what would it take to convert you to the other side

The second question was easy. When I was a theist of the fundamentalist Christian variety, I was more and more troubled by several things. Several stick out in my mind: one was that when I read the supposed prophecies foretelling the Messiah in the Old Testament in context, the ones mentioned by the New Testament writers, I found out that they were no such thing.The other is that the traditional "all people will burn in Hell for eternity unless they accept Jesus as their savior" made less and less sense.As I read the New Testament, I realized that the nationalist and conservative political and social agenda of my fellow fundamentalists could not be justified. It seemed odd that so many people who were supposed to be moved by the Holy Spirit were, in fact, fighting against the obvious messages in Jesus' teachings.The final straw is when I realized that the first two chapters of Genesis simply were not literal history; being part of a denomination that was very into Biblical literalism, and with the other doubts that were growing, I finally realized that I simply no longer believed in any of it, and, in particular, I did not believe that any god existed.-The first question is also interesting. What would convert me back to theism?At the very least, allowing me the same opportunity as Gideon in the Book of Judges to ask for very specific tests to make sure the voices in my head really are real.Short of that, all I can think of is something like the Calvinists' version of the Holy Spirit irresistibly bringing me to salvation.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

Persuading me that he did things like that would take more evidence than just the evidence that he exists. But assuming that he did - I fail to see the problem. How is it a problem? If he managed to persuade me that he created my senses and the means for me to gain knowledge I'd say "Good show, old chap."Where's the destruction of empiricism? You're going to have to explain what the problem is, iano.

well kind of the oposite thing happend near my summer house by the sea in croatia.most of the naighburs there are atheists or not perticulary devout only one was very devout he believed whitout question so one day a "pijavica" (like a tornado only smaller and very weak can only tare of roofs) came guess who's house is the only one that got hit we kinda joked about it later saying that god likes to beat the ones he loves.

Assuming he did... The destruction of empiricism lies in the fact that it would no longer be an independent-of-God means whereby Gods existance is demonstrated to you. You would no longer be relying on empiricism as a way to this knowledge, you would be relying on God as a way to this knowledge. Empiricism would become an irrelevant middleman. The problem is that the confidence you would have knowing God exists via empiricism would come from the same source as the confidence you would have knowing God exists by direct personal revelation. Namely God.Why would you prefer he demonstrate his existance empirically over direct revelation given that your confidence would come from precisely the same source in both cases?

So when I want to cross the street, I would just check my Bible and then cross without looking to see if there are any oncoming cars?Sorry, that does not make any sense. Why would God give us eyes if he didn't intend that we use them?I am quite puzzled as to what you think you are saying when you use the expression "destruction of empiricism."

And I am still wondering how you test 'direct personal revelation' other than by using empiricism?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes, that too.This idea of the destruction of empiricism looks seriously confused.

As near as I can figure out the idea is that IF you already believe that God controls everything directly then empiricism only leads you to the conclusions that God wants you to and therefore it becomes worthless.What Iano is missing is the fact that that because the "problem" only afflicts people who already believe in God (and in a particular view of God at that) then it does nothing to discredit empiricism a a way of leading people to belief in God.

If God exists, it never was. What difference does it make? The fact that I can use my eyes to look at my eyes doesn't mean I'm blind! But how would I know it was God? Empiricism is still essential since it is the method which God used to demonstrate he did it! But why is that a problem? Because in mere direct revelation - I have little reason to have any confidence, as previously explained. Remember - that direct revelation is actually empirical, and it is very unreliable.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hey, iano--did you get married? Are you respectable now? If God used empirical means to persuade me of his existence, I'd count that as a pretty hearty validation of empiricism, not a destruction of it.Empiricism isn't a cult, so the choices wouldn't be "God is dead" or "Empiricism is dead." My brain surgeon can persuade me of the need for an operation by empirical means--or he can simply slip me a mickey and proceed.I'd rather be persuaded than magicked. After I am persuaded, I might want the magick; but after I am magicked, what I wanted prior to that becomes irrelevant.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

simple.if faith ceased to exist.

Don't you mean --- if you ceased to have faith?If you lost your faith, then you wouldn't go on believing in your religion just because (for example) other people have faith that Allah wants them to crash planes into buildings, would you? It would not be necessary for their faith to cease to exist for you to lose your own personal faith, would it? Nor does the existence of their faith validate yours.If we amend your answer in consideration of this fact, then it becomes tautologous. You'd lose your faith if you lost your faith. Yes, we know that. The question is: what observations, if any, would cause you to lose your faith?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If he did so empirically then I could use that to convince other people, thus enlightening them too. If he did it by direct revelation, then not only would I have no means of convincing other people that it was true, I'd also have no way of convincing other people that I hadn't just completely gone off my head.And the same thing would be true of any other piece of information. Suppose (for example) I was the only person in the world to know of the existence of the duck-billed platypus, and I knew it only because God had told me so personally, without informing anyone else or vouchsafing me any evidence. How frustrating would that be? I would know that it was true, because God told me so. But I would have no means of demonstrating this truth to anyone else.This would annoy the heck out of me.

i wrote it like that for a reason.there is nothing that would casuse me to loose my faith.

so if allah came down from the sky and said you shalt not eat pork and you should go pray at the nearest masque or you will be dammed to hellyou would still be a christianor if a super advanced alien race landed on erth and they gave us the anwser to everything including the indisputible proof that there is no godor if Thor or any other so called god came to Erth demanding to be whorshiped you would still remain loyal to your faith