What proof would a theist want, to stop believing?

[icehorse]

In a related forum a theist asked what proof non-theists would need to change their minds...

Let's volley that question back to the theists...

What proof would you need to stop believing in your God or any God?

(For example I've heard the response "Well if they found Jesus' bones in that cave after all".)

 

[Quintessence]

It's a nonsensical question to me, so I'm going to translate this into a form that will apply to my perspectives: what would give you cause to cease regarding your current gods as worthy of worship?

The answer to that is pretty simple: a change in values, probably brought on by life experiences.

 

[Parsimony]

I have thought about this question at length.

I concluded that there were several things that I would need to find (or would at least like to have) in order to reasonably lose my identity as a Christian:

(1) Either a material/psychological explanation for all aspects of possessions/poltergeists or evidence that the methods and rituals used by other religions were equally effective in exorcisms or removing evil spirits from haunted locations. I realize that many possessions/hauntings can probably be explained psychologically, but in the cases where supernatural activity is reported (telekinesis, levitation, hidden knowledge), I'd need a more thorough explanation. I have found several reports that fit my requirements here already, but I'm not sure just how many of them it would take before I considered the amount of evidence to be on par with Christian exorcisms.

(2) Like requirement 1, except in regards to miracles and/or prophecy instead of spirit activity.

(3) Increased knowledge of the reported Canaanite origins of the Abrahamic God. I'd need to know how compelling the evidence is for this. Admittedly, I have very little understanding of it.

(4) A time machine or chronoscope that would allow me to investigate the historicity of the Bible first-hand (ain't gonna happen, but it would be nice...).

Take note that I would not consider the meeting of these requirements to be proof of the absence of a god. A deist interpretation could still work. Nonetheless, I consider the viewpoint of deism, agnosticism and atheism to be nearly the same in a practical sense when it comes to how one conducts their life. I think I'd just be an agnostic until further evidence showed up.

 

[Madhuri]

I think it would come down to an individual level. First you have to ask, why d o they believe? If you take away the reason for that belief then it will go away. It isn't a matter of finding some proof.

 

[Sir Doom]

In a related forum a theist asked what proof non-theists would need to change their minds...

Let's volley that question back to the theists...

What proof would you need to stop believing in your God or any God?

(For example I've heard the response "Well if they found Jesus' bones in that cave after all".)

Very simply, we (humans) would have to encounter our creator. And that creator would have to say, "I'm not God and there's no such thing."

That would do it for me.

 

[Riverwolf]

My situation isn't really the same; many atheists want to believe in God/Gods, and would happily do so, but for the complete lack of any verifiable evidence.

I, on the other hand, want to believe in spite of the lack of any verifiable evidence, but have no reason to disbelieve, and so I do, albeit agnostically. Furthermore, my mind is just naturally geared towards polytheistic tendencies.

So, to be honest, I don't really know.

Very simply, we (humans) would have to encounter our creator. And that creator would have to say, "I'm not God and there's no such thing."

That would do it for me.

Well, Odin outright declaring "We're not Gods." in that recent Thor movie didn't do it for me.

 

[sun rise]

In a related forum a theist asked what proof non-theists would need to change their minds...

Let's volley that question back to the theists...

What proof would you need to stop believing in your God or any God?

(For example I've heard the response "Well if they found Jesus' bones in that cave after all".)

Proof is a intellectual idea. My answer is a quote I really love from the movie "They Might Be Giants": "The human heart can see what's hidden to the eyes, and the heart knows things that the mind does not begin to understand."

 

[Sir Doom]

Well, Odin outright declaring "We're not Gods." in that recent Thor movie didn't do it for me.

That wasn't Odin, that was Anthony Hopkins. God of stage and screen.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I highly doubt there is a reason you could give me to disbelieve. Humans are highly ignorant and even our most advanced science is lacking and only leads to more questions.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

To stop believing in God, it wouldn't require proof of its nonexistence (if he didn't, reality wouldn't exist ) But instead, I'd need to a reason to stop relating abstract things to connections of reality.

 

[Riverwolf]

That wasn't Odin, that was Anthony Hopkins. God of stage and screen.

No, that was Odin. Whenever "action" was shouted, Anthony Hopkins became Odin for a minute. Maybe not the exact same Woden that I give homage to, but, well... I've been referencing the episode of Krishna splitting himself into a thousand individuals quite a bit recently.

For duration of telling, I regard a story as very much real... unless it inadvertently jars me out of the experience by reminding me that it is a story.

 

[Quadrivium]

God is actually quite disprovable and the old notion that its not so, is outdated. However the proof is in the form of information, and unfortunately not every mind is equipped to comprehend what information actually is. But in doing so any sense of creationist god existing outside of logical reality is irrational. But faith of course has nothing to do with rationale, so good luck to anyone fighting that battle. (me?)

Trifold synthesis is actually the origin of everything, it's no longer a mystery. The closest to a god that could be actual would be a transdimendsional alien programmer or program of some sort. This entity would still be originated of the same conception that we all are of and come from some other branching evolution of information, and would only be superior in the sense that my brain is superior to my eye. Nonetheless it ain't no omnipotent god. And this is provable. Its actually interpreted in Christianities core ironically enough. Technically it's expressed in everything but to understand requires some pretty deep thinking.

I assume some people want to challenge this notion? I welcome any to do so. Of course I doubt anyone here knows what I'm talking about...

 

[Banjankri]

What proof would you need to stop believing in your God or any God?

I assume, because I am not a believer myself, that experiencing "true self" is the only way to do it, but even this does not guarantee that those beliefs will be dropped.

 

[icehorse]

Let me refine the OP a bit...

I was hoping to hear a bit about how believers might reflect on their own belief systems, the relationship they have with logic and evidence and how - for example - evidence in the world might cause them to rethink their belief.

 

[Estro Felino]

Let's volley that question back to the theists...

What proof would you need to stop believing in your God or any God?

Well...I am a rational theist and have a very anthropocentric vision on the relationship between God and man. Deriving from free will. So, given that I believe in man's total autonomy from God, I wouldn't even care what proves could debunk God's existence.

I certainly believe that it is a little bit "disrespectful", when Believers try to convince Atheists to believe in God, because Atheists are reasoning people and if they convinced themselves that God doesn't exist, they must be respected.

In the same way, Atheists must respect Believers, given that lots of Believers (like me) believe in God not because they trust the Bible, but because they evidently feel something that other people don't

 

[Quadrivium]

In the same way, Atheists must respect Believers, given that lots of Believers (like me) believe in God not because they trust the Bible, but because they evidently feel something that other people don't

This is fine up to a certain degree. The truth that is reason for us existing can be categorized as god and praised as such, that's cool. But if the truth is that this "god" is of something other than a mans belief, then this man is incorrect, and his shared beliefs may be potentially dangerous for populations that wish to maintain an accurate identity of truth should they consider false beliefs over truth.

It's more dangerous to have false beliefs than it is to have no beliefs. And the notion of a creationist god whos' essence is beyond the realm of everything else is very provably false.

 

[Quintessence]

Let me refine the OP a bit...

I was hoping to hear a bit about how believers might reflect on their own belief systems, the relationship they have with logic and evidence and how - for example - evidence in the world might cause them to rethink their belief.

In the sense that both logic and evidence are life experiences and values, this reframing doesn't change my earlier response much, if at all. I'd like to emphasize that my theology really isn't a matter of belief in the first place (and instead of reposting something I said very recently in another thread, just go look here). It's a matter of experiences and values that inform practice. What I actively worship is driven by what I value, and how I understand the gods is driven by experience, including logic and evidence.

 

[Sir Doom]

No, that was Odin. Whenever "action" was shouted, Anthony Hopkins became Odin for a minute. Maybe not the exact same Woden that I give homage to, but, well... I've been referencing the episode of Krishna splitting himself into a thousand individuals quite a bit recently.

For duration of telling, I regard a story as very much real... unless it inadvertently jars me out of the experience by reminding me that it is a story.

Interestingly enough, in the actual Marvel Universe (not the Hollywood version) Odin and his fellow Asgardians are actually gods along with many other ancient pantheons. The leaders of these (along with Odin) actually consider themselves something of a brotherhood. The weird thing is that being a god isn't all its cracked up to be in the Marvel Universe as there also happens to be a whole array of cosmic entities that make them all seem like little ants by comparison. On top of all of that, is a being named The Living Tribunal who embodies justice, makes all of those other entities seem like children, and has stated that its power comes from 'on high'. Which means behind all of it is a divine power.

 

[Sir Doom]

This is fine up to a certain degree.

Yes, and that degree is whatever degree of respect you have for other people in general.

The truth that is reason for us existing can be categorized as god and praised as such, that's cool.

Lots of things are 'cool'. Me, for example. A few of the rest of you, as well. The following notion, however...

But if the truth is that this "god" is of something other than a mans belief, then this man is incorrect,

Wouldn't make much sense to believe in something if you didn't think it went beyond that belief. That's not what 'believing' means. When you believe something, you think its true. Do you see how that works? Otherwise... you don't believe it. See how that works, too? For example, you seem to think there is this magical force called 'truth' and that you know it. You actually believe this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and because you believe it you have even acted as though its true (written this post).

and his shared beliefs may be potentially dangerous for populations that wish to maintain an accurate identity of truth should they consider false beliefs over truth.

Do you mean like the blatantly prejudicial notion that belief in God is dangerous? Is that the sort of dangerous false belief you are talking about?

It's more dangerous to have false beliefs than it is to have no beliefs.

Please present an example of a false belief that is dangerous and an example of no belief that is dangerous so that we can compare and determine if you are correct.

And the notion of a creationist god whos' essence is beyond the realm of everything else is very provably false.

Then please do so. Prove that notion false. This should be rather entertaining.

 

[sun rise]

Let me refine the OP a bit...

I was hoping to hear a bit about how believers might reflect on their own belief systems, the relationship they have with logic and evidence and how - for example - evidence in the world might cause them to rethink their belief.

At one point during my spiritual search, I considered that for God to be just and loving, karma or if you prefer "As ye sow, so shall ye reap" must be part of God's universe. Since we have many examples of that not being true in a particular lifetime, then the balancing must occur at some later date.

That balancing does not need to be negative. If I'm kind and loving to someone who does not reciprocate it in this lifetime, then the balance would be to receive kindness at some later date. This led me to accept reincarnation because that balancing could exactly occur in new bodies.

There is no worldly evidence that would cause me to rethink this belief. This is because the existence of the immaterial soul or atman is not a property of the material world.

I do try to separate my beliefs from the domain of science because science is the lens through which we learn about the material world. If I fail to do so, then of course a finding of science could disprove a particular fact which I hold. But that would not impact my basic belief.