![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/05\/StraitJacket.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
The words of MR<\/a>, an atheist, will be in blue<\/span>. Words of fellow atheist Bob Seidensticker will be in green<\/span>. MR was commenting<\/a> on a discussion thread that became my paper, \u201cWhy Do We Worship God? Dialogue with an Atheist.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n [from the \u201cWorship\u201d dialogue]<\/p>\n Bob Seidensticker<\/em>: How much evidence would you need to convert to some other religion? That\u2019s probably how much I\u2019d need.<\/span><\/p>\n Me<\/em>: I can\u2019t tell you how much you<\/em> need, because that is your thing, that I am exploring. I\u2019m delving into your<\/em> epistemology, and your fundamental axioms and premises, not mine. You say you need more evidence, so the natural question to ask is: how much is enough? What would this look like for you?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Sorry to jump in here, but I was really looking forward to you answering this question. I\u2019m very interested in how much evidence\u00a0you<\/i>\u00a0would need.<\/span><\/p>\n If that\u2019s directed towards me, I have answered in one way or another in scores of articles. I am asking Bob currently because he brought it up; yet he is very reluctant to reply to my simple question. He wants to keep moving the questioning back to me as the recipient. Atheists very typically do this, but I don\u2019t do one-way discussions. I do\u00a0dialogues<\/i>. I challenge the other guy, too. On my site, it\u2019s not only the Christian who is always on the defensive, always on the hot seat. Atheists receive scrutiny, too. They don\u2019t\u00a0like<\/i>\u00a0that \u2014 aren\u2019t\u00a0used<\/i>\u00a0to it at all \u2014 , but that\u2019s reality and life. Tough!<\/p>\n Bob raised the question, but I think it\u2019s an important question and I, myself, am asking you what you would need to convert to some other religion. What kind of evidence would you require?<\/span><\/p>\n Briefly, I would have to be unpersuaded of all that I believe in Catholicism, just as I was systematically unpersuaded (mostly through my own intense study) of Protestantism within Christianity. I became a Catholic in 1990 at age 32 after 13 committed (and happy) years of Protestant evangelicalism.<\/p>\n Then I would have to be shown how and why another religion was ubiquitously superior<\/em> to Catholicism: what in its claims can overthrow<\/em> my present belief-system.<\/p>\n I am a Catholic and a Christian because of a large accumulation of all sorts of evidences and arguments (theological, biblical, historical, philosophical, scientific, experiential), considered together as a whole, and compelling in effect. Initially, I think most believe in God because it is a \u201cproperly basic belief\u201d<\/a>: as I alluded to in my dialogue with Bob.<\/p>\n So, you still haven\u2019t answered the question. \u201cProve to me I\u2019m wrong\u201d isn\u2019t evidence for another religion. Suppose someone did prove you wrong, how would that be evidence that another religion is right? And, are you saying that a religion being \u201csuperior\u201d (whatever that means) is a reason to believe? <\/span><\/p>\n In context, I meant that it would have to be a superior alternative intellectually and rationally, i.e., that it would have more evidences and reasons in its favor than my current Catholicism does, and would be able to debunk my current reasons, so that I could conclude that it was true, rather than Catholicism.<\/p>\n I would be surprised if you really believed that. Besides, how is that evidence?<\/span><\/p>\n You were the one to ask Bob what evidence he would require, but now you shy away from answering it yourself. In addition, you criticized Bob for not directly answering it!<\/span><\/p>\n I think Bob has made an important point, The evidence he would require is probably on par with the evidence you would require to believe a religion you don\u2019t already believe. If you think it so easy for Bob, why can\u2019t you provide an example yourself, then we could see if the evidence you would require is on par with Bob\u2019s. You seem a reasonable person; I suspect it would be. Why shy away?<\/span><\/p>\n Of course I answered, and as usual it is never enough, in these sorts of discussions. I answered (and it\u2019s absurd to now claim that I didn\u2019t), whereas Bob indisputably punted the same sort of question: when I inquired as to what evidence would make him believe in God: how much would be\u00a0enough<\/i>. He wants to avoid it, and claims that only Christians are supposed to be questioned. I addressed it head-on, in reply to you (as I have all his arguments). But it\u2019s a very complex question, so I had to do it only in nutshell form. Nevertheless, the entire essence of a longer answer is there.<\/p>\n I have a massive accumulation of evidences for the truth of Christianity and specifically Catholicism, that I find compelling. As an apologist, I have that many more than a non-apologist, because I\u2019m defending my belief-system against the charges of folks like Bob all the time.<\/p>\n All that has to be overthrown. As I said: \u201cI would have to be shown how and why another religion was ubiquitously superior to Catholicism: what in its claims can overthrow my present belief-system.\u201d Positive arguments for another superior view would be required for me to adopt another religion and not just be in \u201climbo.\u201d<\/p>\n I didn\u2019t say it was an easy<\/em> question to answer, but it can<\/em> be answered with a simple summary statement<\/em>, as I did. He refused<\/em> to do that, I did not<\/em>. I don\u2019t bow to double standards in discussion.<\/p>\n But my discussion with him was precisely about what\u00a0his<\/i>\u00a0requirements are, not mine. Atheists generally squirm when asked fundamental, bottom-line epistemological questions about their own belief-systems, and I think many of them do because they know down-deep that they don\u2019t\u00a0have<\/i>\u00a0very good reasons; at any rate, no more immediately compelling than the bottom-line reasons [more intellectual and theologically educated type] Christians give for their beliefs.<\/p>\n And I pointed out that what you gave is not even considered evidence. You danced around the question, exactly as you accuse Bob. If someone walked up to you and said, \u201cMy religion is absolutely the one and only true religion, and I can prove it to you. Ask me for any evidence you like and I can give it to you.\u201d What evidence would you ask for?<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, \u201ctheological, biblical [or alternate claimed inspired \/ divine \/ revelatory holy book], historical, philosophical, scientific, experiential\u201d evidence and reasoning and facts.<\/p>\n Lol! For example? Sheesh, it\u2019s like pulling teeth.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t see why you have such a hard time comprehending all this.<\/p>\n But you choose to pester me to answer a thing that is off-topic, and I answer, then you claim I haven\u2019t;<\/p>\n Because you haven\u2019t. If Jane believes in animism and someone completely convinces her that she is wrong, that is not then evidence for Hinduism. If Jane believes in Catholicism and someone completely convinces her that she is wrong, that is still not evidence for Hinduism.<\/span><\/p>\n whereas you won\u2019t encourage Bob to give any answer (which was the\u00a0topic<\/i>, that\u00a0he<\/i>\u00a0initially \/ voluntarily brought up, along with several other topics; underneath a lengthy dialogue about hell<\/em>).<\/p>\n The whole point is, is the evidence you would require to believe a religion you don\u2019t currently believe similar to what Bob would require? That is the point. When you can honestly answer the question, something that you seem to be having trouble with, then we can turn to Bob and say, \u201cIs this reasonable evidence?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Always diversions and unseemly nitpicking . . .<\/p>\n Well, it\u2019s not a diversion or nitpicking for me, it\u2019s an important question to me.<\/span><\/p>\n I should add also that it\u2019s not the same going from one form of religion to another, compared to going from atheism to theism and then possibly also some religious belief. We have an entire set of propositions that we believe, of many sorts. That\u2019s why I said I would have to be unpersuaded of my present belief-system first; then go on to consider some alternate claims.<\/p>\n For Christianity, the usual locus, if there is one, is Jesus Christ. One would have to prove either that He didn\u2019t exist at all, or that His crucifixion and\/or Resurrection and\/or post-Resurrection appearances did not occur. This comes under historical argumentation and evidences. I don\u2019t think anyone has come within a million miles of demonstrating any of that. Paul in the Bible says that denial of the Resurrection alone would essentially bring Christianity down:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:13-20<\/b>\u00a0(RSV) But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;\u00a0\u00a0[14] if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.\u00a0\u00a0[15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.\u00a0[16] For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.\u00a0[17] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.\u00a0[18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.\u00a0[19] If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.\u00a0[20] But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If that were proven to me, I imagine that I would join Judaism as the next best thing: which is identical to or consistent with\u00a0most<\/i>\u00a0of what I believe, but without Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. In other words, that would entail a denial of trinitarianism as well. But I\u2019d still be a monotheist and in the Old Testament biblical tradition and rabbinic traditions.<\/p>\n For monotheism to be overthrown, and to move to eastern-type religion, many other arguments would have to be made.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve answered [your question] in a hundred different ways throughout my blog and its 2000+ articles and my 49 theological books. It\u2019s complex: C-O-M-P-L-E-X, but can be\u00a0summarized briefly<\/i>, as I did (which is what rational, busy people do when asked about complex questions and\/or complex beliefs that they themselves hold).<\/p>\n What you\u2019re asking is like asking someone who adores his wife (as I do): \u201cwhy do you love your wife? I wanna know every single reason why<\/strong><\/em>; every jot and tittle.\u201d And most people would say, \u201cit\u2019s a thousand<\/em> reasons all amounting to one<\/em>: she\u2019s wonderful!\u201d At best one could break down the many reasons into broad categories, which I did.<\/p>\n I summarized my reasons, and Bob could do the same thing. It required only a simple reply, and most atheists in my experience actually readily give an answer to this particular question. They might say, for example, \u201cGod has to rearrange the stars so that they spell out, \u2018I exist'\u201d or \u201cJesus has to appear right before my eyes [like Doubting Thomas] or be raised from the dead in my presence.\u201d<\/p>\n But Bob didn\u2019t do that. He switched it right over to me, which is a cheap and unworthy junior high school debating trick.<\/p>\n You\u2019re still avoiding my (your) question. I could[n\u2019t] care less what you currently believe, or what the 9\/11 hijackers believed, or what Ghandi<\/span> [sic] believed, I want to know what evidence would convince you\/them\/me to believe something else.<\/span><\/p>\n BS! At this point I\u2019ll adopt Bob<\/em>\u2018s methodology, which you seem to think is fine and dandy:<\/p>\n Me: What do you believe is \u201cenough\u201d evidence?<\/p>\n Bob: You tell me. How much evidence would you need to convert to some other religion? That\u2019s probably how much I\u2019d need.<\/span><\/p>\n Me: On what basis can you establish what is \u201cenough\u201d evidence?<\/p>\n Bob: Ask God. He\u2019s really smart, and he would know what it would take to convince me.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So I\u2019ll take that mentality and apply it to your question to me:<\/p>\n You: I want to know what evidence would convince you\/them\/me to believe something else.<\/span><\/p>\n Me: You tell me. How much evidence would you need to convert to some religion? That\u2019s probably how much I\u2019d need. Ask God. He\u2019s really smart, and he would know what it would take to convince me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If his method was fine in reply to my question, and you have no problem with it, then obviously I need to use the same method (rather than my direct replies) to please you and answer your question, to your nitpicking, obnoxious satisfaction. So I\u00a0did<\/i>. Have a great day!<\/p>\n Sigh\u2026, first of all, I\u2019ve heard plenty of things that atheists have posited that could get them to believe in God, including Bob. He\u2019s explored that theme on his blog. My own threshold is likely lower than most. What I find fascinating is that apologists are quick to throw the question out at atheists, as if to say, \u201cNo amount of evidence would be good enough you.\u201d But, apologists are loathe to answer the question themselves. Personally, I think the reason for this is that you are just like me, the bar (rightly) needs to be sufficiently high, but you can\u2019t criticize Bob for having a high bar if yours is high, too.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m confused. Is it complex or a simple reply?<\/span><\/p>\n He switched it right over to me, which is a cheap and unworthy junior high school debating trick.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Personally, I think he was just making an excellent point. It doesn\u2019t change the fact that you yourself dodged the question, too. I don\u2019t see how you can criticize Bob.<\/span><\/p>\n I did<\/em><\/strong> answer (now many times), and if you say once more that I have not, you\u2019re outta here, because you are repeatedly lying about me, which violates my blog rules for discussion (lying about someone or anyone<\/em> here).<\/p>\n You can have the last word. And this will be a new dialogue on my blog. It has to be seen to be believed.<\/p>\n What I mean is, you didn\u2019t provide evidence. I pointed out why your answers were not evidence. You simply ignored that. I think it\u2019s an important question that every Christian, every believer of every religion, and every atheist even should ask themselves. What evidence would I need to believe some religion I don\u2019t currently believe in, and have I required that level of evidence to my current beliefs?<\/span><\/p>\n Jim Dailey<\/em>:\u00a0Dave clearly answered several times. In fact, his answer looks a lot like what I have seen Bob say about what it would take for him<\/em> to convert.\u00a0Please stop badgering. Bob and Dave are interesting. Your comments are not adding anything to a great discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n I wasn\u2019t badgering, I was asking an honest question. I can see by now that I won\u2019t get a straightforward answer, so, yes, I am done.<\/span><\/p>\n And you\u2019re banned, too, because you have lied about me yet again, as I warned you not to do, because it violates the blog rules of ethics<\/a> that are enforced fairly for all persons regardless of their beliefs or agreement with me. But your protests will be recorded in my blog paper for all to see. Every single word of yours will appear.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0Strait-Jacket<\/a><\/i>\u00a0trailer\u00a0(Columbia Pictures, 1964)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What can I\u00a0do after answering a question repeatedly in many ways, yet am told over and over that I haven\u2019t answered at all? The words of MR, an atheist, will be in blue. Words of fellow atheist Bob Seidensticker will be in green. MR was commenting on a discussion thread that became my paper, \u201cWhy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":19070,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,587],"tags":[2347,258,335,5513,5519,119,5516,979,5522],"class_list":["post-19064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","category-heresies-comparative-religion","tag-apologetics","tag-atheism","tag-atheists","tag-evidences","tag-philosophical-justification","tag-philosophy-of-religion","tag-reasons","tag-religious-epistemology","tag-warrant-for-beliefs"],"yoast_head":"\n