Survey: Who here is an atheist? Who here still believes in God?

by Christ Alone 295 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Chariklo

  The only thing is, Cofty, that by saying

  I accept the vanishingly small possibility of new evidence.

  you inherently and tacitly declare yourself agnostic while pronouncing and believing youraelf to be atheist.

  I mean, it's OK with me. No skin off my nose. You can call yourself what you want. But while you have that openness of mind, even just a crack, (and I'm glad you do, I never expected anything other of you) then it doesn't really matter what you call yourself, you're actually agnostic.

  But hey, a rose by any other name etc
• 

  Christ Alone

  LWT, I've wondered about this alot, and I hope you take it as the respectful question that I intend it to be. You said: "Virtually all atheists would change their position given evidence of a god or something we call synonymous with god"

  My question is, what would that evidence look like, short of God appearing in the sky?

  I used this analogy before and some got angry with me, but I mean it honestly. It is my belief that very little would convince an atheist. I assume, and yes this is just a personal thought, that most things that believers would consider "evidence" would be rejected as "proof" by atheists.

  I used for example this: Suspend disbelief, and imagine that something happened that some Christians have expected to happen, namly the rapture. I'm not saying it's a true doctrine. But imagine that millions of people suddenly vanished. That's all the proof you have. They vanished and Chrisitans have been saying that it is going to happen for thousands of years. I propose that most atheists would reject that as any sort of proof of God. There would be hundreds of theories about it. Aliens. Governmental technology. Whatever. I propose that even that would not be enough proof for the common atheist.

  My real question is what proof would be proof enough of God?

  I gave the other illustration, also thoroughly rejected, that the Bible says that even Jesus miracles were not proof enough for most people. Again, I know that the argument is that those miracles did not happen. But it seems to fit in my mind that IF they did, there would be PLENTY of people that would reject that as any sort of proof. According to the Bible, people did not think that these miracles PROVED that Jesus was the son of God.

  If you are tempted to say, "Ok if I saw a real miracle before my eyes, then I would believe", think of this. Everyone that did not actually SEE that miracle happen in front of them WOULD NOT BELIEVE YOU. They would say that there was some sort of scam behind it. They would say that you are a liar. They would say that you cannot trust your own perception.

  So again, what proof would be proof enough of God?
• 

  Heaven

  Atheist. Everything is Energy.
• 

  leavingwt

  Chariklo: Do you reject the term "agnostic atheist"? I've recently discovered that many believers and unbelievers reject this description.
• 

  elderelite

  See thats where i get confused with the definisions... In response to charlie but really anyone and everyone, its hard to distinqish between agnostic and athiest in this respect:

  If someone dosent believe in god but WOULD believe in god if there was evidance what does that make them?
• 

  cofty

  you're actually agnostic.

  No I'm really not.

  An agnostic reserves judgement because they think the answer can't be known.

  I don't reserve judgement - there is no god. The possibility of evidence proving otherwise is so remote as to be inconsequential.

  If it was a jury I would convict without a moment's hesitation. An agnostic would refuse to give a guilty verdict because they don't think there is or ever could be enough evidence.

  I think they are not paying attention.
• 

  elderelite

  Lol ok i see i wasnt alone in wondering....
• 

  leavingwt

  Christ Alone: It wouldn't take very much. The answer would (probably) be exactly as if I were to ask you, 'What would it take for you to believe in the FSM?'
• 

  Chariklo

  Chariklo: Do you reject the term "agnostic atheist"? I've recently discovered that many believers and unbelievers reject this description.

  Yes, I do...I don't reject it in a nasty sense but in a logical, linguistic, philosophical and grammatical sense. By definition, an agnostic leaves rom for the tiniest doubt and new evidence. An atheist doesn't. If they do, they're not atheist but agnostic.

  The thing is, on this forum, the atheists are unusually short-fused and touchy on this subject and they really, really like to be atheist, as if agnostic somehow made them less worthy. That's OK, with me, it's fine, they can call themselves what they want. But those who are reasonable and allow for a contrary view are actually agnostic. And, since you ask me for my view, leavingwt, that's it.

  No problem! Simples, as we're coming to say in Britain!
• 

  Chariklo

  ElderE, as I said the other day but you might have missed it in all the rumpus, I don't think you are atheist at all.

  You are an agnostic!