Convince Atheists

[C_Clayton_Jones]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

The few atheists I have known, do not feel that way about themselves. And they are not activists and don't approve of atheist activism.

Given the fact you've known so few 'atheists,' your assessment is both subjective and inaccurate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

"They"?

How about "prove that there are higher forms of intelligence than humans"? I think there probably are, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence yet. You got some?

"They" refers to Atheists in the Title of this thread, which juxtaposes the question raised in a previous thread. By definition, they believe that no higher power (i.e., God) exists in the universe. If you allow for that possibility, you are probably an Agnostic.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy, a consequence of theists' ignorance as to what it means to be free from faith.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.

Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.

'God' doesn't exist as perceived by theists, as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that 'hears' prayers, 'intercedes' on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of moral and social dogma that must be obeyed, and absent obedience the 'sinner' is subject to punitive measures.

'God' does exist as an idea created by man, a metaphor for the collective good of all humankind and the like; but that's not the 'god' most theists envision.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.

Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.

'God' doesn't exist as perceived by theists, as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that 'hears' prayers, 'intercedes' on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of moral and social dogma that must be obeyed, and absent obedience the 'sinner' is subject to punitive measures.

'God' does exist as an idea created by man, a metaphor for the collective good of all humankind and the like; but that's not the 'god' most theists envision.

God exists as an energy which mankind is incapable of understanding, which sets laws born of consequential probabilities, which will either be recognized and respected, bearing a sustainable existence, or rejected and/or ignored, which bears chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

This without regard to the rationalizations of those who are determined to ignore those principles and in so doing breed the aforementioned chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

This is all VERY simple stuff.

 

[dblack]

'God' doesn't exist as perceived by theists, as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that 'hears' prayers, 'intercedes' on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of moral and social dogma that must be obeyed, and absent obedience the 'sinner' is subject to punitive measures.

'God' does exist as an idea created by man, a metaphor for the collective good of all humankind and the like; but that's not the 'god' most theists envision.

Have you considered the possibility that both perceptions are accurate? Different views of the same thing?

 

[G.T.]

If you dont know the folly of the presuppositional apologetic argument, then you're lost, rationally.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

But your original point is valid and in my opinion spot on. The anti-theists are merely using an unreasonable standard. If the standard were the 'reasonable doubt' standard common to contests in criminal prosecution, the existence of God would be readily accepted.

Were it the preponderance of evidence standard common to civil contests, the same... only exponentially more so.

That is true because you choose to believe its true.

The same can be said of the atheist, of course.

What is a "reasonable standard" is in the eye of the beholder.

The god-believer looks up at the stars and that's all they need.

It is true, because it objectively serves reason.

A reasonable standard is one which objectively serves reason.

The God believer looks at the stars and sees stars.

There is absolutely nothing within the scope of anti-theism that is either objective or which serves reason.

You're invited to show otherwise... but anti-theism and all other facets of left-think rests entirely in relativism.

Relativism, axiomatically rejects objectivity.

Absent objectivity, there is no potential to perceive truth. Absent truth, there is no potential for trust. In the absence of truth and trust, there is no means to recognize a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality and without a soundly reasoned, sustainable morality, there is no possibility that justice can be served.

This is why wherever anti-theism and it's political affiliation OKA: socialism is found, one finds deceit, fraud and ignorance on the rise among a culture in stark moral decay, where injustice is the rule.

It all ties together.

 

[G.T.]

There's objectivity without a deity, and objectivity does not serve as a logical proof OF a deity.

Omg.

 

[Vandalshandle]

More religious intelligence:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk]9/11: WTC South Tower Plane Crash - YouTube[/ame]

 

[G.T.]

I wouldnt be so bold as to say that theists and atheists are unintelligent simply on the basis of their origins beliefs; however, both ARE ill found conclusions. The fact is, our origins studies currently stand at: inconclusive.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

More religious intelligence:

9/11: WTC South Tower Plane Crash - YouTube

And you can bet they believe their actions were and are "reasonable" and "objective", just like Jim Jones, Billy Graham, Westboro, Pat Robertson ... etc.

Religion has always been used as an excuse for destroying people and countries and they ALL believe they are reasonable and objective.

All the various gods - they're all reasonable and objective too. Just ask their followers.

Whether its magic water, magic underwear, all the virgins you could want - it all ends up being the same in the end.

They all say, "my way is the only way".

And, they're welcome to it. Its just that its not for me.

 

[sealybobo]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

.

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.

Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

See also: False Premise.

 

[sealybobo]

Many kinds of intelligence. Recent discoveries in orca intelligence reveals they're vastly superior to humans in emotional intelligence (compassion, empathy, etc.) And this superior intelligence might be what's responsible for mass whale strandings/beachings. When one's in distress their superior capacity for love makes them all rush in to help, or even die together instead of alone.

Atheists by their very definition are not even a relatively intelligent group. To say definitively there is no God, anywhere, or anything like it in the rather large universe is the ultimate hubris. But this is true for the theists as well, and for the very same reason. Until you've been everywhere in the cosmos, catalogued every species, studied every religion you can't say anything definitive about gods, God, or anything else spiritual because your knowledge of it is limited to Earth. YOu can 'believe' anything you want absent evidence of any kind. But when people make declarative statements like "God doesn't eixst." or "God does exist." that requires proof. If they said, "I believe in God." that'd be that.

'God' doesn't exist as perceived by theists, as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that 'hears' prayers, 'intercedes' on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of moral and social dogma that must be obeyed, and absent obedience the 'sinner' is subject to punitive measures.

'God' does exist as an idea created by man, a metaphor for the collective good of all humankind and the like; but that's not the 'god' most theists envision.

God exists as an energy which mankind is incapable of understanding, which sets laws born of consequential probabilities, which will either be recognized and respected, bearing a sustainable existence, or rejected and/or ignored, which bears chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

This without regard to the rationalizations of those who are determined to ignore those principles and in so doing breed the aforementioned chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

This is all VERY simple stuff.

I'm god free and also free of chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Seems like god is not necessary. Maybe it is for you and other weak minded humans but not me.

 

[jasonnfree]

Why does either "side" believe they need to change the mind of the other "side"?

I honestly don't care what someone else believes. Why would others care what I believe and why would they try to change my belief?

Only Atheists feel that the public expression of any religious belief system constitutes a denial of their personal rights.

Why do you have to publicly express your beliefs? To me it's hypocrisy. "Hey everybody, I'm a christian, aren't I wonderful". This is when you get responses from others, and some responses you don't like.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

'God' doesn't exist as perceived by theists, as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity that 'hears' prayers, 'intercedes' on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of moral and social dogma that must be obeyed, and absent obedience the 'sinner' is subject to punitive measures.

'God' does exist as an idea created by man, a metaphor for the collective good of all humankind and the like; but that's not the 'god' most theists envision.

God exists as an energy which mankind is incapable of understanding, which sets laws born of consequential probabilities, which will either be recognized and respected, bearing a sustainable existence, or rejected and/or ignored, which bears chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

This without regard to the rationalizations of those who are determined to ignore those principles and in so doing breed the aforementioned chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

This is all VERY simple stuff.

I'm god free and also free of chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Seems like god is not necessary. Maybe it is for you and other weak minded humans but not me.

You're mistaken.

God lives within you, just as he lives within all of us. You simply reject God and the aforementioned principles, likely as a means to justify your foolish, aberrant behavior.

I know absolutely nothing about you, but on just the information you've offered, I'd say that you live an immoral lifestyle, likely a homosexual or one of the variations thereof, and that as a result you are an advocate of the normalization of sexual abnormality; which seeks to represent that demonstrably deviant behavior is perfectly normal, which by itself can produce nothing BUT the defining three C's of Left-think, OKA: Evil. You further, likely abuse illicit or prescription drugs and alcohol... .

All of which falls dead center among those animated by evil, whose lives are defined by chaos, calamity and catastrophe.

Respect God and his laws or suffer the consequences of failing to do so, there are no exceptions ... because that's how nature rolls.

 

[G.T.]

Ad hom, assumption, naked assertion. A pointless post.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence?

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

In truth, there is nothing complex about this.

God created the Universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists.

.

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.

Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

See also: False Premise.

Logically invalid?

I see?

The initial premise assumes the Universe did not exist prior to the Creation, which.. I suppose it should be pointed out, is held by the brightest minds in science, whose study of the origin of the universe conclude that the Universe came into existence in an instant, from a great explosion, from which matter scattered, expanding across the span of time and space. Which according to God, "In the Beginning there was Light... . " And... 'matter scattering explosions', they usually come with a fair amount of light... right?

Now... you're argument is not with me, it is with science and God. And please understand, I am NOT GOD. I only seem God-like when I am debating anti-theists. It's purely an illusion created by the stark contrast.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ad hom, assumption, naked assertion. A pointless post.

Where's the Ad hom? Where's the assumption? Where's the naked assertion?

Be specific, or... concede through your failure to do so.

Best of luck to ya.

 

[G.T.]

Post #55. Its all there.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Post #55. Its all there.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.