Atheists and proof

[Kdtym10]

On several threads, some atheists have said they would believe in God/the Divine if they had proof. If you’re an atheist what would that proof look like to you?

I don't doubt that you experienced what you experienced, just the imagined explanation for it.

There's no desperation and it isn't all about you, @Kdtym10. As I've said I'm a big fan of Derren Brown, it should be obvious that I'm very interested in the human mind and how it can be misdirected. You don't need a "mentalist" to misdirect: human minds are more than capable of misdirecting themselves. It's rather marvellous!

At a different Candomblé ceremony, I was possessed by the spirit known as Nana (a grumpy old hag, you'll be pleased to hear). My possession was diagnosed by the priestesses in the room. It obviously had nothing to do with the fact that the room was packed, sweltering hot, we were all drinking home-brewed cachaça amid deafening drumbeats, and the air was thick with smoke from a brazier burning cannabis. I had fun, though! Nana's a surprisingly energetic dancer.

Oh I see you’re projecting again😂. Where did I say it’s all about me?

And why do you think your explanation of something you haven’t experienced and I have is the right one. Quite bizarre.

@Kdtym10 I'm not positing an explanation for experiences you've had. I'm simply saying that an imagined explanation is not believable. I'm ok with things being as yet unexplained, if an explanation is not immediately forthcoming. "We don't yet know" is a better answer than "my deity of choice did it".

But that’s the better explanation for it in your world, not mine. Why do you think your view is right and mine is wrong?

Where you said "you’re so desperate to tell me something that you’ve never experimented is something other than I experienced".

That’s not abou me, it’s about you😀

Because accepting that you may not yet have a full explanation, but that one is possible, is more meaningful than ascribing an experience to a deity and stopping any further thought or investigation.

I don't think people are understanding of the Christian faith. It doesn't really matter how God works to me. Whether through natural processes coming together at just the right time or through something more miraculous. As a Christian I believe He can work either way. Our explanations are irrelevant to His work. So if you say something I prayed for came into effect because of someone's actions, I would still be thankful to God as well as the person in question for giving them the opportunity to act. If you said it was because of naturally understood processes I would be thankful the timing of them came to fruition at the right time.

It’s more meaningful to you not me.

Yes! The zooming Brazilian priest was definitely real, I saw what I saw. What I saw was physically impossible. I could either accept that a sea goddess miraculously transported him across the surface, or discern that some real-world physical force must be in play (and, being boring like that, I would find out what it was!)

No, it's more meaningful objectively because further investigation, research, analysis can be done. As a society, we then have the opportunity to learn and to increase our understanding of the world.

Not more meaningful to those of us who are more interested in experiencing God.

I have no problem with that but some feel accept that the full explanation " that is possible" includes God. What I dont get is why anyone tries to convince those who view it one way or the other . The whole topic seems over done to me - obviously if ppl enjoy talking thats no problem but the answer to the main question seems to have been covered.

These pictures answer that quite nicely I think

The creative outputs of a feverishly religious zealot do seem to answer the Big Questions for you. To me, they say "Wm Blake. Strange character."

A current artist of comparably unusual mentality would be Yayoi Kusama. Would you say her work proves that the answer to everything is a polka dot?

Fascinating art. In the absence of explanation, are we to assume that you agree with Blake that science is the tree of death?

Not someone I connect with. The fact you view Blake like that probably indicates where you are at. His works answer all the questions for me.

Such a narrow view of the works of Blake! It’s far more complicated than that. You might start with Los and Urizen’s split in the First Book of Urizen

You would probably do well to read your quote in the light of the Neoplatonic influences

Narrow? I gave no comment on the works of Blake. I was asking what point you were making. Not Blake.

The fact you picked that one quote in isolation says a lot! What does that quote mean to you?

It's part of the name of the picture that you posted and it refers to science which is part of what we are discussing.

So what does it mean to you?