what proof / evidence do atheist need?

[catfood]

Asking some atheists and agnostics, they always ask for proof. If any kind of non-scientific "proof" is provided to me (miracles, etc), I'd check myself into mental institution as suffering from delusions. After all, supernatural is beyond nature, so one would not expect it to be scientifically provable, but operating on a whim of something beyond nature. Therefore, there is no proof that will make me believe, which sounds just like theists that there is no way for them to not believe despite the evidence. So in effect, I'm just as "blind faith" as theists.

 

Everything I read so far seem to need proof in scientific sense, which is contrary to the very definition of supernatural. Has this issue been addressed elsewhere? If no evidence can convert, would that person be the same "bull-headedness" as the faithful in philosophical sense? What evidence / proof would you need to believe if you're a non believer?

 

Thanks for any pointers.

[TheRobin]

Well, that's kind of the first and biggest problem when someone calls something "supernatural": It's by definition outside the realm of possible objective veryfiable proof.It's like saying: "Hey, I have this really great argument that shows irrefutably that atheism is incorrect, but I can't never translate it into a human language or experience, so you just have to believe me. (now, give me money and sit in my church )"Of course, then the question is how would they themselve know that argument then. Logically they can't so you know, they're hypocrytes.The second problem of calling something "supernatural" is also that you draw a line somehow arbitrarily. I mean at what point do things stop beign natural and become "super"natural? If something can interfere with our universe, then it's just as natural as the unvirese itself, so there's no need to create this divide in the first place. And if it can't interfere with our universe, then it's by definition unknowable and as such can't be claimed to be true.  

[Alan C.]

What evidence / proof would you need...

 

The kind that can be observed, measured, and tested.

[Wesley]

Things that exist are provable. God is self-contradictory and cannot exist as is commonly defined. Thus, god could never exist. Something that does exist or is later proven to exist may be attributed to god, but the definition will surely change to be possible within reality when this happens.

 

Thus, I guess, what proof would be necessary for god to exist depends on the definition of god. If you are trying to prove a square-circle, then you wont be able to as the concept falls apart upon conception. It contradicts itself.

 

If you are trying to prove that the universe was created, then there would be a scientific explanation or process that did happen which resulted in the universe. This would then be attributed to become the new definition of "god". This new definition of god would not include the original, self contradictory concept of god, however.

[catfood]

The kind that can be observed, measured, and tested.

As I mention, if it can be tested, etc. then it is no longer supernatural and fall into natural domain. Therefore, it cannot be the supernatural god. For the sake of this argument, and probably the definition of most theist, is that god is supernatural. What evidence would you need, then?

 

If you still say the evidence need to be natural (testable, etc), there won't be such evidence in nature for supernatural god, which brings back to my point that what atheists believe is at a fundamental philosophical level is the same as what theists believe: there is no evidence that will change one's mind on the matter.

@TheRobin and @Wesley,

 

So what you are saying is that there is no evidence that will convince you that there is supernatural god? But isn't that the same in the fundamental philosophical level as theists who believe that there is no evidence, or will there ever be any evidence, that there is no god?

 

If a theist claim that god created the world one nanosecond ago with all our experiences and implanted in our minds, well, it could very well be. There can be no evidence to refute it. They could also claim that this is simpler explanation than big bang and so on (ie, dog wanted it that way, so there! no need for any of these math stuff).

 

For atheists, same thing applies. Natural observations show evidence of this, that, and others which is consistent. There are gaps, but they may (or may not) be filled eventually. There is no need for a god who continually create the world a nano second ago. So there. No need for god and all these religious pomp.

 

Either way, both viewpoints seem the same: there can never be any evidence to change, and asking for any kind of evidence is meaningless (from both sides).

[TheRobin]

kind of weird what you got out of mine and wesley's writing.But no it's not that there's a lack of evidence, it's that the theist claim themselves that they can't have any evidence, which is a huge difference. The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim and if the claim includes a lack of possibility of proof then the claim is already an invalid one logically and we don't even need to go as far as looking for evidence.It's like proposing a theory of gravity that has rocks fall to the ground and to the sky simultanisouly, it's selfcontradictory and therefore an invalid theory. Same for the theory of "God" or "supernatural".Unless you can propose a clear definition of either that doesn't immediately contradict itself 

[Alan C.]

As I mention, if it can be tested, etc. then it is no longer supernatural and fall into natural domain. Therefore, it cannot be the supernatural god.

 

The supernatural exists in the imagination; it's not real. A phantasm with magic powers is an imaginary figment.

[Flake]

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

Weak atheism makes no knowledge claim, meaning no proof is required. What you are talking about is strong atheism, which does make a knowledge claim, meaning proof is required. As you can see in this thread, strong atheists try to prove that the concept of God is contradictory. The most logically rigorous position is ignosticism (not to be confused with agnosticism). Ignostics believe that the word God is meaningless, so any discussion about the existence or non-existence of "God", is a waste of time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

[Wesley]

Ignostics believe that the word God is meaningless, so any discussion about the existence or non-existence of "God", is a waste of time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

This was at least part of what I was saying. Thanks for bringing the term to the discussion.

[catfood]

kind of weird what you got out of mine and wesley's writing....

Unless you can propose a clear definition of either that doesn't immediately contradict itself 

 

I don't mean lack of evidence. Since some atheists ask for proof, the question is what proof do you need for a supernatural god? My point is that there can be no proof that will satisfy, since every proof asked by atheists need to be natural (testable, reproducible, etc). Hence, if there is something supernatural "proof" provided to me, I'll check into a mental institution rather than believe. 

 

We don't need to go looking for evidence, but we have to provide a criteria for proof. If that criteria is solely based on our beliefs in the natural world, that becomes meaningless to them who believe in the supernatural. Therefore, it still seems to me there can be no proof, and asking for proof is meaningless.

 

Again, god is supernatural (as is believed by most theists). In this context, what supernatural proof will you need to believe? Will you really believe if that proof came true?

[TheRobin]

Again, god is supernatural (as is believed by most theists). In this context, what supernatural proof will you need to believe? Will you really believe if that proof came true?

Also, again Give me a clear definition fo the word "supernatural" and "god" and I'll gladly give you some criteria for proof, but as of now, I don't even know what I would need to proof (or disproce) as I don't know what you mean with these words.

[catfood]

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

 

Weak atheism makes no knowledge claim, meaning no proof is required. What you are talking about is strong atheism, which does make a 

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

 

I agree that logically rigorous position is Ignoticism for me at this time. However, since so many atheists and agnostics I meet/discuss want proof, I'm trying to find out what proof would one need, and if that makes any sense. I bring this up, because Stefan wanted proof to change his mind on being atheist in one of his old podcast, and I thought he or someone in this forum might have something logical that I'm not aware of.

 

So far, my original thought stands: there can be no proof. I think Stefan goofed. Did he?

[Flake]

I agree that logically rigorous position is Ignoticism for me at this time. However, since so many atheists and agnostics I meet/discuss want proof, I'm trying to find out what proof would one need, and if that makes any sense. I bring this up, because Stefan wanted proof to change his mind on being atheist in one of his old podcast, and I thought he or someone in this forum might have something logical that I'm not aware of.

 

So far, my original thought stands: there can be no proof. I think Stefan goofed. Did he?

Ah, that clears things up. This is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe that on this subject proof doesn't matter to most people. They will pay lip service to it of course, to make a attempt to look less dogmatic, but at the end of the day no proof will convince a theist to become a atheist or a atheist to become a theist. Some will say this isn't true, saying that they themselves changed their minds when shown the proof, but that is because they were already doubting their previous beliefs.

[catfood]

@ TheRobin and @Alan

 

Supernatural is beyond nature. It may or may not be testable, repeatable, and all scientific methods that is applied. God is a being in Supernature and operate beyond testability, etc.

 

Since non-testable are obvious, here's an example of testable, repeatable and so on. Bertrand Russell was to have said (not sure if it's true, though) he'll believe in god if god can inform him everything that happens in next 24 hours. But that doesn't work for me. Suppose some "god" gives me the knowledge to know everything that happens in the future through brain dump of sorts, but tells me I'll never able to affect its outcome. Then it really happens: I know the stock prices in advance, but I can never benefit from it (for whatever reason). I can't stop crime, but it happens no matter how hard I try to prevent it. Well, at that point, I'll either see myself as delusional or the "god" is using some sort of technology rather than believing in divinity. Even though this is a testable and repeatable, I'm still not going to believe in the divine.

 

Would you believe in divinity if that's the case? If not, what would make you believe?

[Alan C.]

...if there is something supernatural "proof" provided...

 

What is supernatural proof?

 

If it can be provided then it wouldn't be supernatural, right?

[catfood]

Ah, that clears things up. This is just my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but I believe that on this subject proof doesn't matter to most people. They will pay lip service to it of course, to make a attempt to look less dogmatic, but at the end of the day no proof will convince a theist to become a atheist or a atheist to become a theist. Some will say this isn't true, saying that they themselves changed their minds when shown the proof, but that is because they were already doubting their previous beliefs.

 

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.

What is supernatural proof?

 

If it can be provided then it wouldn't be supernatural, right?

 

I provided an example of testable scenario which still won't make me believe. Do you have a scenario which would make you believe?

Also, again Give me a clear definition fo the word "supernatural" and "god" and I'll gladly give you some criteria for proof, but as of now, I don't even know what I would need to proof (or disproce) as I don't know what you mean with these words.

 

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.

[TheRobin]

@ TheRobin and @Alan

 

Supernatural is beyond nature. It may or may not be testable, repeatable, and all scientific methods that is applied. God is a being in Supernature and operate beyond testability, etc.

 

Since non-testable are obvious, here's an example of testable, repeatable and so on. Bertrand Russell was to have said (not sure if it's true, though) he'll believe in god if god can inform him everything that happens in next 24 hours. But that doesn't work for me. Suppose some "god" gives me the knowledge to know everything that happens in the future through brain dump of sorts, but tells me I'll never able to affect its outcome. Then it really happens: I know the stock prices in advance, but I can never benefit from it (for whatever reason). I can't stop crime, but it happens no matter how hard I try to prevent it. Well, at that point, I'll either see myself as delusional or the "god" is using some sort of technology rather than believing in divinity. Even though this is a testable and repeatable, I'm still not going to believe in the divine.

 

Would you believe in divinity if that's the case? If not, what would make you believe?

 

I still don't understand what "supernatural" means or "god". so far you say it's "not natural" but that's not a definition (I mean imagine if I gave the defintion "not pants", that'd leave open literally everything from that wouldn't even need to be clothing (like, say "red" or "stone"), so saying what somethign is not is never a valid definition. But if you use the word "nautral" in your definition, can I ask you to also give me a definition of that?Also if you say that "testability" is not something that applies to "god" then asking for proof is self-contradictory, as by definition everything that would proof it's existence would disproof it at the same moment.In your example: If I can write it down so that others can see it and test whether or not these things come true or not, then sure that'd be a nice proof for something. As I still don't know how you use the words "god" and "supernatural" I don't know if that fits the criteria, but if it's that what you mean, then sure, that'd be a proof.

[fer]

This is the same as asking what is the proof that will change your mind about 2+2=5.

[catfood]

I still don't understand what "supernatural" means or "god". so far you say it's "not natural" but that's not a definition (I mean imagine if I gave the defintion "not pants", that'd leave open literally everything from that wouldn't even need to be clothing (like, say "red" or "stone"), so saying what somethign is not is never a valid definition. But if you use the word "nautral" in your definition, can I ask you to also give me a definition of that?Also if you say that "testability" is not something that applies to "god" then asking for proof is self-contradictory, as by definition everything that would proof it's existence would disproof it at the same moment.In your example: If I can write it down so that others can see it and test whether or not these things come true or not, then sure that'd be a nice proof for something. As I still don't know how you use the words "god" and "supernatural" I don't know if that fits the criteria, but if it's that what you mean, then sure, that'd be a proof.

 

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.

[Rob_Ilir]

What "proof" have you got? There was only one thing from my grandfather, and that was; "sometimes it is what you don't do that matters", so what can't your god do? Assuming you prefer one religion and not the other. 

[catfood]

This is the same as asking what is the proof that will change your mind about 2+2=5.

 

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.

What "proof" have you got? 

 

There was only one thing from my grandfather, and that was; "sometimes it is what you don't do that matters", so what can't your god do? Assuming you prefer one religion and not the other. 

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?

[TheRobin]

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.

 

Well, religion defines it basically as something that can't exist: So if there would be proof for it's existence, that would isntantly disproof it's existence :)If there was such a thing as a being which created the universe I wouldn't call that supernatural, as if there actually was such a being it would be just as natural as anything else in the universe. As for proof, all this being would need to do is show itself and perform some feats as creating a few universes that everyone can see or something, so we know that being actually has the capacity to do so. Easy Peacy :)As for worshipping, why on earth would anyone do that, even IF there's such a being? The only way you get people to worship something that has more power than they themselves is by bullying and threatening with violence, which is done by people, mostly parents and priests, and not by supposed deities.

[catfood]

Well, religion defines it basically as something that can't exist: So if there would be proof for it's existence, that would isntantly disproof it's existence :)If there was such a thing as a being which created the universe I wouldn't call that supernatural, as if there actually was such a being it would be just as natural as anything else in the universe. As for proof, all this being would need to do is show itself and perform some feats as creating a few universes that everyone can see or something, so we know that being actually has the capacity to do so. Easy Peacy :)As for worshipping, why on earth would anyone do that, even IF there's such a being? The only way you get people to worship something that has more power than they themselves is by bullying and threatening with violence, which is done by people, mostly parents and priests, and not by supposed deities.

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.

[Rob_Ilir]

t

I'm asking what proof atheist have, not the other way around. If you ask the religious, there are plenty of "proof". But what proof would atheist need to change?

Your god weights less than nothing, but exactly as much as a leprechaun.

 

If you help me find proof that there are (is) no leprechaun(s), then the leprechaun worshippers can help me find proof for a negative too towards god... Throw in Zeus the fantastic if you have proof that he does not exist.  

[fer]

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.

You are using a strawman here.

 

Physical evidence implies logical consistency/concept validity. (p => q)

 

"Something supernatural exists" is a logical contradiction therefore you won't find any physical instance of the concept. (¬q => ¬p)

 

Which is not the same as the position you seem trying to push on this thread:

"There is no physical evidence therefore you can't prove/disprove it." (¬p => ?)

[catfood]

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?

[fer]

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.

You already received the test on several responses for your hypothesis on this thread if you reread them, they summarize to:

"Physical evidence implies logical consistency/concept validity. (p => q)" or

"Logical inconsistency/invalid concept implies non existence of physical evidence" (¬q => ¬p)

 

 

>Q1: What evidence / proof would you need to believe in religion and no longer be atheist? Describe the scenario.

You can either prove p=>q (provide any physical evidence for something supernatural) and/or negate ¬q=>¬p (prove the claim "supernatural exist" isn't a contradiction).

>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?

There are infinite scenarios that would convince a rational person that supernatural exists(see Q1), the problem is that the premise itself doesn't allow any of them to be valid ; )

[catfood]

...>Q1: What evidence / proof would you need to believe in religion and no longer be atheist? Describe the scenario.You can either prove p=>q (provide any physical evidence for something supernatural) and/or negate ¬q=>¬p (prove the claim "supernatural exist" isn't a contradiction).>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?There are infinite scenarios that would convince a rational person that supernatural exists(see Q1), the problem is that the premise itself doesn't allow any of them to be valid ; )

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?

[TheRobin]

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.

 

I'm starting to get a little annoyed: Have you just skipped the part where I gave my criteria for proof entirely?I don't seem to be able to quote my own quote here, so I just copy paste what I wrote again: "If there was such a thing as a being which created the universe I wouldn't call that supernatural, as if there actually was such a being it would be just as natural as anything else in the universe. As for proof, all this being would need to do is show itself and perform some feats as creating a few universes that everyone can see or something, so we know that being actually has the capacity to do so. Easy Peacy"I mean proof in general is simple: If something is supposed to be more than just my imagination, then other people have to be able to see it as well. Or at the very least, I need to be able to derive something from the thing to be proven, that can be seen by others (like your scenario with the knowledge of the future).

[fer]

So is your answer to Q1 that there is no scenario that will convince you?

No, that's the conclusion you keep trying to shove since the beginning, I provided a methodology that you keep ignoring and never address.  

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.

Exactly, you arrived at a contradiction, which means the premise is invalid. Anyway, I'm leaving the thread.

[Kawlinz]

Supernatural proof is a contradiction, just like God. If contradictions could exist, then god has a chance, as does supernatural proof. Without contradictions, neither of them have a chance.

[Existing Alternatives]

Religion and Atheism despite being mutually exclusive cannot be measured / proven by the same criteria. Religion relies on faith, Atheism relies on logic. If you provide proof of, let’s say, heaven, it will no longer require faith and will seize being religion. If all you have is faith in non-existence of god, it is no longer Atheism, but rather some kind of godless Religion. You can’t have faith in Atheism or logically prove Religion.

[Dogbyte]

Supernatural proof is a contradiction, just like God. If contradictions could exist, then god has a chance, as does supernatural proof. Without contradictions, neither of them have a chance.

 

"Supernatural proof is a contradiction" -- what reasons do you have to think this? 

[Kawlinz]

I already gave you the reasons, 10 of them. I listed them numerically in this very thread. Which one do you have an issue with?

[catfood]

I'm starting to get a little annoyed: Have you just skipped the part where I gave my criteria for proof entirely?I don't seem to be able to quote my own quote here, so I just copy paste what I wrote again: "If there was such a thing as a being which created the universe I wouldn't call that supernatural, as if there actually was such a being it would be just as natural as anything else in the universe. As for proof, all this being would need to do is show itself and perform some feats as creating a few universes that everyone can see or something, so we know that being actually has the capacity to do so. Easy Peacy"I mean proof in general is simple: If something is supposed to be more than just my imagination, then other people have to be able to see it as well. Or at the very least, I need to be able to derive something from the thing to be proven, that can be seen by others (like your scenario with the knowledge of the future).

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.

upernatural proof is a contradiction, just like God. If contradictions could exist, then god has a chance, as does supernatural proof. Without contradictions, neither of them have a chance.

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.