I have just three questions for Atheists that I would be genuinely grateful to have answered honestly. Rather than speculate what the answers may be, I’d like to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. I am sure you have had at least one asked of you previously, so you may already have an idea how you will answer. I’d like you to really give your answers some thought and truly think about why your answers are what they are.
-
What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?
-
What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?
-
Why would your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?
I plan to use and analyze your answers–from those who respond for a future post. If you don’t mind please be as thorough as you can. Please note, question 3 is important for me to have answered. The questions are for Atheists only and no theist/Christian responses or speculation as to what Atheists believe about this subject will be published here.
UPDATE: Through trial and error here, I am discovering that I have not been clear, so I will do my best to clarify. The answers for questions 1 and 2 should be different, since theism is a general belief in a deity and Christianity is a specific belief in a specific God, so 2 I would expect to have a more “specialized” criteria/event which would need to occur in order generate a belief in Christianity as an extension of theism. So if it is an empirically verifiable event or state of affairs which is required to sway you, provide an example(s) of the event(s) or state(s) of affairs.
If for example you have certain criteria: coherence, verifiable evidence, etc. please provide an example of something which would fulfill all your criteria.
Also, the answer to number 3 should be a personal answer given the nature of 1 and 2. For example, if what you’d need to believe theism is true is that we find printed on a strand of DNA the words “made by God”, why is that particular thing compelling for you?
I know it may appear as though I am trying to narrow only certain types of answers, but I am trying to get as specific as possible. I’m not trying to tell you what and how to come to belief, if that is the impression, let me apologize now.
Sifting Reality 
“What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?”
Good empirical evidence. And nowadays, with video recording technology and mass communication, that wouldn’t be that hard to provide to the world at large, let alone me personally.
From our good friends at wikipedia (who are not perfect, but are pretty good when it comes to definitions): “The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments. Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.” [This was a subsequent clarification by NotaScientist at my request and has been added to this comment which did not originally contain the italicized portion: John Barron]
Now, if you’re just asking about me personally, then some sort of personal experience that I couldn’t pass off as a mental problem of some kind would probably be good enough. I wouldn’t be able to use it to convince anyone else, but a personal experience would be good enough for me.
“What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?”
The same as my answer to to question one, except it would have to be evidence specific to some form of Christianity.
“Why would your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?”
Because I base my opinion about the factual truth of things based on empirical evidence. I don’t use faith or emotion or anything else to determine truth. And nothing gets a free pass when it comes to that.
For either general theism or Christianity: I’d need a clear definition of God, or what constitutes a deity, first. Then I would need substantive evidence not just that that deity was conceivable, but that it actually existed. As NotAScientist said, that evidence should be “empirical,” meaning that it is based on actual, repeatable observations and experiences. (We know that people have personally experienced what they call “gods” talking to them, and those gods have been very different and had many widely varying and mutually exclusive messages, so this form of experience is not reliable. If people could communicate directly with God, repeatedly, and get the same answers under controlled conditions, that would be much more compelling.)
I don’t think I’d need to experience this evidence first-hand. I wouldn’t need to personally discover it or personally run the tests, etc. But if I saw it reported through multiple media sources from relatively unbiased journalists in a critical fashion (critical as in “critical thinking,” analytical) … or in general if some authority figure whose expertise I trust because I’ve received other reliable information from them in the past, or because I don’t see a plausible reason for them to fabricate this data or have been misled about it … I would believe it, in the sense that I would assume it the most likely situation to be true.
Basically, you can think of this as similar to whatever sort of evidence would convince you that mermaids exist. Hearsay and ancient drawings and stories are insufficient. If an aquarium caught and displayed a mermaid, or a museum recovered a mermaid fossil or skeleton, or nature documentary filmmakers filmed a pod of mermaids swimming in the ocean and hunting for food — and previously-uninvolved biology and/or archaeology experts examined what was found and certified it genuine (not a person wearing a fish suit and hooked up to advanced breathing apparatus, or a cleverly made ceramic fossil imitation) — then it would be reasonable to believe.
If you can what are some examples of empirical evidence which you would find compelling, and why?
Since I respect you John, and since you have made it clear that this will not turn into a strawman tossing contest, I’ll answer your questions.
I am glad that someone is asking this question, and not answering it for themselves.
1. I’m not going to be as rigid as NotAScientist and NFQ. Although empirical evidence would be ideal, I don’t think in this particular case it is always reasonable. I also have to admit that there are many things that I believe on some level of evidence that is shy of empirical. In fact most things I believe meet this criteria in some sense. I have not, for example, seen the molecules in the atmosphere that scatter blue light and make the sky appear blue, but I safely assert that this is precisely why the sky is blue. I do this because the scientific basis for that fact makes other useful predictions that I can test against reality.
So my ability to accept any form of theism would be dependent on that belief meeting some basic criteria:
a) the belief cannot contradict any facts that I am aware of-and I guess, philosophically, that I’m not aware of as well.(It is consistent)
b) the belief should have some sense of necessity. (It has context)
c) the belief must offer some predictive advantage over alternate hypotheses (It is convenient)
d) It appeals to facts instead of unknowns (It is credible)
If an epistemology can meet these criteria, then it is worth holding, regardless of empirical (in the scientific sense) verification.
So if it could be shown to me that theism met those criteria, I would have to admit that it was the most plausible epistemology.
2. For Christianity Proper to be true, it would have to meet the same criteria I outlined above. Given those criteria, I must assume that any other faith would be eliminated by the mere act of a Christian heuristic confirming those criteria, though I could be mistaken on that. That question depends on how large a scope we allow to be defined as “Christianity”
3. These criteria would be sufficient to convince me of any strongly held belief, and is the minimum basic standard I hold for every belief that I consider a gnostic one.
If you do not mind, John, I’d like to post these questions and my answers to my own blog, I think this conversation is both worthwhile and interesting…..
I am looking for more specificity as to what it would take. If you could provide an example of an event or something which you would find compelling. Of course we all to one degree or another require a coherence or degree of logical soundness. I’m trying not to restrict the answers, but I also don’t want vague references to epistimological criteria, if yo uknow what I mean.
Also the answer to #2 should be different than the answer to #1, they are two different questions. For example if it would require a vision of a grey-haired giant saying “I am God and I exist”, that same event doesn’t necessarily lead to Christianity. So specifically what would lead you to theism, generally? And what would lead you to Christianity specifically?
And I would like some fleshing out in regards to #3. For example, say again if it was a grey-haired giant who appeared, why would that event convince you?
I know it probably sounds like I’m nitpicking and trying to steer your answers, I’m just really looking to get as specific as possible.
John,
The simple answer is we can’t name specific criteria because we don’t have specific criteria. We aren’t looking for specific gods. If I’m right, what most of us have in common is that we’ll follow where the evidence leads.
It feels like you’re asking us something akin to ‘what god don’t you believe in’? Well, I could spend hours and hours giving you example after example of the different gods I don’t believe in. But that wouldn’t be terribly helpful.
For myself, all I can say is whatever event or circumstance that convinced me would have to be backed up by solid evidence. And it wouldn’t particularly matter what that event was as long as the evidence was there to support it.
No, I understand you believe no gods exist. I am trying to discover what it would take for you personally, not atheists in general, to change your belief that no gods exist, to a god or gods do in fact exist…for real. What specifically would it take for that change in belief to occur. Same with Christianity. What would it take you, NotAScientist to become a Christian? I am not asking you to argue for theism or Christianity or defend your new hypothetical belief, or defend your current belief that theism and Christianity are false. I am asking about what specifically it would take to move you from your current belief, and why you would find whatever that reason or event is that is sufficient for you, compelling.
John, what does Christianity entail? Does it mean believing that an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator god exists, who sent an aspect of himself to Earth in the form of his son (Jesus)? Belief in original sin? Belief that Jesus was resurrected? Belief in the power of prayer? What are the things that a person needs to believe in order to be a Christian — and I will tell you what it would take to get me to believe those things are true.
It’s very hard for me to discuss what it would take to get me to believe in “some god,” because I don’t know what that means. If you can define any properties of what it takes to count as a god, I might be able to discuss what I would require to believe that there are things that have that property.
Feel free to use your definition of Christianity above, it is not very different from what I would offer as a definition of what Christianity entails. I am not trying to guide this process. I’m not trying to pin some “false” definition of “some god” is then say to you “ah ha!” This is an exorcise in you, your mind set, and your thresh hold for for being convinced away from your current position.
I am not and will not ask you to defend the reasons for your hypothetical conversion either. This is truly not a “gotcha”.
John Barron Jr, a wery good set of questions.
1. A contact to all humanity in a mutually agreeable manner. I mean so that it could not be explained as anything else. If it were a god that contacted us, it should have means to achieve this absolute. For an example, if a hint of doubt remained, the possibility of the contact being from a nother more advanced civilization from a nother planet trying to controll us by primitive human supertitions it would not lead me to believe it is god contacting us (Superman would have been a god to any ancient culture, even jews of antiquity). You see, aliens contacting us (how ever remote possibility that is) is more plausible to me, then the thought any gods actually exist.
2. There really is no such event percievable. Unless the wery foundaments of christianity changed and/or the history of christendom + we had a contact as mentioned abowe wich included something undisputably proving the contact is from the god christians exclusively worsihp. For your comfort, this applies to other religions as well. Religions are part of natural cultural evolution. They remind us of the societies they were born in and the values that were important to people living under those conditions. They explain the world and universe from the point of view of people who created them, this if anything tells us they are creations of humans. They have evolved through time, but basicly they retain the obvious wisfull thinking humans are prone to. They are used as base value sets, but also as excuses for atrocities.
3. I think the answers abowe are self explicatory. Gods are one thing and religions are a nother. A thought of a god or gods is more plausible than that a religion run by humans holds truth about such an entity, but since gods explained in religions are obvious creations of human psyche, that does not support the basic idea of gods to be true at all. Religious systems eat away the narrow plausibility of gods, because they tell us how the whole concept has been created in the first place. To be exact, I for one, do not believe gods do not exist. I simply do not believe they do. There is a difference, you see.
These are abstract questions and so they require rather long abstract answers and as you have previously noted my answers tend be too long, but I hope you find this adequate enough for now.
I don’t expect that this is a “gotcha.” My questions are honest, too — I can’t answer a question I don’t understand.
Many of the things I suggested as part of what it means to be a Christian are things that not all of my Christian friends agree on. There are a number of other theological disputes between various Christian denominations that I didn’t mention. It’s so hard to figure out what “Christian” really means, even if you start from the Bible as truth — and that’s actually part of why I don’t think that there would be any evidence that would convince me to be a “Christian” in that (biblical) sense. The teachings in the Bible as I understand them are deeply logically incoherent. I can’t “believe” contradictory things (once I notice that they are mutually exclusive) … so without any coherent set of beliefs that are obviously “Christianity,” it’s very hard for me to imagine what it would take to convince me that Christianity is true.
Archaeological and historical evidence showing that Jesus really existed would help me believe that Jesus was a real historical figure. If the shroud of Turin were not a fraud … if Josephus mentioned Jesus in more than a short paragraph or two, if those paragraphs were not so likely altered over the centuries, if there were other reliable written records from the time that told the same stories … and so on. None of this, of course, establishes Jesus as the son of God.
In order for someone to be the son of God, God has to exist. So what or who is God? Please apply what I wrote earlier about repeatable observations of a god-like entity (speaking to the god under controlled conditions and getting the same answers, testing the effectiveness of prayer, etc.) … I think this is the best answer I can give. Whatever the properties of God are supposed to be, someone (or lots of people) would have to observe them and record them in a reliable and objective way. To the extent that the Christian god’s nature is internally contradictory, I don’t see how this would be possible — but I do admit the possibility that something worth calling a god could be self-consistent.
So let’s suppose we have real historical evidence that Jesus actually existed, and was unique in some way from the zillions of other schmucks who were claiming to fulfill Jewish prophecies and be the Messiah at the time. And let’s suppose we have some empirical evidence that a god exists. Are Jesus and God related, part of the same entity and yet also different? The trinity still makes no logical sense to me, so I don’t know how you could prove that that were true. But you could demonstrate from the historical records of Jesus’ teachings and by communicating with God that they had the same teachings about the way the world works.
This is really messy, but I hope it’s at least the start of an answer to what you are looking for. If you have further questions I’m happy to try to answer those too.
By no means am I trying to direct your answer, but since you are having trouble pinning down a definition of “Christianity” use the guidelines I lay out in “Essentials of Christianity” Parts 1 and 2. There I lay out the beliefs the Bible using “necessary belief” language asserts one must believe in order to legitimately claim the name of Christian. Other beliefs aside from the ones I have found are debateable issues (unless I missed something).
So just so I’m clear, it sounds like you are saying you would come to a belief a god exists based on other people’s experiences and reported interactions. If that is what you are saying thats ok, I just want to be clear. What I am trying to get at, is what experience or whatever would you, NFQ, need in order to believe a god exists; and what experience or whatever would you NFQ need in order to believe Christianity was true? It sounds like you are saying that if you were to come to a belief that a god exists, that it would take you being able to understand Christian doctrines such as the trinity for example, which you presently find incoherent.
But by all means, if you would be satisfied with other people you consider reliable having the experiences and test results confirmed to believe a god exists, thats fine. I’m just trying to find out what it would take and be clear. I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Also, I understand it probably seems like I’m making it difficult, I’m really not trying to.
Yes, this is correct. I said in my first comment:
I haven’t personally observed the double helix of a DNA molecule. One time I was at a science fair type event and there was a station where you could get a little vial of DNA (from a frog or something) — they had a centrifuge and talked about how DNA is extracted for testing — but it just looked like a little white clump in some clear liquid. They might have been lying to me. But DNA testing has shown itself to be useful in other ways, the science that was used to learn about DNA in the first place has produced many other repeatable results, and I don’t see any ulterior motive that would lead them to lie about this.
My standard for what makes someone a reliable source is probably more stringent than that of most religious people. (“Paul said so in the Epistles” is insufficient, for example. Just like if Watson and Crick had just said, “Hey guys, we found this helical molecule, and it’s really awesome — just believe us” and that was the end of it.) But if, when we talk about a god, we are talking about some being with extremely superior knowledge and abilities to our own — I would be able to believe that such an entity exists based on what other people observed about it.
John,
My answers above are pretty specific. If I were to make them any more specific, then I would need to discount an infinite number of possible proofs in favor of only one. There are an infinite amount of things that would make me believe in God, and a similarly large number of things that would lead me to Christianity.
None of those things have been shown to me, but if you would like an example of what would possibly be the absolute least event that might make me believe in a God, it would be a miracle. I would have to witness it myself, and you can bet I would be skeptical at first. Yet if no other explanation could reasonably account for this miracle, then I would be impelled to believe in God.
I might even accept a miracle from someone very close to me, whom I trusted explicitly, but the threshold in that circumstance would be higher.
I agree that the evidence would be different for Christianity then it would be for theism proper, but the evidence should be equal-and that is what I was saying. If the miracle I mentioned above was plainly the result of God, then that miracle would need to be plainly the result of Jesus if Christianity were true. That was what I meant when I said that I required the same level of evidence.
I would agree with NFQ that some supporting evidence for the biblical account of Jesus would be helpful, and that coupled with proof of God in general might lead me to believe in Christianity as well.
Every single belief I hold gnostically must pass through my 4 C’s- and what I have told you in these comments would still depend on that threshold. I’m just trying to play along and be more specific for you.
Is any of that helpful?
I gave the specific example of a personal miracle. More specific?
Let’s say that I am on an airplane, cruising at 30,000 ft., and an engine cuts out and the plane goes into a tailspin. The plane crashes and contrary to every law of physics and biology I am aware of, everyone survives.
That would seem to be awfully incredible. If I spent some time looking into the crash and there is no reasonable explanation that can explain how that happened, then I would be a believer. Again, in this case God is necessary to not contradict facts, so this satisfies (a) and (b), and this intervention would be more predictive than assuming this is a regular occurrence (c), and I have based my opinion on facts (d) by investigating the circumstances as opposed to just assuming the miracle upfront. That is just one circumstance. There are an infinite number, as I said.
If, for example, we wanted to use this same example to prove Christianity, let’s say that a group of Baptists calls me into a prayer circle as the plane is going down, and we pray together as the plane goes down. Well, if every one of us in that prayer circle survives, and that fact doesn’t coincide with being in the safest part of the plane, then I would be compelled to believe in Christianity in some sense.
I don’t really think that it even needs to be this substantial.
If Christianity was not contrary to facts (a-Consistent)-so we could drop a literal interpretation of Genesis, for example…..AND I could see some necessity in postulating a God (b-Context)…..AND I could be given some way to help strengthen that belief (c-Convenient)-like historical evidence and/or predictive qualities……AND this could be reasoned to me by facts and not by appeals to unknowns and incredulity (d-Credible)…..THEN I would accept a Christian God.
This has not been done.
Not by some very gifted ministers and pastors and teachers and laypeople that I have known in my life. I always find something missing, there is always this nagging suspicion that faith is a shortcut. That is why I reject it.
Not because I haven’t witnessed a miracle and not because I haven’t gone searching. I am, as any of my religious friends will attest, in some sense a “spiritual savant”- I understand faith, I respect it, I get it…very deeply. I just do not believe it.
I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong when I engage you John, I’m asking you questions that I ask myself…I’m questioning how you got to your conclusion, because I feel I have ample evidence and came to a completely different one.
I came over from George’s place, and I also made this same entry at my blog. I crafted it before your Update requests, so I apologize if it doesn’t meet your criteria. I assembled this post in my head before I read George’s (and anybody else’s) reply, so that it wouldn’t colour my own response too much.
Question one: What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?
Good, reproducible evidence is pretty much the only thing I can request here.
I can’t really consider unexplained phenomena as evidence for God, because history has shown us that events humans used to consider as only explainable by premising deities turned out to actually require no divine interference. Unfortunately, the more we seem to examine the universe in detail, it seems that any version of a god, other than the nebulous “prime mover” that originally sparked the creation of the universe, seems completely unnecessary and more and more unlikely.
For the same reasons, I consider miracles to be poor manifestation of a God’s existence. Ignorance of the cause of a certain unlikely occasion is not evidence for anything other than… ignorance.
I’d like to say that personal revelation would be nice – maybe the clouds parting, and a booming voice announcing to me that it was the creator of the universe. But I’m too aware of the weaknesses of the human mind, and that such a thing would most likely be a result of a psychotic episode. Otherwise, how could I be sure that my experience was more realistic than that of Mohammed, Joseph Smith, or any run-of-the-mill schizophrenic?
Question two: What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?
Which version of Christianity? There are over five thousand different sects of Christianity, which makes this question a little too simplistic to answer accurately.
For instance, whatever evidence that might convince me that Jesus was an actual historical figure that was able to come back from the dead after a couple of days of actual death and and decomposition would have to be coupled with a enough evidence to overthrow pretty much all of modern science to show that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and that the myth of Noah’s ark actually happened for me to believe in any of the myriad of young earth, biblical literalist Christianities.
Question three: Why would your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?
Like gravity, wavelengths of radiation outside of our ability to detect them with our natural senses, and dark matter, it all comes down to the evidence.
As an atheist, I have a natural inclination to require more evidence for religious claims (not just Christian claims, mind you, but from all religions) than might be fair. Because of this, I figure the most reasonable I can be would be to require the same kind of evidence that I’d request before I believe that intelligent aliens are visiting Earth in technologically advanced spaceships.
If a UFO landed on our planet and the inhabitants of the vessel made contact with a large swath of humans, including media and scientists, and gave us a reproducible explanation of their origins, how they arrived on Earth, etc., I would have a difficult time denying the existence of intelligent aliens.
If God wants to visit us, making himself available to the media and scientists, giving us a scientifically valid and confirmable explanation for how the universe works, the origins of life, and human history, then it would also be difficult to deny his existence.
I appreciate what seems to be a non-judgmental request for information from atheists about their beliefs, but these three questions seem to me to be missing one very valuable point: the Christian God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Even if I don’t know what would convince me that He exists, Yahweh does, and he supposedly has the power to make me aware of his existence. That He has refused to do so, even though I actively sought Him out for a number of years in my life, is among the best evidence that God doesn’t exist. At the very least, He doesn’t seem interested in spending eternity with me, and, in return, I couldn’t care less about Him.
What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?
I will unabashedly say that it will take some sort of empirical evidence to convince me that a deity exists. I briefly scanned through the other response – for the most part, I agree with the general answers. However, I would be much more stringent with my ‘proof’. For example, I completely reject the idea of a personal experience as being satisfactory for a belief in the supernatural. I know that I am still merely a college student, but during the first two years at my university I was studying to, eventually, become a neurosurgeon (I was even hired for a position examining neurological patterns in epileptic patients when I was 19). I say all this simply because, even with my limited exposure to neuroscience, I am well aware of the susceptibilities of our fickle mind. I experience a sort of ethereal ‘presence’ whenever I listen to good music.The fact of the matter is that all (at least, to my knowledge all) of my ‘religious experiences’ were music related. To this day, listening to some of the acappella arrangements by David Phelps from the Gaithers or, really, any good ‘sacred music’ is able to impact me emotionally (I’m working on a theory for religious experiences and music right now). I would even go so far as to say that a ‘worldwide personal experience’, as rautakyy suggested, would not be sufficient. Especially considering the feats that someone like Derren Brown has accomplished; an atheist who was able to a room full of people to believe in some sort of deity instantaneously, shows how much weight should be put in to personal experiences.
Now, George W. said:
“Although empirical evidence would be ideal, I don’t think in this particular case it is always reasonable. I also have to admit that there are many things that I believe on some level of evidence that is shy of empirical.”
I don’t think that he actually believes this statement (please correct me if I’m wrong, George). While he may not personally have empirical justification for everything he believes, the fact remains that the data is there for anyone to look up. I may not know the specific mechanics of the orbital patterns of the moon or the mating rituals of peacocks, but I can look it up. Furthermore, I have no clue why quantum mechanics works (to be fair, no one really does). I don’t know why electrons exhibit a wave-particle duality, they just do. Just because it is not able to be explained, right now, this does not deter from existence. Yes, I believe certain things exist without specific justification. However, there is a distinction from there not being any justification at all and just a lack of personal desire to know.
I don’t think I would be able to give something specific for the existence of a deity, in general, other than to say that it be satisfactorily corroborated by science.
“What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?”
In addition to the general ’empirical data’ sentiment, I could get a bit specific for Christianity. As the focal point of Christianity is Jesus, I suppose a number of things would have to be proven such as, but not limited to:
1. That Jesus actually existed
2. That all the miracles that were performed actually occurred and were able to be verified, other than mere heresay.
3. That certain theological contradictions be adequately explained so as for them to be able to consolidated with each other (i.e. the contradiction of an omni-benevolent and ‘all-just’ god, etc.)
4. Venturing into the O.T., proof of the occurrence of certain Biblical stories such as: the flood (like actually finding the ark), the tower of babel, discovery of the ark of the covenant, etc. Of course, this point would be stipulated only if we were to take a literal approach to the Bible
Having said this, I am not sure if I would like to worship this deity. If I were to be honest, the only reason why I would worship the Christian god is out of fear of hell – not out of reverence.
Why would your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?
I require empirical evidence for the simple reason that it is not biased.
Thank you Oscar and Sinned34, but can you both give me examples or a single example of something which would fulfill your criteria of “empirical evidence”?
And an example of evidence you’d consider credible that showed Jesus existed?
I’m looking for specifics.
Oscar,
I respect what you are saying, but I think we need to clarify what we both define as empirical evidence. I’m going to argue here that John’s definition, your definition, and my definition are all slightly different.
Empirical evidence, in the scientific sense, is direct observable cause and effect, so far as I am aware. There is, to me, a giant difference between inferential evidence and direct evidence.
There is no empirical evidence, outside of inference, for evolution above the level of speciation. Does this make me doubt evolution? No. Why? Because we have a wealth of evidence that is inferential and grounded in facts and appropriate methodology. Should we expect to have direct evidence of a change in the genus of an organism? I don’t think so.
Many people, including scientists, say that we have empirical evidence for evolution, yet my understanding is that we do not. My threshold for “empirical” is a bit higher than that. I imagine John’s is as well. So I’m trying to respect his definition, as I assume it. I’m also respecting my definition, as I understand it.
You are correct that I have access to all the evidence surrounding any fact, including evolution, but the “empirical” evidence is not direct evidence for cladogenesis, for example, yet it is still a fact because it has so much inferential evidence that to doubt it would require a wholesale denial of reality.
So I’m giving more weight to inferential evidence rather than direct(aka empirical) evidence. Maybe I’m leaning too far on a mistaken definition- and perhaps this is because my definition is peppered by the philosophical definition of empiricism.
This, Oscar, is why I outlined my 4Cs. I don’t hold every belief I have to the standard of direct evidence, and I understand the scientific methodological importance of inferential evidence. If I demand direct evidence of God, I am creating a two-tier standard for my knowledge based on my preference away from theism and toward, to stick with my example, evolution.
I also agree that a miracle is not good evidence of God. I think in this case I am conceding (and being realistic) as to the extent of my cognitive biases. I’m not telling you that this is good evidence, I’m telling you that it would be cognitively compelling. I would have a hard time resolving that I was mistaken given compelling first-hand evidence. I would also consider this a personal proof and not any evidence in the global sense. Yet that was not John’s question, which what would make me believe.
Hello. I’m not a regular reader of your blog, but this post was passed along and I thought it would be interesting to add another atheist’s position…
The reason I look to science as a reliable guide to the nature of reality is twofold: (1) it provides a method that reduces the impact of bias such that it has produced a consilience of knowledge across multiple domains of study that is increasingly coherent and explanatory, and (2) it directly leads to more effective and reliable technologies, ranging from computers to medical procedures. The engine of all this is empiricism, which is imperfect to be sure, but has no rival when it comes to producing a rational model of reality. You may use this a guide for understanding my answers below…
Something which you might be picking up on in the previous answers is how difficult it is to apply this standard to the idea of gods or the various Christian sects. The scientific method has developed a reliable model of the cosmos that is entirely naturalistic…absolutely nothing we’ve found necessitates or is best explained via a supernatural agent. And so, it becomes increasingly difficult to imagine what such a thing might look like.
Setting aside the (not insignificant) debate regarding the definition of god(s), I could say that there are perhaps a few things that might convince me of the existence of a god who isn’t merely an advanced alien from our own natural universe. For example, let’s take a scenario based on a story by Carl Sagan…say we actually find the end of pi (let’s assume for now there is one) and build a computer powerful enough to analyze a number that size for patterns. Some decades later, it finds a key embedded in the number which unlocks a message to the effect of: “Hi. I’m God. I built the universe. Here are the instructions for building a faster than light spaceship…” The moment that spaceship was shown to work, I’d be a true believer. This would satisfy me of at least the Prime Mover type of god.
I’m afraid nothing could convince me of the truth of “mere” Christianity short of a complete reworking of reality or a new method of study that both overthrows all scientific understanding while validating all Christian assertions in such a way that it remains coherent, explanatory, and able to produce new reliable technologies. I honestly cannot imagine what that method might look like.
But I know that isn’t what you are looking for. I suppose if that pi message also included some unambiguous proof of the validity of the Bible, that would be pretty impressive. If Jesus appeared to me and showed me a vision of an unpredictable near-future event that I could verify, that would be rather persuasive…but I would still need some big answers from him, like why there are so many contradictions in the Gospels regarding his death and resurrection, and how to work out the theodicy problem, and so on. Even in such a case, I might believe but still not be morally able to worship depending on the answers I get (like why Jesus didn’t condemn slavery or command everyone to start washing their hands).
And so, I’d like to end with a similar question to you: what would it take to begin doubting your faith in a god and in Christianity?
I appreciate the time you took to think through these questions. Those answers are just fine. But could you elaborate why your pi example and interaction with Jesus would be persuasive to you?
While I won’t go into the flip side in regards to my belief here now, I will in the not so near future. But I can say I could abandon my Christian theism. I don’t need to be a Christian. I am a Christian because I believe it is true. If it’s not then it’s useless. I haven’t been a Christian all my life, only maybe for 10 or so years, give or take. I wasn’t raised a Christian, religion was never and still is never discussed in my family (except my household). It was never emphasized either positive or negative growing up. So it’s not like i need to hold onto it if it’s not true.
But could you elaborate why your pi example and interaction with Jesus would be persuasive to you?
For the reasons I outlined in the paragraph on science and empiricism. The pi example would be especially persuasive because it would derive from a fundamental feature of nature (the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter), something that I do not believe could be generated by an alien, no matter how advanced. Of course, it’s possible that our computer was manipulated by an alien in such a way that we could never detect, and so even then this scenario would not constitute incontrovertible proof…but it would be persuasive to me.
The same with the appearance of Jesus…I would need a way to validate that my experience wasn’t merely a psychotic break. Providing an easy-to-validate future event would be persuasive, especially if the event was complex. But even that would not be incontrovertible…it is possible in principle for an alien to have sufficient technology to predict even complex future events and to also appear to me in any way it chose. But it would nevertheless be persuasive, especially if Jesus was able to square the problems inherent in the Christian model of reality.
I’m curious as to what kind of things you are hoping to understand in this exercise.
I’ll be doing a follow up after I get at least a dozen or so answers.
I feel I should make some clarifications regarding my response.
Regarding the rejection of personal experience as ‘proof’, I would only reject it if it is experienced by me alone (for the same reasons I gave before, i.e. brain =/= trustworthy). However, if it is experienced by many people, then I would give it more credibility. I need to make this specific, however. There are certain ‘experiences’ that I will still reject even if it is experienced by many. I think the only form of ‘experience’ that I would accept is if it were to be a visual manifestation of some kind seen by many (of course, it goes without saying that possibilities such as mass hallucination is explained away).
Evidence for Jesus:
I suppose textual confirmation from first-hand accounts that were not promoting Christianity would be sufficient. Textual confirmation of Jesus, the miracles, etc. For example, if the Josephus reference had panned out and if he had mentioned the incredible miracles that were being performed, then I would take the claims more seriously.
I can’t imagine my answers aren’t fairly generic among Atheists, but here they go:
(1) I would need an operational definition of God and see it tested against other theories to explain actual real-time events.
(2) Similar empirical evidence
(3) From the positions I see offered already by Christians, they either don’t make sense, can easily be explained by other means, are non-testable or are reprehensible.
Ok, but can you provide examples of events which would satisfy your criteria? I’m asking for examples of things, or events, not criteria.
Should I understand your answer to 3) to mean nothing could convince you Christianity were true?
(1) First, I would need some universal agreement. If I’m to assume a deity exists, then there would have to be some very powerful attributes that the deity has, and though I don’t need to specify on the particulars, I think we can agree on at least this one: A Deity ,or “She”, as I’ll refer to Her for this answer would need to be accessible to everyone, equally. That means when people get down to pray to a supernatural, infinite force, they’re actually in agreement that they’re praying to the same being. There needs to be some acknowledgment from Her that people worshiping the supernatural are all worshiping the same thing. If God were to simply disseminate a piece of information, that all people praying to Her could readily access it, including myself, then yes, I would be completely open to the idea. However, if this piece of information is something along the lines of “Jesus died for your sins,” I’d say that is about as readily accessible as “Mohamed really did talk to Gabriel while in seclusion in the mountains.”
Secondly, yes, I do need some actual empirical evidence, and this has to go further than a personal feeling I have that God is working within me. I have to have some means in which I can tell that this is actually God, in the same way that you can tell that this is actually a computer screen you’re looking at to read this. I could get a general consensus from a Church congregation that God is moving within the room at the moment, but bring an atheist into that same room, and we’ll get no such consensus from him. Bring an atheist and a theist to come make sure that what you’re looking at is a computer screen, and they’ll pretty much agree that it is just as you think it is. So to give an example that was recently given to me that would BRILLIANTLY do the trick:
The skies open up, and from it comes a booming voice, that all people can hear. This voice can be recorded. It can be analyzed. Astronomers are looking up into the heavens and they can’t seem to locate any Alien Spacecraft or possible government device that may be causing this voice. It just seems to come from… well, God. The language being spoken is one that everybody can understand. Even If I’m standing next to you, with you a native speaker of English and myself being a Native Speaker of Spanish. We can both understand it clearly, in our native tongues. I would be absolutely convinced that there was a God.
(2) Now to convince me that Christianity is true, it would come down to the overall character of the first and second parts of the above. If Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Atheists, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, could all get the same thing from God, the call to Christianity, I’d say we’re at a start. Christianity would be like the number zero, or calculus, or astronomy. People would not need to hear it from the source. With enough deep reflection, and personal thought, along with the aid of God, people would come to Christianity independently. There would be churches dedicated to Jesus and the Trinity that would have no connection at all to the Roman Catholic Church. So, unless you’re a Mormon and really believe Jesus came to the States, this is kind of problematic.
Secondly, on the booming voice in the sky, I’d be completely satisfied if it just said something along the lines of “Hi, my name is God, and I support this message, The Holy Bible.” With such a miracle, that could be recorded and examined, I would definitely feel much more comfortable in saying that the miracles in the Bible perhaps had some basis in reality.
Granted, more answers would be nice, like why a being who created all reality cares about people’s sexual relations? Or maybe why a being that is considered all good finds it necessary to send people to hell for believing in the faith that they were raised with, without access to any other? Or maybe, why a being who felt it necessary to give us free will couldn’t limit it just a little bit further? I can’t for example, will myself to believe that the floor below me is made of glass, or will my pancreas to dance, or will myself to believe that 2+2=5. However, my will, and that of others, certainly seems to extend to thinking that slavery is okay, women should be oppressed, and God exists, and he really wants my baseball team to win tomorrow. Though granted, from some excepts of Deuteronomy and Numbers, God seems to be down with at least a couple of the above.
(3) As to why it would be enough to change that belief? Because I’m fallible, and the way I know that I’m wrong is when evidence is brought forth to show me as such. Currently, there is not the kind of empirical evidence one can bring forth to convince another of the belief in God. If I were a disbeliever in the theory of evolution, I could not merely be convinced because (1) My Family believes in evolution, (2) Because people I respect believe in evolution, (3) I have a very deep feeling that evolution is true, or (4) I’ve heard the voice of Charles Darwin in my chest saying “Glenn, I love you and my theory happens to be true.”
We call upon more than just feelings of the truth of Evolution. We must use biology, chemistry, paleontology, anthropology, genetics and more to make a case to people that don’t believe, and even then, the evidence can just be pushed aside because of a abstract “intuition” that this world was made by a grand designer, and must be about 6,000 years old.
I would ask no more of God than a creationist asks of an evolutionist. If we were presented with evidence that is available to all, which can be examined by all, as to the truth of these claims, then yes I’d say we have a very good chance of convincing ALL atheists of the truth, whatever that truth may be.
P.S. I do not mean when I say evidence, two aspects that Christian Theologians often like to invoke when they talk about Biblical Evidence, the first being eyewitnesses, and the second being prophecy.
First, eyewitnesses are problematic because we have eyewitnesses in absolutely every religious system. Eyewitnesses saw Mohamed speak to God, Eyewitnesses see Hindu Gods walking through cornfields, and eyewitnesses claim every year to have seen extra-terrestrial spacecraft.
Second, prophecy can NEVER be used to demonstrate the truth of the Bible. By using prophecy, you’re essentially accepting beforehand that the Bible is true. It’s just not a coherent argument, because you can’t assume one part is truth to prove that the whole is actually truth. Circular arguments are never fun ones.
Wow, Well I hoped this helped, and that I didn’t type too much. Good luck with your next post. I hope all this was informational. Have a great day, man :).
I appreciate your time and that you provided more than criteria. A lot of the atheist responders listed criteria and no examples which would fill their criteria. It will be a while for the folloow up since I want to get at least 2 dozen responses to comment on. But who knows, if it takes too long I may just cut it off early and work with what I have. But if you have any willing participants, feel free to pass on the link.
I’ll give it a shot.
1: “What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?”
I guess it would help to define god. If we’re simply talking about the creator of the universe, something like Nick Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis would be sufficient. That being if humans progress technologically to the point where a near 1:1 simulation of the universe would be possible, the probability that we’re the prime universe drops dramatically. We’d most likely be a simulation, and the simulation operator would be god. Maybe even not a simulation, but an actual creation of a baby universe. Or maybe not even us, maybe if aliens came and demonstrated it.
If we’re talking about some kind of supernatural diety, I guess it’d be helpful to define supernatural. I like Richard Carrier’s definition: mental things that do not reduce to non-mental things. So if we discovered a consciousness that didn’t reduce to a mind or neurons or quarks, that’d be helpful.
So if we discovered both a way to replicate a baby universe and also discovered evidence of irreducible mental things, I’d think it’d be more probably that a diety (as commonly understood) would exist.
2: “What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?”
Being able to detect souls would be a start (souls using the above criteria for supernatural). This is important since you need something to go to heaven or hell. Maybe also being able to detect Heaven and Hell and discover that they were populated with entities that matched the identities of previous known living people.
Perhaps if we were to detect a sin on people, which would be hard since everyone has sin. Such a condition would be indistinguishable since we don’t have a non-sinful control.
Maybe some historical evidence like fossils of modern animals in the same rock strata for the great flood. Perhaps a universe that was only 6,000 light years across. These would help bolster the claims of the bible.
How about supernatural superpowers that only Christians could wield, like charismatic gifts: faith healing, prophecy, etc. Powers that were unambiguous and consistently demonstrated when tested. And they should only occur in Christians. I should expect these powers to vanish when Christians turn from god, and only begin to manifest in people when they accept Jesus into their heart. These powers should be awesome and yet commonplace given the amount of Christians in the world.
And of course, if the events depicted in the Book of Revelation literally started happening, that’d be pretty convincing. Not just real world analogues or symbolic stand-ins, but literal monsters and dragons and such. I dunno if I’d worship Jesus in time to save myself from hell, but I’d start believing Christianity was true.
3: “Why would your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?”
My disbelief in all religion and all spirituality comes from a naturalistic and reductionist view of the universe. I don’t believe in anything supernatural because I think everything reduces down to basic particles. In my opinion, this squares with what science has to say about reality. If we were created by a person, my existing reductionist beliefs would lead me to think that that such a creator would be reducible also, and would thus need his own universe to exist in. In that case, why need a creator? The prime universe could have always existed.
If someone could demonstrate that not only could a person create a universe, but that a person could exist as a strictly mental being, that’d blow my naturalist and reductionist beliefs away.
And while most of my requests for Christianity are things that I’d expect to see in the present world around me but haven’t (which would make elements of Christianity unambiguously true), Revelations literally happening as described would be something I’d expect to see but possibly hasn’t happened yet.
How did I do?
That’s fine, it’s your answer, it is what it is. Like I said in the post, I’m not going to argue or debate the answers (except for prodding for more specificity, most of the answers are criteria and not examples.)
1. scientific proof of the Creation as held by theists. accompanied by similar proof of both the existance and concern with us by a supposed deity.
2. Seeing believers actually live war-free, violence-free lives as reportedly instructed by Christ; plus similar scientific or actual archeological proof of Christs existance AT THE SPECIFIED TIME IT IS ASSUMED HE LIVED.
3. Because they would go a long way to getting beyond myth and storytelling.
I appreciate you stopping by, but you’ve listed criteria. I’d like some examples which would fulfill your criteria.
This would be the same as me asking you:
What would it take to make you believe there are little green men that live on Jupiter?
Not only is this very telling about you, but I could answer this with reasonable answers. Something you have chosen not to do.
1) What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?
– the physical appearance of a Deity with the ability to counteract natural laws (like gravity and mass). But then this question would rise; what if this was a bad Deity or spirit come to seduce me? So I probably wouldn’t have followed it blindly just because it could do magic tricks. I would believe in it, though. Not be devoted to it.
2) What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?
– A flock of locusts, a river of blood, and rain drowning all land on Earth. Literally, not just metaphorically. You know, stuff the Bible tells us the Christian God does. And then I’d probably decide to follow Satan, cause that Christian God-fellow doesn’t really seem like the kind of trust-inspiring Deity.
3) Why would your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?
. I suppose meeting a Deity and feeling it’s wrath leaves you with not many alternatives.
1 & 2. Empirical and undeniable evidence*
3. because evidence would make the claims beyond doubt.
* http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html
IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF IT, HERE IS AN “FYI” FOR YOU
MOST AMERICANS WHO ARE NOW ATHEISTS, WERE CHRISTIANS!
WE HAVE BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!
AND, WE HAVE MOVED PAST IT!
“What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?”
Simple, IF YOUR ALL POWERFUL GOD WIPED OUT ALL EVIL, STOPPED ALL NATURAL DISASTERS MAKE IT SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO KILL OTHERS THINGS TO LIVE AND LIMIT BIRTHS, I WOULD BECOME A BELIEVER!
WHICH, AS HE-SHE-IT IS, ACCORDING TO YOU CHRISTIANS “ALL POWERFUL” AND “ALL KNOWING” COULD VERY EASILY DO!
“What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?”
THERE IS NOTHING OTHER THAN MY PRECEDING ANSWER WHICH WOULD CONVINCE ME!
“Why would�your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?”
SAME ANSWER!
This answer is a bit incomplete and your other responses were completely irrelevant to the post. Id be happy to engage them if you repost them on the discussion page.
First, let me help you out with your questions.
– What would it take, or what would have to happen for you to abandon your position of atheism and come to a theistic view; not just an agnostic possibility of God, but an actual belief that a Deity does exist?
– What would it take for you to believe Christianity is true?
– Why would your answers to the above be sufficient to convince you theism is true, and that Christianity was true?
I plan to use and analyze your answers–from
Belief is an emotion that doesn’t necessarily fit with evidence and isn’t necessarily something a person can control. So let’s say “What evidence would be sufficient for you to fail to reject the hypothesis that God exists?” – same wording change except “… the Christian God exists?” This makes it a nice, evidence-based science question, almost. The flaw is that the evidence defines the entity being observed. When we say ‘electrons exist’ they are defined by what we have observed about them. When we say the graviton should exist, that is based on the evidence we see for it even though we haven’t actually seen it. Also for the graviton, and this is important, we don’t have a competing theory for a different mode of transferring gravitational force so that’s the name for an otherwise-undefined unseen force AND the proposed graviton is consistent with other prevailing scientific theories.
So, science has a strong explanation for basically the entire history of the universe all the way back to the big bang 14 billion years ago. Stephen Hawking among others sees no need for any ‘unmoved mover’ to pop the big bang into existence. Collision of hyperplanes provides a more consistent explanation, but that’s just a hypothesis. A religious viewpoint will say “God did it” whereas a scientific viewpoint will say “I don’t know and god-magic is no scientific answer.” Back to the point: you’ve got to tell me what the heck you mean by “God.” If for example a God created the universe, that’s a far cry from the Christian god, so I say just drop that question altogether. God is a nebulous, undefined, and inconsistent concept depending on who you ask and when. Be Christian.
As for the Christian God question, if a super-being calling him/herself Jesus popped into existence and started successfully enforcing some form of Biblical law worldwide, then I guess I’d have to take its word for its power. But that’s power not good. A fundamental problem with Christianity is worshiping power instead of good. Jesus can save me from eternal hell is not a reason to worship or comply. God created hell so he could just turn off the furnaces. I wouldn’t thank someone for NOT shooting me. God created the universe is no call to worship either.That’s a great trick, but it’s no reason to hold me ransom. Show me a new Bible and new Christians that carry out human-based, rational ethics that create loving, flourishing, and progressive societies and I’ll be attracted whatever the supernaturalism might be.
You hate gay people. Don’t give me that ‘hate the sin’ rhetoric either. Telling two people who love each other that they can’t get married is a pretty powerful expression of hatred. People including kids are literally killing themselves due to religious hatred.
So I hope that your questions stop being focused so much on what people believe as what they do. If you’re worried about people spending an eternity in hell, take that up with your god. He’s the one meting out eternal punishment for finite failures (and questionable ones at that). If we can live together, celebrate love and truth through science, then lifespans will continue to increase, quality of living will continue to increase, global integration will continue to increase, and our understand of our universe will continue to increase, as it has done only in the last few centuries after the yoke of dogmatic Christian oppression was lifted off of Europe. Don’t be hateful, ignorant Christians and we will be friends.
For my part, I’ll continue to discourage my atheist friends from going on and on and on about how there’s no god. We could stand to focus more on the ethics and community questions as well.
My character or your perceived character of God is really irrelevant to this post. I appreciate the response, but its unfortunate that there is so much here I’d gladly discuss, if it were more relevant to the post. If you are so inclined, repost the irrelevant parts of the response for this post on the discussion page and let’s take it up there. Or comment on more relevant posts.
Thanks.
I don’t know what you’re talking about is the answer to your three questions. To me more clear, the response (not answer) to your question is that those are questions a Christian would ask but not questions an atheist would answer. That’s not how we think, and I explained why. You should be comparing ethics with us, not dogma.
And to be clear, I didn’t attack your character, I just said you hate gays (not as an emotion maybe but as an action). I would have info to assess your character in general.
They are relevant questions for anyone to answer. Since I ask the questions, they are relevant, if you really don’t agree, feel free to not participate rather than answering like a politician (ie answering the question you want to answer, rather than the one that was asked)
But claiming that I hate homosexuals is an attack on my character, and an unfair one at that. Perhaps you’ll read what I have written on the subject and point out all the hateful things I write.
Keep in mind that I moderate very little on my page, but I am insisting for this post the discussion is strictly the answering of the questions. So if you are satisfied with your answers, please take any other comments to a relevant post. Id appreciate that, thanks.
“They are relevant questions for anyone to answer. Since I ask the questions, they are relevant.
Sorry John,
Only you logic sucks. Your questions are NOT “relevant questions for anyone to answer” as they are NOT relevant to me and it seems they are NOT relevant to other Atheists. In fact, I consider them to be illogical and irrelevant.
And just because YOU asked them, does NOT make them relevant to others, It ONLY makes them relevant TO YOU!
(You should remember MANY American Atheists WERE Christians for many years BEFORE they were successfull in they DE-programmed themselves.)
Then you don’t know what logic is. And if you dont find them relevant, they why would you comment?
Also, you are now considered spam since you posted on another site the exact same comment as on mine. Thanks for playing!
Does your Vomit Flavored Magical Woo Juice cure religious programming too, Neil?
Is that one of the 90 ailments that your fruit juice can cure?
Get a life, you pathetic old crotchety troll.
You want an argument?
I’m your huckleberry……
HOW CUTE
ANOTHER RETARD WHO IS TOO LAZY TO DO THE RESEARCH TO GET THE FACTS (AND MOST PROBABLY TOO STUPID TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS IF HE DID GET THEM) IS HEARD FROM,
IF YOU EVEN HAD A CLUE, (& YOUR COMMENTS PROVE YOU DO NOT) YOU WOULD KNOW NONI JUICE HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVELY USED FOR OVER 5,000 YEARS.
YOU WOULD KNOW IT’S GROWN IN TROPICAL AREAS ALL AROUND THE WORLD AND IT HAS MANY NAMES.
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DRINK IT EVERY DAY & USE USE IT TOPICALLY WHEN NEEDED.
I HAVE USED TO CURE ATHLETES FOOT IN LESS THAN HALF THE TIME AS ANY OTHER TREATMENTS I EVER USED.
I WAS A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE AS WELL AS A DEEP SEA DIVER AND A PARATROOPER. A MANUFACTURING SUPERVISOR FOR MAGNAVOX & NCR AND AN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEER FOR XEROX,
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ASIDE FROM MAKING STUPID COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET?
AND NONI JUICE CURED TOE NAIL FUNGUS WHEN NO PRESCRIPTION DRUGS DID,
NOT ONLY DOES NONI JUICE boost your immune system over150% IT IS
around 80% as effective as Morphine is
in treating Pain!
Your immune system is boosted up to the point where it can Very Effectively Treat / Cure MANY different medical problems. (Over 90 of them!)
And Noni Juice not only works on the insides and the outsides of our bodies, it does the same for ALL other mammals, as well as ALL animals, reptiles and birds!
http://www.noniresearch.com
http://www.noni-is-good-for-you.com/
Noni Juice is os Good, nearly every single person who DOES drink enough of it long enough has VERY positive results!
http://yoga-star.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!
4346E14F8D0BE552!182.entry
I KNOW FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, APPLYING NONI JUICE TO ANY BURNS INSTANTANEOUSLY STOPS THEIR PAIN. I DEFY YOU TO NAME ANY THING ELSE WHICH DOES THIS!
AS WELL AS BOTH SPEEDING THEIR HEALING AND AT LEAST REDUCING, IF NOT ELIMINATING ANY SCARING.
AND I DEFY YOU TO NAME ANYTHING
ELSE WHICH DOES THIS!
I USED NONI JUICE TO TREAT HOT FRYING PAN CONTACT BURNS, SUN BURNS & BURNS FROM HOT GREASE.
FOR 15 YEARS NOW, DRINKING NONI JUICE HAS STOPPED ME FROM, FROM GETTING THE FLU WHICH I USED TO GET EVERY YEAR. WHEN I STARTED DRINKING IT AT AGE 62, IT CAUSED ALL THE ACHES & PAINS OF OLD AGE TO DISAPPEAR AND THEY HAVE NEVER RETURNED.
I DEFY YOU TO NAME ANYTHING
ELSE WHICH DOES THIS!
I WOULD DRINK NONI JUICE JUST FOR THE BETTER DREAMS I HAVE! I NO LONGER GET SORE MUSCLES AFTER PLAYING BEACH VOLLEYBALL OR FROM ANY EXERCISE,
AS IT ALSO GIVES ENERGY AND SPEEDS RECOVERY, MANY OLYMPIC, WORLD CLASS AND PROFESSIONAL ATHLETES SWEAR BY IT.
I DEFY YOU TO NAME ANYTHING
ELSE WHICH DOES THIS!
MANY DOCTORS DRINK NONI JUICE THEMSELVES AND PRESCRIBE IT TO OTHERS AS WELL TO THEIR OWN LOVED ONES.
DRINKING NONI JUICE CAUSES SMOKERS TO TOTALLY LOSE THEIR DESIRE TO SMOKE. THUS NONI JUICE IS AN EASY, SIMPLE, NO HASSLE WAY TO STOP SMOKING!
I DEFY YOU TO NAME ANYTHING
ELSE WHICH DOES THIS!
SO RETARD, GO WALLOW IN YOUR IGNORANCE & SUFFER NEEDLESSLY
WHILE THOSE OF US WHO ARE WISE
ENOUGH TO KNOW THE TRUTH BOTH DRINK & USE NONI JUICE TOPICALLY!
OR, TRY SOME THING NEW FOR YOU,
IT IS CALLED, “LEARNING” READ THE INFORMATION IN THE URL’s I posted above:
It’s funny, I’ve been receiving updates from this thread for a while now, but this one comment from NCR was auto-flagged as spam.
Surprising? Nope!
Keep up the good work, NCR. No wonder you haven’t made millions in your pyramid scheme yet, you haven’t pissed off enough people into trying your product yet!
YOU “sinned34” ARE JUST ANOTHER COWARD
WHO ATTACKS OTHERS WHILE HIDING BEHIND A SCREEN NAME. JUST ANOTHER GUTTLESS PUNK!
SINCE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO FIGURE IT OUT, I WILL EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. I PISS PEOPLE OF BECAUSE I TELL THE TRUTH AND BECAUSE I DO NOT SUFFER FOOLS AND/OR LIARS LIGHTLY,
FYI RETARD, IF I WERE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH, THEN THE ONES I PISS OFF WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT I SAY IS NOT TRUE.
AS THE POOR RETARDS CAN NOT PROVE I AM WRONG, THEY ATTACK ME. THUS I RESPOND IN KIND!
AND WERE YOU NOT A EXTREMELY IGNORANT ASS, YOU WOULD KNOW THE FOURTH FASTEST GROWING COMPANY IN THE US, WITH SALES OF FOUR BILLION IN ELEVEN YEARS, IS NOT A PYRAMID SCHEME.
SO, OH SO EXTREAMLY IGNORANT ONE, YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG!
NCR,
You can consider it “hiding” behind my screen name if you like, but I also don’t hand out my name, phone number, and home address to the schizophrenics that scream at me about their delusions from street corners, an activity which I’m certain you will likely be taking up as soon as you break the caps lock key on your keyboard.
That said, there’s a couple of very simple things an internet user can do to find out who I am. Perhaps you can take a few moments away from your Jesus Juice ravings to figure it out. It can be your new obsession, because it sounds like you need a new one to keep you occupied. This juice thing must be getting old if you’ve been doing it for 15 years!
I find it amusing that you figure that “THE TRUTH” pisses people off. Lots of people (including myself, although John might politely disagree) actually prefer reality to falsehoods. That said, I find it difficult to imagine that you feel your acerbic presentation style is at all the most successful manner by which to win customers. Imagine if Coca Cola advertised by calling Pepsi drinkers ignorant asses who can’t face the truth that Coke will cure cancer and has been successfully used as an emergency bonding agent to repair the space shuttle while in orbit. That is precisely what you sound like to us, so its no wonder we`re not exactly thrilled to be on the receiving end of your spittle-flecked mad keyboarding.
You insist you`re just responding in kind, but perhaps you shouldn`t be shoving your spam adverts in locations where it isn`t welcome. Perhaps if you commented in threads that were even remotely related to the Miracle Spring Water you`re hocking, you might actually get a response that is slightly less hostile.
FYI, if you don`t want to have your little home based business called a pyramid scheme, perhaps you shouldn`t equate it to Amway next time.
Anyways, I think you`ve sullied this thread enough. Don`t bother responding to me here because I won`t read or reply to you in this thread again. However, feel free to meet me in John`s discussion area or over at George`s place.
Ok Neil,
Take it to the Discussion page
SORRY!
ONLY AS THIS IS THE ONE I GET NOTIFICATION OF COMMENTS FROM, IT IS THE ONE I USE.
Not my problem. Post in the discussion page and subscribe to the thread.
SORRY!
ONLY AS THIS IS THE ONE I GET NOTIFICATION OF COMMENTS FROM, IT IS THE ONE I USE.