What would convince you that God doesn't exist?

abnoxio · Post by **abnoxio** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:26 pm

I'm interested what it would take for a Christian, Catholic, etc. to be convinced that God did not exist.
In other words what kind of proof would convince you. The discovery of Jesus's body? Alien invaders? that kind of thing.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:48 am

trencacloscas wrote:
Why choose almost illiterate Jews and Greeks for such an important message?

Diana Holberg wrote:
I will make an exception to my general rule in this case and quote Scripture, for this passage so directly addresses your question:

1 Cor 1:26-31
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

Exactly!!!! One of my favourite passages, indeed. The one that proves that this God of ignorance, this God of violence and lies, this God that hates the beauty of life is nothing else than an excuse to try and surpass the inferiority complex of the Greek Jews that actually wrote this nonsense. They were conscious about their limitations, they knew their absolute ignorance on things divine or terrenal and they actually could not compete with the wise and the enlightened pagans of their past and present era. What could they do then? Invent an excuse for their clumsiness, of course. God loves the poor of spirit... yeah, right!

Diana Holberg · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:38 am

trencacloscas wrote:Exactly!!!! One of my favourite passages, indeed. The one that proves that this God of ignorance, this God of violence and lies, this God that hates the beauty of life is nothing else than an excuse to try and surpass the inferiority complex of the Greek Jews that actually wrote this nonsense. They were conscious about their limitations, they knew their absolute ignorance on things divine or terrenal and they actually could not compete with the wise and the enlightened pagans of their past and present era. What could they do then? Invent an excuse for their clumsiness, of course. God loves the poor of spirit... yeah, right!

But you're intention is not to demean or insult, right?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:51 am

trencacloscas wrote:...the inferiority complex of the Greek Jews that actually wrote this nonsense. They were conscious about their limitations, they knew their absolute ignorance on things divine or terrenal and they actually could not compete with the wise and the enlightened pagans of their past and present era.

You raise an intersesing point...

Thre are parallels between the emergence of Christ and christianity and the Buddha and buddhism.

The 'establishment' in both cases controlled religion (and by default - political influence). Buddhism arose as a reaction to the contol of the Brahmin class. Christianity, as can be seen from Paul (1 Cor 1:26-31 ) and the aspects Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the meek etc.) appealed to the down-trodden and unempowered in society.

Because it championed the 'foolish things', the 'weak things' and the 'base things' it had immense appeal.

Perhaps that is still the case.

Diana Holberg · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:22 am

That argument can be made for the early Christian followers, but certainly not for those already in power who chose to follow Christianity. Nor brilliant scientists, doctors, educators.

But this discussion has vastly deteriorated. If the only evidence offered for non-existence of God is an attack on Him and His followers, I'd say this is more proof of His existence than the lack of it. No one bothers to insult those who are considered inconsequential.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:27 am

Diana Holberg wrote: But this discussion has vastly deteriorated. .

...they do that on purpose, hence the "waste of time" I alluded to earlier. But we all have to learn on our own.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:32 am

Diana Holberg wrote:That argument can be made for the early Christian followers, but certainly not for those already in power who chose to follow Christianity.

I don't agree - missionaries still target the downtrodden, albeit often bringing much needed short term help at a physical level. But even that is at the cost of local social upheaval.

.

Diana Holberg wrote: But this discussion has vastly deteriorated. If the only evidence offered for non-existence of God is an attack on Him and His followers, I'd say this is more proof of His existence than the lack of it. No one bothers to insult those who are considered inconsequential.

Actually the question, I beleive, was directed at believers asking what it would take to become 'unbelievers'.

The discussion to date is not proof of existence (or non existence) of the JCI god. It does show that believers will continue to believe despite (?because of?) what non believers see as the difficulties in rationalizing belief in such an entity.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:35 am

Sender wrote:
Diana Holberg wrote: But this discussion has vastly deteriorated. .
...they do that on purpose, hence the "waste of time" I alluded to earlier. But we all have to learn on our own.

I see you are still playing the man and not the ball.

Diana Holberg · Post by **Diana Holberg** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:58 am

bernee51 wrote:
Diana Holberg wrote:That argument can be made for the early Christian followers, but certainly not for those already in power who chose to follow Christianity.
I don't agree

You don't agree that there have been rulers, renowned scientists, doctors, educators with powerful Christian conversions? Would you like me to post links to their testimonies?

- missionaries still target the downtrodden, albeit often bringing much needed short term help at a physical level. But even that is at the cost of local social upheaval.

It is true that those of lesser education and lower means are more open to the message of the Gospel. Conversion of educated atheists rarely happens by means of missionaries -- but it still happens regularly. Do you deny this as well?

Actually the question, I beleive, was directed at believers asking what it would take to become 'unbelievers'.

To which I responded. My answer was accurate and has not changed.

The discussion to date is not proof of existence (or non existence) of the JCI god. It does show that believers will continue to believe despite (?because of?) what non believers see as the difficulties in rationalizing belief in such an entity.

Very well. If there is no evidence to be offered for His non-existence, it seems to me it is more justified to believe than not to believe -- since the evidence of His existence surrounds us.

If the faith of believers mystifies you to the point of desiring to understand, I suggest that you stop trying to rationalize. I'm sure you're aware that understanding is most easily obtained when the rational functions recede.

Sender · Post by **Sender** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:09 am

bernee51 wrote:
Sender wrote:
Diana Holberg wrote: But this discussion has vastly deteriorated. .
...they do that on purpose, hence the "waste of time" I alluded to earlier. But we all have to learn on our own.
I see you are still playing the man and not the ball.

Seeing how I am Banker by day, and a Sports Caster by night, I like the analogy. Good way to put it bernee.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:37 pm

But you're intention is not to demean or insult, right?

Sorry if you find my expression rude. English is not my native language and sometimes it's difficult to put things euphemistically.

If there is no evidence to be offered for His non-existence, it seems to me it is more justified to believe than not to believe -- since the evidence of His existence surrounds us.

Since there is no evidence whatsoever, you can choose to believe what you want, certainly. Absolutely nothing around us points towards a God. But you can choose otherwise. Logic tells us that we cannot affirm the negative, that's why this topic (though directed to believers) fails. But to affirm any existence to others, you have to prove it first. Maybe that's not important to you since you look so desperate to believe in this fable of the Christian God, but it is important for those who don't care about fables.

I suggest that you stop trying to rationalize. I'm sure you're aware that understanding is most easily obtained when the rational functions recede.

Never. Religion aims to make adults live like ignorant cattle all their lives, no questions, no thinking, so they can be easily controlled by the unscrupulous. Reason is our only hope to be Human, that is what make us different from the rest of the species of the planet so far.