How do you convince people god exists?

karlitob

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Couldn't remember who posted it and hadn't time to scroll back looking.

As for wandering in. Ive been doing so since fairly early in the thread. Honestly , it's the same old rhetoric rehashed. I'm not sure if it has a purpose without the Christians wandering in.

No one here can disprove God and always put it back on the believer to prove Him.

I have my experience of Him. You don't and therefore He's not real to you or any other atheist. Lack of experience is not proof of non existence, it's just lack of experience.

Same can be said for pink unicorns, though I'm not sure anyone here has experienced them so not sure what the fascination is with them.

As for not replying to your post. There are other posts I didn't reply to either. Ive limited time so you're not special in not being responded to.

How dare you! I’m a fervent believer in pink unicorns. If you have never experienced the love and wonder of a relationship with Pinky - the overlord of the pink unicorns - then I pity you. But don’t you dare tell me that my belief in pink unicorns is less than your belief in your god just because you’re not sure others have experienced them. I don’t need you to validate my faith in the existence of the one true god - pinky.
All hail pinky.

Fun fact. Pinky is the product of a Virgin birth of red unicorn and white unicorn.

SouthWesterly

karlitob wrote: »

How dare you! I’m a fervent believer in pink unicorns. If you have never experienced the love and wonder of a relationship with Pinky - the overlord of the pink unicorns - then I pity you. But don’t you dare tell me that my belief in pink unicorns is less than your belief in your god just because you’re not sure others have experienced them. I don’t need you to validate my faith in the existence of the one true god - pinky.
All hail pinky.

Fun fact. Pinky is the product of a Virgin birth of red unicorn and white unicorn.

I love the outrage

Long live pinky, long live FSM (pbuh)

one world order

The bible warns us this world is controlled by the devil and there is a spiritual realm that we can’t see or physically touch, which is why we need God’s word to protect us from the devil and his demons.

In today’s world we see that it is controlled by the Devil and we have been programmed by media and film since we were born that God does not exist. A lot of people are too caught up with the world and don’t realise they are being deceived and lead astray.

Those that control the Bank of International Settlements and privately owned US Federal Reserve are part of the luciferian worshipping illuminati that control this world. We see the misery they inflict on the world and their roots extend out to large media corporations, financial institutions, governments, Hollywood and the music industry.

For atheists this is a hard pill to swallow. Their perception of reality since they were born is based on a lie. They scream conspiracy, hate Jesus Christ and try to ban people that speak the truth. This is why the bible is so important. It is God’s word and allows Christians to be in the world but not of the world.

jaxxx

Bannasidhe wrote: »

An afterlife would be nice.
Winning the lotto would also be nice.
I'm not gambling on either.

F*ck that sideways and backwards. Living once is enough tyvm!

one world order wrote: »

The bible warns us this world is controlled by the devil and there is a spiritual realm that we can’t see or physically touch, which is why we need God’s word to protect us from the devil and his demons.

In today’s world we see that it is controlled by the Devil and we have been programmed by media and film since we were born that God does not exist. A lot of people are too caught up with the world and don’t realise they are being deceived and lead astray.

Those that control the Bank of International Settlements and privately owned US Federal Reserve are part of the luciferian worshipping illuminati that control this world. We see the misery they inflict on the world and their roots extend out to large media corporations, financial institutions, governments, Hollywood and the music industry.

For atheists this is a hard pill to swallow. Their perception of reality since they were born is based on a lie. They scream conspiracy, hate Jesus Christ and try to ban people that speak the truth. This is why the bible is so important. It is God’s word and allows Christians to be in the world but not of the world.

A bible that was written by people men with agendas.. .. .. Sure, you cling onto "god's word" when god had sweet f*ck all to do with it.

one world order

jaxxx wrote: »

F*ck that sideways and backwards. Living once is enough tyvm!



A bible that was written by people men with agendas.. .. .. Sure, you cling onto "god's word" when god had sweet f*ck all to do with it.

Wrong. The Holy Spirit worked through people that gave us the bible.

nthclare

karlitob wrote: »

So you’re agnostic about
- Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia between 1930 and 1974, as the Second Coming of Christ (Rastafarianism)
- wanka tankan
- Zeus
- xenu
- Odin
- Bacchus

I'm even agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster and Russell's teapot.

For all we know they might be lover's and God only knows when Russells teapot will arrive on our shore's and emulate the cup that runneth over metaphor.

There's also fairies at the bottom of the garden playing a game of hurling.

nthclare

smacl wrote: »

I love the richness and complexity of different traditions, belief systems and mythologies but also believe that there's more to something being possibly true than wanting it to be true. A bit sad maybe, but there you go. I find that the notion of an afterlife leads some people to waste the one life they definitely do have. They live like they're playing a game of space invaders with more lives left if they wipe out without realising they're already on their last guy

lol sometimes if you play well enough you'll get an extra life

Well according to my lifestyle I'm going down to the depths of hell, and its sounds like fun

nthclare

Bannasidhe wrote: »

An afterlife would be nice.
Winning the lotto would also be nice.
I'm not gambling on either.

Time's are tough Bannashidhe, hold onto your money...

Gambling leads to the dark side

Bannasidhe

one world order wrote: »

The bible warns us this world is controlled by the devil and there is a spiritual realm that we can’t see or physically touch, which is why we need God’s word to protect us from the devil and his demons.

In today’s world we see that it is controlled by the Devil and we have been programmed by media and film since we were born that God does not exist. A lot of people are too caught up with the world and don’t realise they are being deceived and lead astray.

Those that control the Bank of International Settlements and privately owned US Federal Reserve are part of the luciferian worshipping illuminati that control this world. We see the misery they inflict on the world and their roots extend out to large media corporations, financial institutions, governments, Hollywood and the music industry.

For atheists this is a hard pill to swallow. Their perception of reality since they were born is based on a lie. They scream conspiracy, hate Jesus Christ and try to ban people that speak the truth. This is why the bible is so important. It is God’s word and allows Christians to be in the world but not of the world.

MOD

You were warned in another thread to stop proselytising and begin discussing. In that warning you were specifically advised to reacquaint yourself with the charter and it was highlighted that soapboxing is not permitted. Yet here you are - soapboxing in a different thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114023192&postcount=20

The charter applies across this forum. Just because you were warned to stop doing something in one thread does not mean you can simply continue to do so in another.

Do not discuss this in any thread - take it to PM

uptherebels

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Couldn't remember who posted it and hadn't time to scroll back looking.

As for wandering in. Ive been doing so since fairly early in the thread. Honestly , it's the same old rhetoric rehashed. I'm not sure if it has a purpose without the Christians wandering in.

No one here can disprove God and always put it back on the believer to prove Him.

I have my experience of Him. You don't and therefore He's not real to you or any other atheist. Lack of experience is not proof of non existence, it's just lack of experience.

Same can be said for pink unicorns, though I'm not sure anyone here has experienced them so not sure what the fascination is with them.

As for not replying to your post. There are other posts I didn't reply to either. Ive limited time so you're not special in not being responded to.

Is your experience of "him" an experience of him? Or something you attributed to "him"?
We don't need to disprove God, the default position is that something doesn't exist until there is proof it does.
On a separate point, how would you expect someone to prove a negative?

SouthWesterly

uptherebels wrote: »

Is your experience of "him" an experience of him? Or something you attributed to "him"?
We don't need to disprove God, the default position is that something doesn't exist until there is proof it does.
On a separate point, how would you expect someone to prove a negative?

From my point of view you need to disprove God. This thread is testament to the fact that you can't.
Millions upon millions since the beginning of creation have proven His existence by their experience of Him. From my point of view, it's you who needs to prove to me that He doesn't exist.
The human race didn't believe the earth was round. Their non belief didn't change the facts.

Bannasidhe

SouthWesterly wrote: »

From my point of view you need to disprove God. This thread is testament to the fact that you can't.
Millions upon millions since the beginning of creation have proven His existence by their experience of Him. From my point of view, it's you who needs to prove to me that He doesn't exist.
The human race didn't believe the earth was round. Their non belief didn't change the facts.

And they would have been correct - the Earth is not 'round'.

But I suspect you mean they believed the Earth is flat - can you supply evidence 'the human race' believed this?

Rock77

SouthWesterly wrote: »

From my point of view you need to disprove God. This thread is testament to the fact that you can't.
Millions upon millions since the beginning of creation have proven His existence by their experience of Him. From my point of view, it's you who needs to prove to me that He doesn't exist.
The human race didn't believe the earth was round. Their non belief didn't change the facts.

But surely you can see the flawed logic here... surely you know that you can’t prove something doesn’t exist...

I know people have used pink unicorns and such to debate with you but do you see what their point is?

YOU can’t prove that pink unicorns don’t exist.. can you? But that doesn’t prove they do exist, does it?

So do you apply the same logic for everything? Do you believe in pink unicorns until somebody proves they don’t exist?

robindch

Rock77 wrote: »

Do you believe in pink unicorns until somebody proves they don’t exist?

And I've developed a medicine for keeping pink unicorns at bay.

So far, it's been 100% effective and I'm selling it privately - please PM for details.

SouthWesterly

Rock77 wrote: »

But surely you can see the flawed logic here... surely you know that you can’t prove something doesn’t exist...

I know people have used pink unicorns and such to debate with you but do you see what their point is?

YOU can’t prove that pink unicorns don’t exist.. can you? But that doesn’t prove they do exist, does it?

So do you apply the same logic for everything? Do you believe in pink unicorns until somebody proves they don’t exist?

I know He exists. You can't prove otherwise and yet atheism insists He doesn't. Surely the logic is flawed

SouthWesterly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And they would have been correct - the Earth is not 'round'.

But I suspect you mean they believed the Earth is flat - can you supply evidence 'the human race' believed this?

And yet the ops testament speaks of God sitting on the circle of the earth.
Most sane people know the earth is a globe rather that a flat object if that's what your referring to.

Bannasidhe

SouthWesterly wrote: »

And yet the ops testament speaks of God sitting on the circle of the earth.
Most sane people know the earth is a globe rather that a flat object if that's what your referring to.

I asked you to provide proof of your claim that the human race did not believe the Earth was round.
The request was very clear.
You made the claim.
I am asking for the basis of that claim to be provided.

The Bible doesn't count by the way. It does not encompass the 'human race'.

Bannasidhe

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I know He exists. You can't prove otherwise and yet atheism insists He doesn't. Surely the logic is flawed

You do not know.
You believe.

It is not the same thing.

Rock77

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I know He exists. You can't prove otherwise and yet atheism insists He doesn't. Surely the logic is flawed

You know who exists? I was talking about pink unicorns.. why didn’t you answer any of my questions?

I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I’m just wondering if you apply the same logic to everything..

Do you believe something exists until it’s proven that it doesn’t exist?

You know a god exists, good for you.

I don’t know that a god exists, do you think I should believe a god exists until somebody proves one doesn’t exist?

Atheism does not insist a god doesn’t exist.

jaxxx

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You do not know.
You believe.

It is not the same thing.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I know He exists. You can't prove otherwise and yet atheism insists He doesn't. Surely the logic is flawed

And you're talking about logic.. .. .. right.

nozzferrahhtoo

SouthWesterly wrote: »

As for wandering in.

Which, I repeat, was not what I said.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

No one here can disprove God and always put it back on the believer to prove Him.

Rightly so. If you want to make something up, then it is on you to show that that something is true. It is not for people to falsify a claim you abjectly, but consistently, refuse to offer a shred of evidence for.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I have my experience of Him. You don't and therefore He's not real to you or any other atheist.

I have never experienced Australia either. That does not mean it is not real to me. People have evidenced the existence of Australia to me. I have not had any direct experience of Hitler either. Yet I have little doubts as to his historical existence.

You are acting like direct personal experience is the only evidence for a claim. The problem is not that I do not have ONE piece of evidence that you claim you have. It is that I have ZERO evidence of ANY sort at all.

It is you, not I, making it all about one piece/type of evidence. I am more open minded than that.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

From my point of view you need to disprove God.

THAT you think this is hardly in doubt, so you do not need to remind us of it. On what basis you think it however is opaque to many of us and, I am beginning to suspect, to you.

Your entire basis for thinking people have to disprove unsubstantiated nonsense is basically that other people believed this unsubstantiated nonsense too.

SouthWesterly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I asked you to provide proof of your claim that the human race did not believe the Earth was round.
The request was very clear.
You made the claim.
I am asking for the basis of that claim to be provided.

The Bible doesn't count by the way. It does not encompass the 'human race'.

Making the rules up as you go along. Who are you to say what counts?

SouthWesterly

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which, I repeat, was not what I said.



Rightly so. If you want to make something up, then it is on you to show that that something is true. It is not for people to falsify a claim you abjectly, but consistently, refuse to offer a shred of evidence for.



I have never experienced Australia either. That does not mean it is not real to me. People have evidenced the existence of Australia to me. I have not had any direct experience of Hitler either. Yet I have little doubts as to his historical existence.

You are acting like direct personal experience is the only evidence for a claim. The problem is not that I do not have ONE piece of evidence that you claim you have. It is that I have ZERO evidence of ANY sort at all.

It is you, not I, making it all about one piece/type of evidence. I am more open minded than that.



THAT you think this is hardly in doubt, so you do not need to remind us of it. On what basis you think it however is opaque to many of us and, I am beginning to suspect, to you.

Your entire basis for thinking people have to disprove unsubstantiated nonsense is basically that other people believed this unsubstantiated nonsense too.

Its nonsense to you. It's life to me.

nozzferrahhtoo

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Its nonsense to you. It's life to me.

Which makes you biased, emotionally mostly but intellectually too.... and me open minded. That makes communication difficult of course. If one of us is constrained by a deep emotional bias that the other (me) is not.... communication is rendered problematic.

What helps in such situations is to ask the same questions but in a completely different context.

In a court of law for example it is the people making the claim that usually carry the onus of evidence. If there is zero evidence you committed the murder, you do not HAVE to prove you didn't. You CAN of course, with an albeit or similar. But unless there is a case against you, you should not have to.

Similarly in science people do not just make up random ideas and act like they are true and that everyone else has to prove them wrong. While science is based on proving things wrong by experimentation and prediction....... an entirely unsubstantiated idea is just that. An unsubstantiated idea. It does not matter if 1 person or 1 million people believe the idea. If I just made it up, and I have ZERO evidence for it.... that's on me.

So I am curious what context OTHER than you pretending there is a god........ can you think of where people get to make a claim and then act like everyone else who does not believe the claim has the onus of evidence? Or is it magically only on the things YOU want to call "true" that this happens?

And what of the millions of people who believe in polytheism? Why is it you do not have to prove them wrong? Why is it only YOUR Fantasy that is immune to the burden of proof, but everyone else's is not?

TLDR: I am seeing nothing except your "Argumentum ad populum" that justifies your pretence that everyone has to prove your claim wrong rather than you evidence your claim true?

Bannasidhe

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Making the rules up as you go along. Who are you to say what counts?

Mod

I am the person who is drawing your attention to the following from the forum charter

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

and warning you that your placard proclamations stop now, as does your continual telling people here what they do or do not believe. You are not engaging in discussion in good faith but are instead playing silly gotcha games. That is not discussion. That is soapboxing. I would even go so far as to say it is borderline trolling at this stage.

I am also the person warning you that making alleged statements of fact and then refusing to provide supporting evidence when requested to do so is frowned upon in this forum. The person who makes the claim provides the supporting evidence. That is how we do things around here.
You do not get to make the rules up as you go along.

Do not respond to this in thread. If you have any questions take it to PM.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

An afterlife would be nice.

I'm not so sure it would be, actually...

Hotblack Desiato

nthclare wrote: »

Ah come on now, it wasn't so long ago when Atheism Ireland were trying to get together on a Sunday and have a secular gathering.

So what?

kowloonkev

I really don't get people's obsession with others' faith. Some people believe in God. Get over it.

Science, law, political systems, education systems are equally as corruptable as religion. We know scientists blatantly lie for money. We know they lied about the effects of smoking. We know they lied about face masks. So how can we know when they are telling the truth? How do we know whether humanity has proof of the existence of God? Would they tell us if they had proof? Would it be bad for business?

We know the court of law is different in every country so which court are we comparing religion to? Do you really think in most countries there is a burden of proof on the accuser? Do you really think evidence beyond doubt is required if people in authority want somebody gone? Do you think they won't be able to produce such evidence where it doesn't exist if necessary?

Using science and law as bastions of how we ought to maintain standards, be responsible and hold people responsible is very amusing to me.

nozzferrahhtoo

kowloonkev wrote: »

I really don't get people's obsession with others' faith. Some people believe in God. Get over it.

Is that not a bit like going into a pub and declaring you think everyone is obsessed with beer, or onto a sports pitch and wonder why everyone seems to be obsessed with balls?

You have come SPECIFICALLY to a forum that discussed faith and religion, and you think we are obsessed?

kowloonkev wrote: »

Science, law, political systems, education systems are equally as corruptable as religion.

Not equally so. Please show your measurements and workings in how you valued this corruptability exactly, and how you concluded the final values to be equal.

There are things, like in for example science, that are specifically built to undermine corruption. Does that mean it is perfect and corruption free? Hell no! Science has a long way to go there yet. But the existence of corruption and human bias and agendas there does not mean it is EQUALLY corruptible as something based solely and entirely on fantasy.

Everything faces the potential of corruption. But the more something tracks with reality and evidence and substantiation and discourse..... the less that potential becomes. Whereas the less something tracks with reality, for example religion, the more potential there is.

kowloonkev wrote: »

We know scientists blatantly lie for money. We know they lied about the effects of smoking. We know they lied about face masks. So how can we know when they are telling the truth? How do we know whether humanity has proof of the existence of God? Would they tell us if they had proof? Would it be bad for business?

All we can do is work on the evidence we DO have at any given time, without getting tin foil hat about the evidence we do not have. We could sit around imagining "they" have evidence for "a god" whoever they/god is. Conspiracy theories about what they might be hiding from us. But that way madness lies.

The alternative is to say "Well what evidence have I got right now, and if I have trouble understanding evidence what education can I get for myself to assist me in parsing it?"

You mention smoking and masks for example. Rather than scream about being lied to, ask yourself what evidence you have. What do you know about masks for example? And the virus they are meant to prevent? YOU can ask questions like "How does the virus leave the body? How does it travel? What size are the particles they leave the body on? What size particles does a mask stop?" and you come to the conclusion not just that masks do help, but also WHY they help.

The problem there is not science. The problem is people sitting back wanting conclusions handed to them on a plate. Only a science literate public can hold the world of scientists, and governments, to account. And all too often people are happy to remain ignorant and not put in ever small levels of effort. And the thing is even small effort reaps large rewards in scientific literacy. Simply reading.... and re-reading if you did not understand it the first time.... a book like Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" is enough to move anyone up several levels of literacy when it comes to science.

kowloonkev wrote: »

Using science and law as bastions of how we ought to maintain standards, be responsible and hold people responsible is very amusing to me.

Great that no one has actually done that here then I suppose. What WAS done was they were used as random examples, and a yard stick to ask the question why one single user feels he can make up what he likes and everyone has to prove HIM wrong, but if anyone elses makes any claims or counter claims, they have to prove themselves right.

When someone does not have the burden of proof EITHER when they are making claims or evaluating claims.... that someone is playing you for a fool. And I am no one's fool whatever else I might be.

robindch

kowloonkev wrote: »

I really don't get people's obsession with others' faith. Some people believe in God. Get over it.

"Get over it" is such a teenagery thing - like, honestly :rolleyes:

The problem isn't that people believe in one god or another one, but what happens when lots of people who reckon they all believe the same things about the same god get together and decide that they need to interfere in the lives of other people.

Luckily, here in Ireland, the RCC and other religious outfits retain little genuine influence any more. The one area where they do retain some influence and where they wield it with something like the energy of past years is in their control of the vast majority of the nation's schools. In this, the state, which pays to run the schools, also allows the various churches which control certain aspects of them, to spend somewhere between 10% and 20% of the curriculum peddling whatever tendentious religious horseshit they wish.

There are other areas as well, but that's the main one. Get the religions out of school and back into the churches where they belong and I can guarantee you that most atheists and agnostics will simply leave them at it - with only the occasional giggle-fit as yet another homophobic preacher turns out - you guessed it - to have a string of dollar-oriented, meth-fuelled boyfriends.

uptherebels

SouthWesterly wrote: »

From my point of view you need to disprove God. This thread is testament to the fact that you can't.
Millions upon millions since the beginning of creation have proven His existence by their experience of Him. From my point of view, it's you who needs to prove to me that He doesn't exist.
The human race didn't believe the earth was round. Their non belief didn't change the facts.

How do you prove something isn't there?
His existence hasn't been "proven". Not by one, never mind millions. There is a reason it is called faith. You will believe something without any evidence but demand evidence to not believe.

People used to attribute what they didn't understand as acts of God/gods. This isn't experience of "him" this a lack of understanding/knowledge by a person/group of people etc in science, geography even statistics.

jaxxx

SouthWesterly wrote: »

From my point of view you need to disprove God. This thread is testament to the fact that you can't.
Millions upon millions since the beginning of creation have proven His existence by their experience of Him. From my point of view, it's you who needs to prove to me that He doesn't exist.
The human race didn't believe the earth was round. Their non belief didn't change the facts.

I believe that there are giant autonomous robotic organisms from the planet Cybertron that have the ability to transform into vehicles at will. Since you can't disprove that, they must exist!!


I've read some BS in my time but you take the f*cking biscuit.. .. ..

uptherebels

kowloonkev wrote: »

I really don't get people's obsession with others' faith. Some people believe in God. Get over it.

Science, law, political systems, education systems are equally as corruptable as religion. We know scientists blatantly lie for money. We know they lied about the effects of smoking. We know they lied about face masks. So how can we know when they are telling the truth? How do we know whether humanity has proof of the existence of God? Would they tell us if they had proof? Would it be bad for business?

We know the court of law is different in every country so which court are we comparing religion to? Do you really think in most countries there is a burden of proof on the accuser? Do you really think evidence beyond doubt is required if people in authority want somebody gone? Do you think they won't be able to produce such evidence where it doesn't exist if necessary?

Using science and law as bastions of how we ought to maintain standards, be responsible and hold people responsible is very amusing to me.

The thing with science is that a claim can be refuted or supported based on the data used to make the claim. And the data used can be refuted/supported based on the methodology used to attain the data.

What would you use instead of science and law?

jaxxx

uptherebels wrote: »

The thing with science is that a claim can be refuted or supported based on the data used to make the claim. And the data used can be refuted/supported based on the methodology used to attain the data.

What would you use instead of science and law?

Magic.

*cough

Bannasidhe

jaxxx wrote: »

I've read some BS in my time but you take the f*cking biscuit.. .. ..

Mod

Keep it civil please.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I am curious what context OTHER than you pretending there is a god........ can you think of where people get to make a claim and then act like everyone else who does not believe the claim has the onus of evidence? Or is it magically only on the things YOU want to call "true" that this happens?

Mod

Wee reminder of the charter

2. Respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different from yours. Forum moderators reserve the right to take action against posts or posters which they deem to be offensive or intended to inflame.

A poster may hold a sincerely held belief that differs from the majority in this forum, they may even express that belief in ways that are somewhat lacking in respect for the lack of belief of others, however that does not mean we disrespect their belief by accusing them of "pretending".

This warning extends to the poster you were responding to - @SouthWesterly is equally obliged to respect the lack of belief of other posters.

Debate, bicker, discuss is all grand - but telling people what they believe, or dismissing other's beliefs as "pretending", is frankly rude and had no place in an adult discussion.

Thanking you.

nthclare

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So what?

I don't understand your response, so what ?

What does that mean ?

Hotblack Desiato

It means, so what?

Christians (or anyone else) don't own the day of the week named after the pagan sun god.

There are good practical reasons why people who want to arrange a social gathering would do it at the weekend.

Cabaal

SouthWesterly wrote: »

From my point of view you need to disprove God. This thread is testament to the fact that you can't.
Millions upon millions since the beginning of creation have proven His existence by their experience of Him. From my point of view, it's you who needs to prove to me that He doesn't exist.
The human race didn't believe the earth was round. Their non belief didn't change the facts.

You first,
You need to disprove elves and fairy's.
Millions of people believe in the world know elves and fairies exist, we see them celebrated in art, media, structures in our landscape and by children and adults each year.

The knowledge that they exist even predates christianity

You need to prove beyond doubt that they don't exist. Given they are older then your god you'll need to disprove them first before anyone can waste time trying to disprove your false god.

karlitob

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mod

Wee reminder of the charter



A poster may hold a sincerely held belief that differs from the majority in this forum, they may even express that belief in ways that are somewhat lacking in respect for the lack of belief of others, however that does not mean we disrespect their belief by accusing them of "pretending".

This warning extends to the poster you were responding to - @SouthWesterly is equally obliged to respect the lack of belief of other posters.

Debate, bicker, discuss is all grand - but telling people what they believe, or dismissing other's beliefs as "pretending", is frankly rude and had no place in an adult discussion.

Thanking you.

Surely (Don’t call me Shirley!) there is a major difference respecting that a person holds a religious belief rather than respecting the religious belief. All beliefs - in fact everything in my view - should be open to ridicule. Not being offended does not outweigh the right to ridicule.

I know you will think that I am being facetious - but I genuinely am offended by your post which intimates that ridicule is outweighed by being offended. And if so, I would imagine that my offence does not outweigh the religious lads offence. Which is an inequality that is plain to see.

If fairies and pink unicorns are ridiculous, so is the belief in it. If xebu is ridiculous, so it the belief in it. I have no more respect for someone who thinks there’s a magical mystery man in the sky than I do anti-vaxxers. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect their right to a belief.


And since there is no god - then they are pretending than one exists. Going to a building once a week where a lad in a toga gives out an ice cream wafer that he says is the body of another lad from 2000 years ago - based on beliefs by a Bronze Age illiterate nomadic people and telling me it exists - is pretending.

The difference between delusion and hallucination is one knows that they are hallucinating.

verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.

karlitob

kowloonkev wrote: »

I really don't get people's obsession with others' faith. Some people believe in God. Get over it.

Firstly, no one is obsessed with your faith. We are interested in your ‘reasoning’ of how someone can have a faith in nothing.

Secondly, the debate on religion is probably the greatest debate and is very interesting. I won’t ‘get over it’

And finally, and most importantly, your belief of a man in the sky affects me, my family and fellow citizens in nearly every walk of life.
- a school (St Who Cares), paid for by the tax payer, can legally discriminate against the hiring of gay staff, on the basis of ‘ethos’. Yet a hospital (St Who Cares Eile, paid for by the tax payer, can’t legal lot discriminate against the hiring of gay staff, though the may have the same ‘ethos’.
- a child needs a baptismal cert to attend a local school. Yet a hospital doesn’t. It appears that religion is not important to access health but is for education - some republic.
- our legislators have to pray before doing their job
- our constitution has religion throughout it
- our Justice system requires oaths to gods. Why in the name of god (get it) would I care that a judge - who believes in a god that I don’t - takes an oath on something that doesn’t exist, to assure me as a citizen that she will do their utmost in the job. They might as well take an oath on fairies.

So your beliefs do affect me. The question is - Why can’t you keep your beliefs to your self.

smacl

karlitob wrote: »

And since there is no god - then they are pretending than one exists.

I'm with you up until this point which is where you go wrong. To pretend implies trying to deceive which if very different than to state and honestly held belief. Genuinely religious people don't pretend their god or gods exist they believe their god or gods exist. To suggest otherwise is to imply deceit which is where you're likely to fall foul of the charter. That you or I might consider the beliefs entirely specious is neither here nor there.

Hotblack Desiato

karlitob wrote: »

- a school (St Who Cares), paid for by the tax payer, can legally discriminate against the hiring of gay staff, on the basis of ‘ethos’.

This is no longer the case, although they can discriminate against anyone not of their faith.
To obtain employment as a primary school teacher in 90% of schools in this country one must obtain the certificate of catholic education and convince a board of management that one is a practising catholic.
Similarly for the 6% which are Church of Ireland.
That leaves about 4% of job opportunities which are open to an honest atheist or agnostic. Somehow this discrimination is held to be legal.

- a child needs a baptismal cert to attend a local school.

This was never the case, but it's a popular myth which led to a lot of baptisms.

Catholic schools used to be able to ask for a baptismal cert, and if they were full, those who did not present one would be turned away in preference to those who did. This is no longer allowed.

"Minority" religion schools which are full can still turn away those not of their faith in preference to those of their own faith.

- our legislators have to pray before doing their job

Although I believe (:)) that this is wrong, no member of the Oireachtas is obliged to attend during the prayer.

- our constitution has religion throughout it

Yes and this is wrong.

- our Justice system requires oaths to gods.

As above. Also as a witness or defendant, having to "out" yourself in court as either a member of a minority religion, or as an atheist, might not be in your best interests.
I'm quite certain that if you were up before the court your defending barrister would advise you to swear on the bible and not affirm.

So your beliefs do affect me. The question is - Why can’t you keep your beliefs to your self.

The religions that kept themselves to themselves though either remained as a small minority or died out altogether. (e.g. Shakers admitted men and women to their cult but insisted all remain celibate - surprise surprise they died out, but made some nice furniture first.)

The ones that were willing to preach zealously, accept converts from all other races and religions, even force conversion at the point of sword or gun, or wipe out their rivals using same, have "succeeded".

karlitob

smacl wrote: »

I'm with you up until this point which is where you go wrong. To pretend implies trying to deceive which if very different than to state and honestly held belief. Genuinely religious people don't pretend their god or gods exist they believe their god or gods exist. To suggest otherwise is to imply deceit which is where you're likely to fall foul of the charter. That you or I might consider the beliefs entirely specious is neither here nor there.

I’ll take your point - I disagree with it. And I’m glad you see I’m not having a go.

From my perspective, I think it’s you/one who implies deceit when using pretence. Dictionary definition would suggest otherwise. There is no god/gods/fairies etx - to engage with and practice in all the revelry and fanfare of ones belief system is pretending, in my view. My intent is not offence in that statement - not will I pretend that a god exists because someone else ‘thinks’ it exists.

I’m not even sure I ‘believe’ in belief or ‘faith’. It’s a position arrived at using their own logic and reason and experience. How they articulate that position is described as a ‘belief’ or a ‘faith’ to make it more acceptable when their reason does not match with their experience and what they have been inculcated with. (Though all that is off point)

‘Genuinely religious people don’t pretend that their god or gods exists’. Again, not being argumentative for the sake of it, but that is something that you can’t know. You can’t say that another persons ‘belief’ is genuine or not. There is no god, then how can their be a genuine belief in something that doesn’t exist. ‘Genuinely held beliefs’ - as the phrase goes now - is new code for ‘don’t challenge me on what I believe because it’s ‘genuinely held’. I’m not saying you’re saying that - but it is the new phrase and it is used as a barrier to any ridicule or challenge to religion, belief and importantly culture that surrounds belief.

For instance, “it’s my genuinely held belief that god doesn’t like the gays so none of them are being hired in this school”. It’s a disgusting logic - and a real situation for our fellow citizens. The defence will typically be that they don’t ‘believe’ in that stuff. Which then gets into the cycle of - you write down there what you do really ‘genuinely believe’ and the stuff don’t you don’t really ‘genuinely believe’. We’ll compare that to all the other people and other religions and their ‘genuine beliefs’. And all the while we’ll evade the only written down values that we should all agree on - the constitution and our laws. (I feel I’ve gone off point).

karlitob

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is no longer the case, although they can discriminate against anyone not of their faith.
To obtain employment as a primary school teacher in 90% of schools in this country one must obtain the certificate of catholic education and convince a board of management that one is a practising catholic.
Similarly for the 6% which are Church of Ireland.
That leaves about 4% of job opportunities which are open to an honest atheist or agnostic. Somehow this discrimination is held to be legal.



This was never the case, but it's a popular myth which led to a lot of baptisms.

Catholic schools used to be able to ask for a baptismal cert, and if they were full, those who did not present one would be turned away in preference to those who did. This is no longer allowed.

"Minority" religion schools which are full can still turn away those not of their faith in preference to those of their own faith.



Although I believe (:)) that this is wrong, no member of the Oireachtas is obliged to attend during the prayer.



Yes and this is wrong.



As above. Also as a witness or defendant, having to "out" yourself in court as either a member of a minority religion, or as an atheist, might not be in your best interests.
I'm quite certain that if you were up before the court your defending barrister would advise you to swear on the bible and not affirm.



The religions that kept themselves to themselves though either remained as a small minority or died out altogether. (e.g. Shakers admitted men and women to their cult but insisted all remain celibate - surprise surprise they died out, but made some nice furniture first.)

The ones that were willing to preach zealously, accept converts from all other races and religions, even force conversion at the point of sword or gun, or wipe out their rivals using same, have "succeeded".

I think we agree.

You’re right on the specifics - as they are now. And I think we agree on the actual experience - baptismal certs are required (legally or not); a sitting a citizen child in the back of the class like an outcast cos the don’t believe in fairies is just madness.

The fact that fairies, I mean god, is even included in any of the above is ludicrous.

smacl

karlitob wrote: »

From my perspective, I think it’s you/one who implies deceit when using pretence. Dictionary definition would suggest otherwise.

Which dictionary definition would that be? You said people 'are pretending a god exists', i.e. using the word pretend as a transitive verb. If you look at dictionary definitions and supporting examples here you see implied deceit, making an assertion that which you know to be false.

Merriam-Webster wrote:

1: to give a false appearance of being, possessing, or performing
does not pretend to be a psychiatrist
2a: to make believe : FEIGN
he pretended deafness
b: to claim, represent, or assert falsely
pretending an emotion he could not really feel
3archaic : VENTURE, UNDERTAKE

There is no god/gods/fairies etx - to engage with and practice in all the revelry and fanfare of ones belief system is pretending, in my view. My intent is not offence in that statement - not will I pretend that a god exists because someone else ‘thinks’ it exists.

I’m not even sure I ‘believe’ in belief or ‘faith’. It’s a position arrived at using their own logic and reason and experience. How they articulate that position is described as a ‘belief’ or a ‘faith’ to make it more acceptable when their reason does not match with their experience and what they have been inculcated with. (Though all that is off point)

‘Genuinely religious people don’t pretend that their god or gods exists’. Again, not being argumentative for the sake of it, but that is something that you can’t know. You can’t say that another persons ‘belief’ is genuine or not. There is no god, then how can their be a genuine belief in something that doesn’t exist. ‘Genuinely held beliefs’ - as the phrase goes now - is new code for ‘don’t challenge me on what I believe because it’s ‘genuinely held’. I’m not saying you’re saying that - but it is the new phrase and it is used as a barrier to any ridicule or challenge to religion, belief and importantly culture that surrounds belief.

You refusing to pretend a god exists is reasonable but is in no way the same thing as stating that everyone who claims to believe a god exists are in fact just pretending. The former is you honestly stated position, that latter is accusing someone of deceit.

tldr; Are you suggesting that everyone who states that they believe in a god or gods are just pretending, i.e. lying to us.

Bannasidhe

karlitob wrote: »

Surely (Don’t call me Shirley!) there is a major difference respecting that a person holds a religious belief rather than respecting the religious belief. All beliefs - in fact everything in my view - should be open to ridicule. Not being offended does not outweigh the right to ridicule.

I know you will think that I am being facetious - but I genuinely am offended by your post which intimates that ridicule is outweighed by being offended. And if so, I would imagine that my offence does not outweigh the religious lads offence. Which is an inequality that is plain to see.

If fairies and pink unicorns are ridiculous, so is the belief in it. If xebu is ridiculous, so it the belief in it. I have no more respect for someone who thinks there’s a magical mystery man in the sky than I do anti-vaxxers. But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect their right to a belief.


And since there is no god - then they are pretending than one exists. Going to a building once a week where a lad in a toga gives out an ice cream wafer that he says is the body of another lad from 2000 years ago - based on beliefs by a Bronze Age illiterate nomadic people and telling me it exists - is pretending.

The difference between delusion and hallucination is one knows that they are hallucinating.

verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.

MOD

Generally questioning a mod instruction in thread is an automatic yellow card but I am letting that slide this time. Although I dithered when I saw the comment about you being 'offended'.

The issue was the word 'pretending'. It is not respectful to claim another poster pretends to believe what they SAY they believe.
It clearly infringes this section of the Charter

2. Respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different from yours. Forum moderators reserve the right to take action against posts or posters which they deem to be offensive or intended to inflame.

It was also an inflammatory comment. An in-thread warning was the least it deserved.

Do not quote/question this post in thread. It is here only as a courtesy explanation not as a debating point.

It is also a warning to you not to question mod instructions in thread - if you have questions take it to PM

karlitob

smacl wrote: »

Which dictionary definition would that be? You said people 'are pretending a god exists', i.e. using the word pretend as a transitive verb. If you look at dictionary definitions and supporting examples here you see implied deceit, making an assertion that which you know to be false.



You refusing to pretend a god exists is reasonable but is in no way the same thing as stating that everyone who claims to believe a god exists are in fact just pretending. The former is you honestly stated position, that latter is accusing someone of deceit.

tldr; Are you suggesting that everyone who states that they believe in a god or gods are just pretending, i.e. lying to us.

verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.


If there is no god, then it is a pretence.

I agree that in the main it is a deceit but not always. I like this definition between lying and pretending.

The child gives a general definition that would include most cases: Lying: “When you say something that's not true.” Pretending: “It's where you make something up that can't really happen.”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327647JCD0403_04?journalCode=hjcd20


Resurrection from death can’t really happen. Nor can virgin births. Or being born with sin - whatever that is. If it “can’t really happen“, then it is a pretence. So yes I am saying that someone who states that they believe in something is pretending, but I’m not saying they’re lying (except to themselves).

And to extend the point - maybe I am in some ways. There’s no one with 100% belief in someone (which I would argue is as sweeping a statement as what you said about genuine believers - we both don’t know what’s in the minds of others) - even the fundamentalist lunatics pick whatever they want. And I guess that’s the point - believers pick and choose what parts of their belief that they want religion. So there’s clearest a pretence. It’s like pretending that there’s a difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation - these aren’t faith issues, they’re dogma issues. So both religions are pretending that there is a difference - whether that’s a deceit or not.....I don’t know?

smacl

karlitob wrote: »

verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not.


If there is no god, then it is a pretence.

Wrong. If you honestly believe something to be true it is not a pretense regardless of whether that thing is true or not. Pretending involves knowingly making something up. Also note, we're not talking about 4-7 year old children here.

karlitob

smacl wrote: »

Wrong. If you honestly believe something to be true it is not a pretense regardless of whether that thing is true or not. Pretending involves knowingly making something up. Also note, we're not talking about 4-7 year old children here.

You’re wrong.

Indeed we are clearly talking about 4-7 years. Sure the reason religious people believe in a god is that they’re been inculcated at a young age, and captured by birth. There’s a reason why people in ireland don’t believe in Islamic religions, why they don’t believe in American Indian religions etc etc. Religious belief is an accident of birth, and of era.

Ignorantia juris non excusat - ignorance is no excuse.