What proof would a theist want, to stop believing?

[Bunyip]

According to you, yet despite this, the historical existence of Jesus is the majority consensus of the relevant historians and scholars who are qualified to comment about it. Are all these people just dogmatic Christians, or perhaps, just maybe, there is legitimate reason behind their opinion?

You are laboring under a very common misconception here.

Historians do not deal in proofs, but in explanations of the available evidence - inference to the best explanation.
What the consensus amoung many scholars is, is that the historicity of Jesus is THE BEST EXPLANATION of the available evidence - not that it has been proven, or otherwise established.

 

[Glaurung]

You are laboring under a very common misconception here.

Historians do not deal in proofs, but in explanations of the available evidence - inference to the best explanation.
What the consensus amoung many scholars is, is that the historicity of Jesus is THE BEST EXPLANATION of the available evidence - not that it has been proven, or otherwise established.

Neither does science in the strict sense. Scientific theories are just the best models we have to explain observable phenomenon, they are never proved.

So when the majority of those qualified assert Jesus did in all likelihood exist, layman rejection of this consensus can only be due to either ignorance or ideological commitment.

 

[Bunyip]

Neither does science in the strict sense. Scientific theories are just the best models we have to explain observable phenomenon, they are never proved.

Sure.

So when the majority of those qualified assert Jesus did in all likelihood exist, layman rejection of this consensus can only be due to either ignorance or ideological commitment.

That is not what the so called consensus claims. Not that Jesus did in all likelyhood exist, but that the historicity of Jesus is the inference to the best explanation.

I am not in fact rejecting that consensus at all - just pointing out that it is an inference to the best explanation - the historicity of Jesus has not been proven.
I made that point because you said that if the historicity of Jesus were disproven, you would abandon Christianity - hence I pointed out that the historicity of Jesus is not proven, and can be neither proven nor disproven.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The start, for me, was realizing that God wasn't going to make me a better person; that was up to me.

My deconversion was long and painful, so I do urge atheists to know when to stop. Instantly stripping away one's belief in everything they hold to be true can be very traumatic; and the end result could be far more dangerous than a theist who goes to church every Sunday and thinks they can magically speak in strange languages.

 

[Windwalker]

The validity of Christianity is entirely dependant on the events of the gospels. If there was no Christ then there is no Christianity.

Why? I thought the validity of Christianity was dependent upon the teachings of Jesus? Why would it matter if they were spun around tall tales, if the stories conveyed the message?

 

[chinu]

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

If you tell me who created the whole universe that I can see all around me.

 

[Windwalker]

The start, for me, was realizing that God wasn't going to make me a better person; that was up to me.

That's a good start. To believe God is going to magically make you grow up without you doing any work is an immature understanding of spirituality. I faced 'letting go of false belief' myself as well through various life crises.

My deconversion was long and painful, so I do urge atheists to know when to stop.

I agree. In divesting oneself of childish ideals we have to ultimately find a working balance. For me my atheism coming out of disillusion like this created the space to sort out the entangled mess of that old way of thinking to find what was more true to who I was today. Eventually that opened to the baby that was in that bathwater of various religious beliefs, where today what can be called God is approached as part of the continued growth into self-knowledge, not a sky-parent who's going to magically fix your world for you. I found the rational without the spiritual to be incomplete.

 

[sun rise]

Why? I thought the validity of Christianity was dependent upon the teachings of Jesus? Why would it matter if they were spun around tall tales, if the stories conveyed the message?

Who conveys the message matters. I could issue my own set of messages that say roughly the same thing. Who is going to follow me? No one.

So it's not really the message that matters but the nature of the one issuing the message that matters, at least to me.

 

[Glaurung]

Why? I thought the validity of Christianity was dependent upon the teachings of Jesus? Why would it matter if they were spun around tall tales, if the stories conveyed the message?

Christianity isn't just the social teachings of Jesus. Christianity is the claim that God incarnate lived a life as a man on Earth and allowed himself to be crucified as to provide the means in which we can escape what would otherwise be an inescapable reprobation to hell. The only direct testament we have for this are the gospels and if it turns out that what they claim simply did not happen then fluffy social teachings besides, what is there exactly to believe?

Christianity makes definite historical claims. Those claims are the gospels. There's no flexibility in this regard.

 

[Mycroft]

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.



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

Proof is irrelevant to a theist. The idea of whether God actually exists or not is, deep down inside, not important to them at all. They simply have a deep-seated need to believe in something.

 

[Quintessence]

Proof is irrelevant to a theist. The idea of whether God actually exists or not is, deep down inside, not important to them at all. They simply have a deep-seated need to believe in something.

It seems someone forgot to put the word "some" in there several times.

 

[Windwalker]

Who conveys the message matters. I could issue my own set of messages that say roughly the same thing. Who is going to follow me? No one.

I would if what you said spoke truth. You see, the problem is people do not know how to hear truth with the heart, and so they think finding some external authority with credentials means they can trust everything they hear and just go with that. That to me is completely contrary to what spiritual teaching is about, and in most regards it's fearful and lazy. Spiritual teaching, Wisdom teaching, is to get you to understand for yourself. If the words ring true, if they resonate with the soul, then they open you to truth.

You see, truth of the heart is not a static thing, but rather evolving understandings, and those cannot be written down and dictated by an external authority.

So it's not really the message that matters but the nature of the one issuing the message that matters, at least to me.

It's not the best way to discern truth. Many can wow an audience with their personalities, or even perform miracles. If that's what some relies on, they are open to fall, hard.

 

[sun rise]

I would if what you said spoke truth. You see, the problem is people do not know how to hear truth with the heart, and so they think finding some external authority with credentials means they can trust everything they hear and just go with that. That to me is completely contrary to what spiritual teaching is about, and in most regards it's fearful and lazy. Spiritual teaching, Wisdom teaching, is to get you to understand for yourself. If the words ring true, if they resonate with the soul, then they open you to truth.

You see, truth of the heart is not a static thing, but rather evolving understandings, and those cannot be written down and dictated by an external authority.
...

Your point and belief in God are not opposites.

Although to me many more modern Bibles has butchered this verse, the KJV says what I believe (Luke 17:21):

Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

(The butchery is replacing "within" to "in your midst" which are two separate and distinct ideas.

 

[Riverwolf]

Proof is irrelevant to a theist. The idea of whether God actually exists or not is, deep down inside, not important to them at all. They simply have a deep-seated need to believe in something.

Perhaps in some cases. Just as extroverts have a deep-seated need to interact regularly with people, and introverts have a deep-seated need to be alone on a regular basis.

What worries me is intellectual elitism, and the misconception that a human being can hold an "unbiased" view (IMO it's not actually possible for a human being to hold a wholly unbiased view), causing too many atheists to regard theists as intellectually inferior, in the same vein as the early Roman Catholic Church regarding Pagans like that.

 

[Windwalker]

Your point and belief in God are not opposites.

Although to me many more modern Bibles has butchered this verse, the KJV says what I believe (Luke 17:21): (The butchery is replacing "within" to "in your midst" which are two separate and distinct ideas.

I'm glad you see that, and of course I agree. There comes a point when it comes together, where it moves from trying to penetrate with the mind of reason, of asking questions like "What does God want us to do?", seeking some sort of external set of rules to follow in order to not make 'mistakes' or to 'sin', to where the question is more, "How do I allow truth to live within me?". The latter is a radical shift away from external conformity, to internal transformation.

If someone does not know, is not aware of that inner voice, they are cut off from truth, and no amount of conformity, "making clean the outside of the cup", effects true change on the inside. "Make clean the inside of the cup first," says Jesus. So yes, "within you" is absolutely correct. To add a verse from the Gospel of Thomas which underscores this quite deeply, Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you"

It really this simple, and that challenging for people to do. It truly requires letting go. It truly requires faith.

 

[George-ananda]

What proof would a theist want, to stop believing?

All I would require is evidence that it is more reasonable to believe all paranormal and spiritual experiences in the history of mankind are physical-plane only events.

My beliefs are evidence-first based and not faith based.

 

[PotrM]

Personally, I think Madhuri hit the nail on the head in that there isn't any piece of evidence you could realistically show to either camp to change their minds.

As I see it, everyone comes to their own conclusions regarding their belief based on
a) What they learnt as a child
b) Their adult experience and what they see around them

Sadly a) is weighted heavily (both ways), and as far as I can see that's the reason for most religious flame-wars. Too many people just stick blindly to what they learnt as children, because that is their comfort zone.

I'm Agnostic personally, but probably in the opposite direction to most. My parents were hardcore atheists, but so obnoxiously so that I had my doubts and have been looking into religion the past few years as an adult. I'd encourage anyone to do the same (not that I'm any kind of authority on the matter (at all!!!)!!!)... but to get back to topic, religious debate is not a rational matter.

 

[Bunyip]

Various studies on why people leave their Churches and become atheist have indicated that the best proof theists need to reject theism is to read the bible.

The most common response given by ex-Chrsitians as to why they lost their faith is that they read the bible.

Reading the bible proves that is does not come from a divinity.

 

[oldbadger]

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".)

Easy question.

You just need to tell me the reason for the existence of all....

I'm worrying for you.....

..... because you have no chance.... none at all..... of telling me the answer to my question.

But those who tell me the name 'God' as the 'reason for existence of all' do make more sense than you can...... because you have no answer at all.