just as in atheism there is no way to be otherwise without falsifiable path. This is not a straw man argument. This is arguing that absence of god cannot be falsifiable, just as presence of god cannot be falsifiable. And if there is no way to change one's mind, that is pretty much blind faith. Now that's why I ask the question. What proof would satisfy the criteria to disprove absence of god? If one rejects the hypothesis, is that still science and rational? If one claims the probability of god is so vanishingly small that it really doesn't matter, that still begs the question, are you a theist or atheist? There are many ways to go with this, but it seems to me the way out is to provide a falsifiable path, which no one has done (yet) Q1: What evidence / proof would you need to believe in religion and no longer be atheist? Describe the scenario. Q2: If there is no scenario that will convince you that there is god, then isn't that the same as blind faith religious belief in god?

In simple terms, you don't see a need for a proof, so you won't provide one, correct? If not correct, describe the proof you'd need, as most atheists and agnostics I meet / discuss seem to want. I feel like a parrot, asking the same question over and over. I already know I'd rather end up in mental institution rather than believe in scenarios I'm thinking. I'm asking people (hopefully smarter than me) what proof scenario would make them switch. So far, no one has described any scenario which will cause them to start believing in this thread titled "what proof / evidence do atheist need?" If you feel no proof, isn't that the same as religious in belief? There is no way for you to change, because no evidence / proof is possible.

Again, the question is some (most?) atheists / agnostics want proof. If there is such proof, describe its circumstances. 2+2 can be 5 sometimes. I hate to invoke quantum mechanics, but probability is not 0 that it can never be 5 in physical world. But this is completely separate topic. I'm asking what proof atheist want, not the other way around. If you ask the religious, there are plenty of "proof". But what proof would you need to change from atheist to believe in something?

I gave you freedom to define them to be however you see fit. If you don't understand what they mean in religious context, you can simply look them up. You can play games by defining them as "swimming pool" and "dog", but I doubt you'll stop being atheist and start worshipping swimming pool dogs (of course you could be insane, I don't know). But describe what would cause you to believe in them as supernatural gods (swimming pool dogs) anyway. If nothing else, it will be entertaining. Again, the question is some (most?) atheists / agnostics want proof. If you have something to satisfy this proof, describe it.

I don't like lip service. That's what the religious do. If your opinion that most atheists do the same is true, well, that's sad. I hope Stefan and many (most?) others are not just giving lip service. Chances are slim, but I'm still hoping that there could be some proof that someone smarter than me can propose that could satisfy both theists and atheists. After all, that's why I proposed the question in the forum. I provided an example of testable scenario which still won't make me believe. Do you have a scenario which would make you believe? As my original question stands, proof is asked by atheist and agnostics, and I'm asking for what proof would convince you? Make up what you will about the definition of supernatural and god with what you know about the religious and come up with a proof that will convince you.