GW,

I didn't relate to the way you framed your original question more particularly lumping atheist and skeptic. I consider myself very much a skeptic but definitely not an atheist.

Until the two most recent posts I believed Pericles has given the best response. However his most recent post seems to indicate I misinterpreted them. A long time ago a man told a story within a Jewish religious framework. The part I most like was the suggestion by a character in the story that someone could come back from the dead and speak to people and they still won't necessarily believe.

For the record I am a former atheist who just finds it easier to believe in God as it takes less faith. As a Christian I am informed that correctly placed faith is a virtue but I have not yet managed to develop that virtue particularly well.

Finally even if it is possible to answer the question validly it probably won't happen here. With comments like "Religion requires ... to determine that - against all physical and mental evidence - God exists." and "A two year old can see that a complex world could not happen by chance." not even to mention usual suspects contributions, I suspect this thread will soon be solely fundamentalists proseltysing for both opposing faiths.

Interesting Question GW.

I don't think people can be 'persuaded' into belief, because if that's so, they could also be persuaded out of it.

The Biblical position is this: from Romans 10

14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?

And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?

And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?"

17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.

COMMENT Often, the evidence of God at work in a human heart is 'vehement opposition' to the Gospel.
One sows...another reaps. So...today some of us are critical, mocking, sneering, cynical.. tomorrow..they may be at the foot of the cross saying

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;

or

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Sometimes people need to reach the end of themselves before their ears are open to the voice of our Lord.

I think on this post there is a confusion of religious belief in general with the particular religious belief called Christianity.

We live in a predominantly Christian society so an atheist without a predilection for any particular religion would probably turn to Christianity in Australia if he or she felt a religious need. I presume that the atheist would probably turn to Judaism if living in Israel or Islam if living in Malaya. All three religions contain a belief in God.

Apparently many individuals feel a need for religious belief and a belief in God in particular.

For those who feel the need of religion but not a need for belief in a deity there is Buddhism which satisfies the first but does not postulate a soul or a deity.

Porkycrap

gw specifically asked that we refrain from quoting the bible or texts like Dawkins, a sensible request that everyone else has managed to go along with, except your good and arrogant self. Not only do you feed us bible quotes, but hymn verses as well. Give us a break.

If there's one single compelling argument on OLO in favour of atheism, it's you.

mjpb

"I suspect this thread will soon be solely fundamentalists proseltysing for both opposing faiths."

I assume you're referring to Christianity and Islam. I hope you're not referring to atheism as a 'faith' or to atheists as 'fundamentalists'. I'm sure you wouldn't be, but considering the topic of the thread, it is a reasonable inference to draw from your comments.

Thanks for responses everyone!

I'd like to pick up on one point here. Polycarp said "I don't think people can be 'persuaded' into belief, because if that's so, they could also be persuaded out of it"

Is that true? Surely preaching is a form of persausion? You yourself have documented your adventures in preaching to the uncoverted - were you not trying to persaude them into beliving the same thing that you do?

The question here is not what makes other people believe, it is what it would take for you personally to believe something diametrically different from what you believe now.

When I have discussed this with friends they have normally stated Pericles' position - that nothing could concievably happen to make them believe, becuase if someone did raise the dead etc, they would assume they experiancingg a hallucination or other mental defect.

But doesn't that mean that you in turn are being just as dogmatic as the most religious fanatic - you must be right and nothing could convince you otherwise? Maybe we as humans are not capable of understanding an idea such as God?

Just to finish some of my favorite quotes on the subject;

"Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God" Cicero

"After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth"
Arthur Conan Doyle

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Arthur C Clarke

Bronwyn,

Perhaps neither the religious nor the atheists I refer to are fundamentalist in a strict sense. Just like someone labeled “homophobic” doesn’t have to fulfil the most appropriate definition of “fearing sameness”. However I would be surprised if you didn’t know what I mean and it is a normal usage of the term.

Indeed in a dogmatic sense atheists more often seem to maintain their position on faith that it is silly to believe in God and may even require a test such as writing on the moon as evidence rather than being open to a more considered opinion. Those particular atheists seem rather closed to considering the issue. In cultures or subcultures where the power brokers are atheists Christians are bathed in social norms and popular beliefs that will steer them away from Christianity. In such circumstances Christians need to believe that they have an abundance of hard data supporting their position and thus it is unlikely that new data will contradict it to believe at all. In that situation (as Australia seems to increasingly be becoming) atheists can more easily be fundamentalists than Christians. By contrast in a culture seeped in Christianity like some parts of America it is easier to be a Christian fundamentalist.

Arguably fundamentalist atheists are not fundamentalist because their beliefs are not fundamental to atheism. Equally fundamentalist Christians are not fundamentalists because their beliefs are not fundamental to Christianity. Naturally in both cases some of the beliefs are fundamental eg. belief in no God in the former group and belief in God in the latter group. But the point is that that doesn’t define them. Not all their beliefs are fundamental. Indeed some of the most outer fringe Christian groups are considered to be fundamentalist in the normally used sense.

You seem open to the idea of fundamentalist Christians in here but not fundamentalist atheists. Does that mean that you consider that the beliefs the Christians you have in mind are fundamental to being a Christian or would you accept that people who hold different views can also be Christian?