what would it take to convert you to the other side

Well actually it still isn't possible, because most computers don't ship with the Behead-O-Matic 666 attachment as standard hardware. Y'see, this kind of plays into the thesis that religion is a really bad idea.I may have my worries and my problems, but one thing I don't have to worry about is someone decapitating me for not worshiping the Internet. This is one of the minor benefits of atheism.

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'm no sure what the difference is between "evidence" and "empirical evidence".If there is "enough evidence to show that God exists and he indeed created the universe and everything, and that he is the Judeo-Christian God", then in what way could that sufficient evidence to show these things not be "empirical evidence"?Me, I think that when people say "empirical evidence" they're just indulging in rhetorical overkill, the same way as when creationists talk about "random chance".There's another kind?

If in the first mention of "God" you meant the Christian God, then sure, yes. No, just that they should stop fucking things up for everyone else on the basis of nothing whatsoever.