Could you be convinced in a God based religion?

I will go with Christianity for this since it's the big one on most lists but in general, could you be convinced, through logical argument and presentation of fact that a God does exist and that religion as it has been presented to you (and I would take it you have argued against it up until this point) is true?

Or do you hold it that so many falsities have been revealed and holes poked in the very fabric of major religion already that you KNOW it is not true.

And more importantly, given this absolute and irrefuteable evidence would you then lead a life as the religion dictated?

I guess I am asking are you atheist or agnostic?

Because to be unpersuadable seems the logic equivalent and opposite of being an absolute believer.

I thought about it and even if God lowered himself down in front of me and told me He was for real and smited someone just to prove it (or whatever other proof I needed) I can't be sure I would walk the path of the straight and narrow...


No real point to this question, just curious.

Devedander wrote

I will go with Christianity for this since it's the big one on most lists but in general, could you be convinced, through logical argument and presentation of fact that a God does exist and that religion as it has been presented to you (and I would take it you have argued against it up until this point) is true?

Or do you hold it that so many falsities have been revealed and holes poked in the very fabric of major religion already that you KNOW it is not true.

And more importantly, given this absolute and irrefuteable evidence would you then lead a life as the religion dictated?

I guess I am asking are you atheist or agnostic?

Because to be unpersuadable seems the logic equivalent and opposite of being an absolute believer.

I thought about it and even if God lowered himself down in front of me and told me He was for real and smited someone just to prove it (or whatever other proof I needed) I can't be sure I would walk the path of the straight and narrow...


No real point to this question, just curious.

If god lowered himself down from heaven, and told me to act a certain way, I would be the first in line to act that way. I'm a selfish person by nature, and eternity in paradise for following a few superficial rules of behavior seems like a good deal to me.

However, this proof of thier being a god, or afterlife will never ever happen. You know it won't happen, I know it won't happen, I bet Pat Robertson, deep down inside, knows it won't happen.

I wish there were a god, or an afterlife, that my consiousness would somehow endure beyond my own death, but I also know that what I want, ain't what actually is.

[Kamikaze189]

Lots of people have been saying this lately, but I'll say it again.

Even if there were a god, he's an asshole, and I'd never bow down to him. I would, however, give him a few pointers.

Cap'n I would be the farm it won't happen but how do you KNOW it won't happen? I don't see how you can KNOW that... is it written somewhere? In a direct dictation from someone who is known to always be right or something?

Kamikaze what makes Him an asshole? After all your parents seemed like assholes when you were a kid and they punished you or didn't let you have or do things that you thought were totally reasonable... maybe He is just smarter than you and so in some lights seems like an asshole.

Devedander wrote

Cap'n I would be the farm it won't happen but how do you KNOW it won't happen? I don't see how you can KNOW that... is it written somewhere? In a direct dictation from someone who is known to always be right or something?

The same way I know that bigfoot will never be discovered. There is neither evidence for, nor evidence against a Bigfoot. But the fact that there is such an overwhelming lack of evidence for a bigfoot, leads me to believe that it does not exist. Now a god is a being, much more powerful, large, and fantastic then a bigfoot is. Yet there is even less evidence for one, and in theory such a powerful being should have more evidence for it's existence, not less. Plus far more people have been looking for a proof of a god then there have been looking for proof of a Bigfoot.

Yet, I Know that they will never find any real testable evidence for a Bigfoot, because one doesn't exist. The same way I know that there will never be any testable evidence for this much larger god creature that so many people believe exists.

Unfortunately that "knowing" flies right in the face of science... it is like saying "I know that if you roll 10 trillion dice they will not all land on 6". Somewhere in there you have gone from "longshot" to "absolutely not" based on... something... not fact... certainly no fact as the only fact that could prove that Bigfoot does not exist is to simultaneously examine every area on the planet large enough for a bigfoot to be and no one has done that... is it a feeling... a gut feeling... something you know to be true but can't quite prove?

Devedander wrote

Unfortunately that "knowing" flies right in the face of science... it is like saying "I know that if you roll 10 trillion dice they will not all land on 6". Somewhere in there you have gone from "longshot" to "absolutely not" based on... something... not fact... certainly no fact as the only fact that could prove that Bigfoot does not exist is to simultaneously examine every area on the planet large enough for a bigfoot to be and no one has done that... is it a feeling... a gut feeling... something you know to be true but can't quite prove?

There is a diffrence, if you roll a dice a Trillion times, you do know that it won't land on 6's all times. The odds become so astronomical that it basically becomes fact. Hence the diffrence between a scientific definition of knowing (Or proving) something (Which only applies to very few things, scientific laws), and actually knowing something.
I know bigfoot doesn't exist, not because he's been completely scientifically disproven, (Which would be impossible, because he doesn't exist), but because there is such an overwhelming lack of any evidence for it that it makes the odds so negligible for the existence of a bigfoot, that they are virtually the same as the dice example above. With God it's the same thing, except that god is a much larger force then a bigfoot, much more people are looking for a god, and there is even less evidence for a god then there is for a bigfoot. Therefore mathamatically the odds seem so astronomical against god, the chance of it not existing becomes virtually the same as fact.

It's not a gut feeling, it's logical and almost mathamatical.

[Tenspace]

Devedander wrote

Unfortunately that "knowing" flies right in the face of science... it is like saying "I know that if you roll 10 trillion dice they will not all land on 6". Somewhere in there you have gone from "longshot" to "absolutely not" based on... something... not fact... certainly no fact as the only fact that could prove that Bigfoot does not exist is to simultaneously examine every area on the planet large enough for a bigfoot to be and no one has done that... is it a feeling... a gut feeling... something you know to be true but can't quite prove?

Probability and Statistics, Deve... read up, learn where the flaws are in your hypothesis. Discovering your own mistakes is the best way to learn.

Cap'n Awesome wrote

There is a diffrence, if you roll a dice a Trillion times, you do know that it won't land on 6's all times. The odds become so astronomical that it basically becomes fact. Hence the diffrence between a scientific definition of knowing (Or proving) something (Which only applies to very few things, scientific laws), and actually knowing something.
I know bigfoot doesn't exist, not because he's been completely scientifically disproven, (Which would be impossible, because he doesn't exist), but because there is such an overwhelming lack of any evidence for it that it makes the odds so negligible for the existence of a bigfoot, that they are virtually the same as the dice example above. With God it's the same thing, except that god is a much larger force then a bigfoot, much more people are looking for a god, and there is even less evidence for a god then there is for a bigfoot. Therefore mathamatically the odds seem so astronomical against god, the chance of it not existing becomes virtually the same as fact.

It's not a gut feeling, it's logical and almost mathamatical.

The definition of logical truth is that it is an absolute always. If it is not true all the time it is then logically "not true" (I don't know how to make the not sign)

You see you did it again though... so astranomical they bascially become fact... there goes that line between highly improbable and impossible... to know something is true it must be irrefuteable, you could be VERY VERY VERY sure it's true, but how can you know it in the lack of fact?

This type of argument lends itself to the slippery sloap... if 10 trillion dice are not going to all land on 6 = fact

Then what about 9.99999999999 trillion dice? That is still close enough so it is still fact

One less? Close to the previous one, so basically fact.

Etc etc

All the way down to 2 dice... still fact... uh oh.

If you don't have it absolutely, it is not fact, it may be very likely, but not true.

Almost mathematical? Again we have that problem, almost doesn't quite cut it. Almost having a winning lotto ticket just isn't the same.

In fact... I think I have heard this flawed argument somewhere else... someone once asked me what the odds were that all the necessary things for life to be produced occurred by chance... elements bonding, temperatures fluctuating just so, plaents revolving etc... what are the odds? Pretty fricking slim... so slim in fact it was basically impossible... and being impossible to happen by chance he had an explanation for how it all happened... I think you know what the gist of it was.


When we ask religious people to prove their God exists we ask for factual, indisputeable scientific proof. "I know" just isn't good enough... isn't it only fair to hold ourselves to this level of scrutiny?

Tenspace wrote

Probability and Statistics, Deve... read up, learn where the flaws are in your hypothesis. Discovering your own mistakes is the best way to learn.

Please enlighten me... where am I flawed?

The argument "It is so unlikely it is known to be false" is analogous to the dice issue. It is so unlikely it might well be considered fact by any reasonable person, however mathematically, logically, scientifically it is not a fact taht it is impossible. In fact it is a fact that is NOT impossible. In fact given enough itterations it is fact that it WILL happen (that enough happens to be infinity but you know...)

Arguments for Atheism on this board almost entirely revolve around science and it's proveable, factual truness. All I am pointing out is that while it's easy to point out the falacies in someone elses belief as not being based on fact, it's surprising how many of your own beliefs may also not be based on fact.

Again, My postulate:

An extremely unlikely event, no matter how unlikely, is still possible; thus no matter how unlikely the event becomes it does not become impossible.

Please feel free to use any probability and statistics to prove me wrong on that statement... is there a number of standard deviations from the mean at which point the values under the curve become valueless? Is there such a probability such that 1/x for any number x = 0?

I fail to see my flaws since probability and statistics are exactly what proves it to be a valid logical argument. Please save me from the error of my ways.

Devedander wrote

I will go with Christianity for this since it's the big one on most lists but in general, could you be convinced, through logical argument and presentation of fact that a God does exist and that religion as it has been presented to you (and I would take it you have argued against it up until this point) is true?

Or do you hold it that so many falsities have been revealed and holes poked in the very fabric of major religion already that you KNOW it is not true.

And more importantly, given this absolute and irrefuteable evidence would you then lead a life as the religion dictated?

Devedander, this question makes very little sense to me. You seem to be asking if, given undeniable proof of something, we will deny it anyway. Is this your question? If not, please explain. I think that most people here would, hypothetically, accept irrefutable proof without refuting it, no matter what the irrefutable proof is proving. It seems like the definition of irrefutable lets us know that we can't refute it.

Devedander wrote

I guess I am asking are you atheist or agnostic?

I'm an atheist. However, I don't think this question follows from what you asked above. To say that I am an atheist means that there is no proof I find compelling enough to believe in a god. You are asking if I would maintain that there is no god even if such proof existed. This makes no sense.
It seems that, at most, you are asking if we are "weak atheists" or completely irrational dogmatists who go even beyond strong atheism or (as I believe it is called) Mighty Atheism.

Do you think that everyone should consider themselves "agnostic" about absolutely everything, including whether the sun will rise tomorrow and whether we are all being imagined by an autistic kid with a snowglobe?

Devedander wrote

I thought about it and even if God lowered himself down in front of me and told me He was for real and smited someone just to prove it (or whatever other proof I needed) I can't be sure I would walk the path of the straight and narrow...

Huh? What is "the straight and narrow?" Are you saying that you still wouldn't believe in god? Or are you saying that, as an agnostic, you feel free to be immoral right now, and even if there were a god you would still be immoral? Are you a troll? Some of the things you say seem to be based on a strange idea of what agnostics and atheists are "supposed" to think, based perhaps on Jack Chick tracts.

Come on now, peeps, there is no reason to argue about this. The poll says, "Could you follow a commonly accepted religion?". No true atheist would ever join some accepted religion. The accepted religions are human constructions to fit the needs of ancient humans. They are not based on any evidence or knowledge.
I am not an agnostic, but if there is a god or supreme being, humans have never seen him/her/it. Maybe some day we will find something that points to such a creature, but not today.

revmonkeyboy

Revmonkeyboy wrote

Come on now, peeps, there is no reason to argue about this. The poll says, "Could you follow a commonly accepted religion?". No true atheist would ever join some accepted religion. The accepted religions are human constructions to fit the needs of ancient humans. They are not based on any evidence or knowledge.
I am not an agnostic, but if there is a god or supreme being, humans have never seen him/her/it. Maybe some day we will find something that points to such a creature, but not today.

revmonkeyboy

Revmonkeyboy,
I agree with most of your comments, except for the statement that there is no reason to argue about this topic. I have a bit of a problem with the question in the OP, but a still greater problem with the selection of answers. What would it mean to follow a religion but still act like a heathen? How does one define "following" a religion? How does one define "acting like a heathen"? The very fact that this is offered as a selection implies that "heathens" (I prefer to call myself an infidel) act in a way contrary to religious people; e.g. "heathens" kill, rape, steal, or whatever, and people who "follow a religion" don't do those things. If I'm misinterpreting these choices, please let me know, DeviantDander.

However, what really pisses me off is the fact that the "poll" is obviously submitted by a theist who is trying to pass himself off as an agnostic.

"Could you follow a commonly accepted religion?" My answer would be, "If sufficient proof were provided, then yes. Otherwise, no. That is why I am an atheist: no one has provided me with sufficient proof. If I were to agree to follow a commonly accepted religion without proof, then I would not be an atheist; I would be a member of that religion. But since there is not such evidence, I am an atheist." Unfortunately, this was not provided as an option in the poll.

The Kenosha Kid

edited to clarify the editorial "you"

[ghoulslime]

Devedander wrote

I will go with Christianity for this since it's the big one on most lists but in general, could you be convinced, through logical argument and presentation of fact that a God does exist and that religion as it has been presented to you (and I would take it you have argued against it up until this point) is true?

Or do you hold it that so many falsities have been revealed and holes poked in the very fabric of major religion already that you KNOW it is not true.

And more importantly, given this absolute and irrefuteable evidence would you then lead a life as the religion dictated?

I guess I am asking are you atheist or agnostic?

Because to be unpersuadable seems the logic equivalent and opposite of being an absolute believer.

I thought about it and even if God lowered himself down in front of me and told me He was for real and smited someone just to prove it (or whatever other proof I needed) I can't be sure I would walk the path of the straight and narrow...


No real point to this question, just curious.

Actually, I think this is a good question - although your motives are questionable.


I could be convinced of the existence of a being with greater intelligence and technological development than humans, if there was actually any evidence. I seek truth. I would accept truth.

Would I accept this Supreme Being as a god and worship it? Fuck no! Any creature that would create other creatures and require from them absolute obedience and worship is inferior to me. I would demand justice. I would demand freedom. I would fight.

ghoulslime wrote

Actually, I think this is a good question - although your motives are questionable.


I could be convinced of the existence of a being with greater intelligence and technological development than humans, if there was actually any evidence. I seek truth. I would accept truth.

Would I accept this Supreme Being as a god and worship it? Fuck no! Any creature that would create other creatures and require from them absolute obedience and worship is inferior to me. I would demand justice. I would demand freedom. I would fight.

Aha. Perhaps I misunderstood the original question (I misunderstand a lot of things, including prime time television). If the question is, "If the god of the Bible were to be proven true, would you worship it?" then I completely agree with GhoulSlime. Fuck, no. In fact, if the question is, "If there is anything greater than you, would you worship it?" then again, fuck no. Black holes are much more powerful than me. I do not worship them.

Er, what was the question again?

The Kenosha Kid