Atheists: what would it take?

[Heyo]

is there such a thing as unobservable evidence?

Not in science, but jurisprudence recognizes witness testimony as evidence.

 

[F1fan]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

I have self-confidence, I don't need an ideology to follow. A religion has nothing to offer.

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

You are suggesting religions AREN'T backed by evidence, so that's a bad admission.

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

Many non-believers already behave in a way that Jesus teaches. It is the many Christians who do not that is a better question.

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

I think there are too many problems with the whole Jesus-as-savior scenario that suggests an incompetent God, so it might be true, but still make the God look bad.

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Things can be acceted as true, and still not think they are good.

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

Religious ideas seldom make sense, and if they were likely true I don't think they offer any coherent truth for people to accept for personal meaning. Note that most people accept and adopt a religion for the sake of emotional security and social cohesion, not because it makes sense.

 

[Brian2]

Actually, there is nothing about the scientific method that requires a naturalistic methodology. All that is required is that ideas presented can be tested by some sort of observation that is available to everyone.

So, if the existence and properties of ghosts could actually be tested through observation, then the subject of ghosts would become a scientific question. It really doesn't matter whether they are 'physical' or not.

For that matter, it isn't very easy to define what the term 'physical' even means. As used by science, it typically means something whose properties can be tested by observation. So, in the above scenario, ghosts would be considered to be 'physical'.

So, there really is no reason that the scientific method couldn't be applied to questions of religion *if* those questions actually have a testable truth value.

Thanks for that.
It is interesting that if ghosts could be tested they would be seen as physical. That would the answers would be given with the naturalistic methodology in mind and so the answers would not include spirit unless spirit was redefined to be physical.

 

[Brian2]

Or you could go with the stronger evidence that life is a chemical process and that the term 'dead matter' is rather meaningless. So there is no reason that the chemical processes of life could not have arisen from other chemical processes.

That sounds like a redefining, as I was just saying in my previous post.
It sounds like science stepping over into the religious sphere by redefining life to be just testable, physical.
It is saying that the chemistry of the body is all that gives rise to life, and presumably science says that because it cannot test spirits but can only test and speak about chemistry and bodies.
But does not being able to find and test spirits mean that science has stronger evidence that life is chemical process?
The only evidence that science has is physical evidence but that does not mean that life is not spiritual in nature.

 

[Brian2]

Yeah, I agree to that. I am the result of interaction between my father and my mother. My children are the result of my interaction with my wife. That is how it goes.
The is no dead matter. Matter is always alive. Life began with organic compounds - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia.

I would say that the presumption is that life began with organic compounds and consists only of chemistry and physics. Science cannot test for the spiritual and works in the confines of the naturalistic methodology.
However, getting back to what you said about there being no dead matter and that matter is always alive, it makes me wonder therefore why you are an atheist and presumably do not think that Brahman is alive.

 

[Brian2]

I think a world exists external to me and my senses are capable of informing me about it. To exist in that world ─ nature ─ is to have objective existence.

No gods, no supernatural beings, are found there.

The only place they're known to exist, and the only manner in which they're known to exist, is as concepts or things imagined in individual brains. Thus they're not answerable to any objective standard of truth and thus there are at least as many gods as there are working brains that hold the concept of a god or of gods. And that's why, across human history and in the world at this moment there are countless thousands of gods.

That suggests to me that devising gods is something humans do, probably related to the brain's natural ability to instantly devise a narrative to explain things that are unexplained, like noises in the night, thunder and lightning, drought, famine and plague, good and bad luck, and so on. It's also readily observable that religion is part of tribal identity, along with language, customs, folk history, stories and heroes.
You can see from the remarks above that we're destined to disagree.

What you said sounds right but does not mean that God and a spiritual realm does not exist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. especially if we read what was offered.
Bet there is many people wishing that this law was implemented long ago.

What is new in this? Everyone knows the harmful effects of recreation drugs and all religions oppose the use of psychodelic drugs, except the Rastafaris. Bet there are many people who do not want law to interfere in their use of recreation drugs too. Abdul Baha was just singing an old popular song in his voice.

However, getting back to what you said about there being no dead matter and that matter is always alive, it makes me wonder therefore why you are an atheist and presumably do not think that Brahman is alive.

I do not believe in spirits. Your presumption is not correct. Brahman is eternal, always alive. And you won't understand it (I too do not understand it), but perhaps alive even when not existing.

 

[Brian2]

I do not believe in spirits. Your presumption is not correct. Brahman is eternal, always alive. And you won't understand it (I too do not understand it), but perhaps alive even when not existing.

It sounds more like pantheism.
But yes, alive even when not existing is hard to understand as you have put it, especially if Brahman cannot be spirit.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It sounds more like pantheism.
But yes, alive even when not existing is hard to understand as you have put it, especially if Brahman cannot be spirit.

Since there is no od involved, it is not panthyeism. Yeah, that is right. We are not in a position to understand the riddle of existence and non-existence at the moment. it is a question for future. And I do not make wild guesses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This one's for the Atheists:
What would it take for you to follow a religion?

Evidence.

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

I would accept it as true if it is verifiably so.
I don't know if I would follow it, or how I would follow it. It would depend on the religion and what it is exactly that is "verifiably true".

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

Depends on what this Jesus does and says.
Here, btw, you also seem to be saying that if that were to happen, all of the bible would be proven true by association. This is off course not the case.

Jesus might turn out very different form what the bible describes. It is the work of men, after all.

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

Rational evidence would give me cause to believe. But you must understand that there is a difference between "believing" and "following".

Suppose I would believe that there is a god and that it is an evil god.
I'ld accept that god's existence but I might not follow his religion thinking it is evil.
Or I might just pretend to follow out of self preservation.

This is why I said that whether or not I would follow it, would depend on the religion in question and what it actually says.

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

The irony here is that if there were rational evidence, the claims would no longer be "religious".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

]
The thought of Jesus being able to effectively convince me that he is a being worth worshipping though...honestly, I'm not sure how that would work.

Ironically, if Jesus were verifiably real and also who christians claim he is... then being the all-knowing entity he is supposed to be, he would know exactly what to do and say to convince you.

 

[Five Solas]

How would a god convince a human that it actually knew everything?

Hi,

All Christians are born again -
Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God (1Pet1)

That is a supernatural act of God. If 'convincing' needs to be done it happens at that point because after that you believe.

It is not a choice and has nothing to do with human cleverness

 

[Five Solas]

Religious ideas seldom make sense

That statement is true for those who do not believe in God.

The Bible says "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1Cor1:18)

and if they were likely true I don't think they offer any coherent truth for people to accept for personal meaning.

Jesus did not come to bring meaning but rather to die on the cross.
However, once you believe you discover the true meaning of life.

Note that most people accept and adopt a religion for the sake of emotional security and social cohesion, not because it makes sense.

That is most probably true. But that does not make them Christians.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's true that inflation is hypothetical.

I don't think so. Inflation has evidence, singularity is not known, Big Bang is hypothetical. Being an atheist, I am open to correction.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for that.
It is interesting that if ghosts could be tested they would be seen as physical. That would the answers would be given with the naturalistic methodology in mind and so the answers would not include spirit unless spirit was redefined to be physical.

If 'spirit' had detectable and regular properties that can be modeled, then it could be studied by science. The label 'physical' is rather irrelevant.

Remember that light is physical. Electromagnetism is physical. Neutrinos are physical.

If you can take a picture of a ghost, that means it interacts with light, which would make it physical. If that ghost can make sounds, then it causes waves in the air and so is physical.

That would not necessarily mean that spirit would have the same properties as ordinary matter. it just means it could be studied by science and would be labeled as physical.

 

[blü 2]

I don't think so. Inflation has evidence, singularity is not known, Big Bang is hypothetical. Being an atheist, I am open to correction.

Like the Big Bang itself, it's hypothetical, and in both cases the justification is that they're derived from the evidence presently available and they work well in explaining how the universe got from its start to its present state.

For instance, the existence of what we now call cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted in the 1940s, but actually discovered by accident by radioastronomers Penzias and Wilson in the early 60s. When, as in that case, the prediction and the fact agree well about the wavelength, one's faith in the hypothesis goes up. of course. It works ─ at least to that extent ─ but that's never the end of the story.

Working well ─ as with the Big Bang and as with inflation and so on ─ is always the ultimate justification for a theory in physics, but none of our scientific conclusions is absolute, none is ever protected against unknown unknowns, things we might find tomorrow or never find. In case like this, where reconstruction from inference from evidence is the only way forward, we seek the perfect retrofit , But we're always bound by what we presently know.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus did not come to bring meaning but rather to die on the cross.

I've never understood WHY it was necessary for an omnipotent God to set up a human sacrifice to [him]self before [he]'d alter the rules about sin.

Why didn't [he] just snap those omnipotent fingers and then go and have a scotch on the terrace?

 

[Polymath257]

That sounds like a redefining, as I was just saying in my previous post.
It sounds like science stepping over into the religious sphere by redefining life to be just testable, physical.

No, that is not the assumption. That is the discovery. All processes of life that we have seen can be described via chemistry.

It is saying that the chemistry of the body is all that gives rise to life, and presumably science says that because it cannot test spirits but can only test and speak about chemistry and bodies.

Nope. Not the reason. For example, in the 19th century, there was a concept that life had an 'vital force' that was in addition to the chemistry and physics. Over time, it was found that chemistry always played the role of that vital force.

But this also shows that *if* something along that line can be detected, then science would be OK in investigating it.

But does not being able to find and test spirits mean that science has stronger evidence that life is chemical process?

No, actually explaining the processes of life by chemistry is the strong evidence that life is chemical in nature. Take a good look at a biochemistry book sometime.

The only evidence that science has is physical evidence but that does not mean that life is not spiritual in nature.

But it is physical only by definition: if spirits and ghosts could be detected, then they could be studied by science.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, I agree to that. I am the result of interaction between my father and my mother. My children are the result of my interaction with my wife. That is how it goes.
The is no dead matter. Matter is always alive. Life began with organic compounds - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia.

I would go the opposite way. NONE of the atoms or molecules in your body are alive. A carbon atom in your body is identical to a carbon atom in coal. it is not alive.

The *organization* of the different atoms and molecules in your body is what makes it alive. The way those atoms and molecules capture and redirect energy, the motion produced by that, the senses gathering information, THAT is what makes the organization alive.

 

[Polymath257]

Not in science, but jurisprudence recognizes witness testimony as evidence.

But, of course, those eyewitnesses have to actually observe something to be able to report it.