How do you convince people god exists?

smacl

karlitob wrote: »

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.

Rubbish. If, for example, you successfully inculcate a belief in god in a young child, that child is not pretending to believe in god, they actually believe in god.

You seem to be intentionally conflating the belief of something with it actually being true when these things are distinct.

I have no doubt that many people believe in god, Allah and the efficacy of homeopathy where I do not. That does not mean I doubt their belief, I do not think they are just pretending to hold these beliefs.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. If, for example, you successfully inculcate a belief in god in a young child, that child is not pretending to believe in god, they actually believe in god.

You seem to be intentionally conflating the belief of something with it actually being true when these things are distinct.

I have no doubt that many people believe in god, Allah and the efficacy of homeopathy where I do not. That does not mean I doubt their belief, I do not think they are just pretending to hold these beliefs.

Millions of people claim to love Soccer.
They have to be pretending.
It's a boring game.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Millions of people claim to love Soccer.
They have to be pretending.
It's a boring game.

Indeed, how anyone could claim not to love rugby is equally baffling and also no doubt a pretense

nthclare

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, how anyone could claim not to love rugby is equally baffling and also no doubt a pretense

Wuby, do ya loike wuby...

There's a lot of people who claim to like Wuby and they're just in it for the Wuby buzz, hanging out with the jock's and gannets etc

I suppose Richard Harris is my favourite Wuby fan

Bannasidhe

nthclare wrote: »

Wuby, do ya loike wuby...

There's a lot of people who claim to like Wuby and they're just in it for the Wuby buzz, hanging out with the jock's and gannets etc

I suppose Richard Harris is my favourite Wuby fan

I was only in it for the caps.

nthclare

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was only in it for the caps.

Hope you've the deck shoes, Polo Ralph Lauren Polo t-shirt, collar's up, a posh Munster accent and you'll have to go to mass on Sundays just to show a face like.

It's easy though to recognise a real rugby fan over the cliche in it for the validation types of ilk.

Let's all worship the egg shaped ball... rugby would be considered blasphemous in Biblical Times

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, how anyone could claim not to love rugby is equally baffling and also no doubt a pretense

there's no question i hate more than the 'so did you watch the match?' from the taxi driver when you get into the taxi.

nthclare

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's no question i hate more than the 'so did you watch the match?' from the taxi driver when you get into the taxi.

Or when every taxi driver in Dublin spend two weeks in Clare every Summer...
Ahhh I love County Clare, even the sound of the name Clare is beautiful...

Me lack is called Clare, and The best of Gene Pitney playing in the background, I used to love getting into a taxi in Dublin, in the rare aul time's.
When you could have great banter, the Rosary beads swinging from the mirror and the Taxi driver's were honest and reliable.

Bannasidhe

nthclare wrote: »

Hope you've the deck shoes, Polo Ralph Lauren Polo t-shirt, collar's up, a posh Munster accent and you'll have to go to mass on Sundays just to show a face like.

It's easy though to recognise a real rugby fan over the cliche in it for the validation types of ilk.

Let's all worship the egg shaped ball... rugby would be considered blasphemous in Biblical Times

Decent haul of medals, a few caps, and the long-term effects of various injuries.

You seem to have a bit of an oval shaped chip on your shoulder.

nthclare

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Decent haul of medals, a few caps, and the long-term effects of various injuries.

You seem to have a bit of an oval shaped chip on your shoulder.

lol and you're a moderator who suggests argue the topic and don't get personal with the poster.

Another example of your inability to be able to be civil and have some banter without getting personal.

I suppose next you'll be telling me not to discuss moderation in the thread and bring it to the feedback page.

You seem to get personal with me frequently and suggested that I'm not in the top 6 on your resentment radar or people you tend to put in their place or be watching now and again...

Looks like you're a law onto yourself here, cracking the aul whip...

Yada yada yada...

For someone who's a moderator you sure don't have the ability to put principles before personalities...

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's no question i hate more than the 'so did you watch the match?' from the taxi driver when you get into the taxi.

If you want to kill that conversation just ask 'em what they thought of Dan Martin's great performance in the TdF last year. Nothing like enthusing about cycling to wind up a taxi driver :pac:

YouTalking2me

nthclare wrote: »

lol and you're a moderator who suggests argue the topic and don't get personal with the poster.

Another example of your inability to be able to be civil and have some banter without getting personal.

I suppose next you'll be telling me not to discuss moderation in the thread and bring it to the feedback page.

You seem to get personal with me frequently and suggested that I'm not in the top 6 on your resentment radar or people you tend to put in their place or be watching now and again...

Looks like you're a law onto yourself here, cracking the aul whip...

Yada yada yada...

For someone who's a moderator you sure don't have the ability to put principles before personalities...

As a complete outsider reading this thread bored at work, you just look like a bit of a sensitive sally to be honest, but that's none of my business.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

lol and you're a moderator who suggests argue the topic and don't get personal with the poster.

Another example of your inability to be able to be civil and have some banter without getting personal.

I suppose next you'll be telling me not to discuss moderation in the thread and bring it to the feedback page.

You seem to get personal with me frequently and suggested that I'm not in the top 6 on your resentment radar or people you tend to put in their place or be watching now and again...

Looks like you're a law onto yourself here, cracking the aul whip...

Yada yada yada...

For someone who's a moderator you sure don't have the ability to put principles before personalities...

Mod: Carded for being uncivil. Please play the ball and not the man, whatever shape that ball happens to be. As you already know, do not reply in-thread. Thanks for your attention.

nthclare

YouTalking2me wrote: »

As a complete outsider reading this thread bored at work, you just look like a bit of a sensitive sally to be honest, but that's none of my business.

Lol not at all, she's always telling people to behave and carding people because she's overtly sensitive herself.

She's had quite a few digs at me over the years and this is the first time I responded to her and she gets another moderator to send me a private message for being uncivil.

She's too strict and can give but can't take...I'm laughing here because I knew when I responded I'd get a private message within 3 minutes lol

Believe you me I'm far from being triggered or sensitive

robindch

nthclare is taking a day's holiday to reacquaint himself/herself with the forum charter:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

@nthclare - please read the above and when your ban expires, you can post here again. If you continue to post in this aggressive and insulting fashion, you will be banned for a week. If you continue in like fashion after that ban expires, you will be banned permanently from A+A.

YouTalking2me

nthclare wrote: »

Lol not at all, she's always telling people to behave and carding people because she's overtly sensitive herself.

She's had quite a few digs at me over the years and this is the first time I responded to her and she gets another moderator to send me a private message for being uncivil.

She's too strict and can give but can't take...I'm laughing here because I knew when I responded I'd get a private message within 3 minutes lol

Believe you me I'm far from being triggered or sensitive

I'm just going by what I've read today and you seem to be a bit triggered and sensitive.

Also saying you knew you were going to be punished and yet did the thing anyway isn't really a good look.

Also I'm not sure you know what overtly means based on this comment, anyway I'm away again sorry to interfere, have a nice day all of you guys.

Hotblack Desiato

karlitob wrote: »

And I think we agree on the actual experience - baptismal certs are required (legally or not)

Baptismal certs are not required. You can opt in our out of religious instruction whether or not you have told the school what religion your child is, if any. Now we all know that many schools don't respect the letter never mind the spirit of the law on this, but it's got nothing to do with baptismal certs.

Hotblack Desiato

nthclare wrote: »

and the Taxi driver's were honest and reliable.

Taxi drivers in Dublin as a group have never been particularly honest or reliable, and it was worse when the plates their aul dad got from the Carriage Office for £2 were "worth" £50,000.

Hope it's not a thinly veiled "everything was better before we let the blacks in" post.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hope it's not a thinly veiled "everything was better before we let the blacks in" post.

Mod: Let's not be accusing anyone of racism without any evidence of such, no matter how obliquely

robindch

In relation to taxi drivers and racism (as opposed to honesty), some years ago, there were rumours, with plausible supporting evidence, that some taxi drivers may have been using green lights to indicate that they were Irish native drivers. Not sure what happened to the lights, but I did hear further unsubstantiated rumours that words were exchanged between representative organizations and law enforcement agencies and the lights disappeared shortly after that.

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-taxi-drivers-using-covert-signal-of-irishness-444694-May2012/

karlitob

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Baptismal certs are not required. You can opt in our out of religious instruction whether or not you have told the school what religion your child is, if any. Now we all know that many schools don't respect the letter never mind the spirit of the law on this, but it's got nothing to do with baptismal certs.

Of course it is. It’s only gone a year - you’re making out as if it was never required. And whether you don’t present it, they’ll clearly check their own local register against your name.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/education/school-baptism-barrier-gone-for-2019-entry-36967356.html

In the school admissions bill, A child in a minority faith - whatever that is - can be accepted to a faith school. Clearly they need some way to prove that they are of that faith - which is a baptismal cert for Christian schools.


Even the sentence - you can opt in for religious instruction or not is a disgusting phrase (that’s not directed at you). The point I was making in the post that you referenced is in reply to someone asking why atheist are trying to challenge someone’s religion or something to that effect. My reply was that your belief is irrelevant to me but it has an affect on me and other citizens. One example of which is a baptismal cert (only legally just gone, but not practically) to access an education system tax payers pay for.

We also know that children of families who don’t want to be taught to believe in magical men in the sky; pink unicorns or anything supernatural have to sit at the back of the class like a dunce and not be taught anything or use.

So I see what your saying about ‘it’s got nothing to do with baptismal certs’ but it has, particularly in the context of my point.

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

The difference being that you're entered into the draw whether you like it or not, in the event of the former being the case

Making you a gambler by default.

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

No. Stop misrepresenting my position. Lack of faith is not faith. Lack of belief is not belief.

I do not believe god exists. I am not convinced that she exists.

You are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

I'm an aempiricist. That means I lack a belief in philosophical empiricism (and a range of other naturalism-enabling philosophies).

The reason I'm an aempiricist is that I have a belief in a more satisfying explanation for the world around me. Nobody, not you and not me, are going to plump for the 2nd best explanation available to them

Your lack of faith in God/gods presumably arises because of faith in something else - that something else providing you with a satisfactory (or more satisfactory) expanation for the world around you. Philosophical empiricism, for instance.

An atheist usually doesn't operate in a vacuum. They have a belief system. Unfortunately they can't evidence their belief system other than by pointing to their believing their beliefs to be true (or nearest approach to what's true).

If you, for example, believe that reality is best evidenced by whats empirically demonstrable, then you are making a faith statement.


-


It is interesting to note repetitive comments along the lines of 'its okay for people to believe in God. It's when those beliefs interfere with me/society (e.g. religious school dominance) that I object'

What isn't realized, it seems, is that these same people have beliefs (in naturalistic philosophies, for example, even if they don't realize it) and presumably want their belief system to hold sway in society.

Kettle, pot, black abounds.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm an aempiricist. That means I lack a belief in philosophical empiricism (and a range of other naturalism-enabling philosophies).

Despite you claiming that you're not an empiricist, I'll bet you 50p that you'll still try to open a door before you go through it? Or does your rejection of empiricism extend to denying that a door is closed, simply because that's what your fallible, materialistic eyes are telling you?

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...] I have a belief in a more satisfying explanation for the world around me.

As with your claim that you would murder somebody if you thought your deity had told you - presumably non-empirically somehow - to do so, your explanation that you believe whatever it is you believe for no other reason than it's personally "satisfying" suggests a sense of entitlement infinitely beyond us more careful, lesser mortals.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Despite you claiming that you're not an empiricist, I'll bet you 50p that you'll still try to open a door before you go through it?

Empiricist, as in what constitutes all reality is, or is in principle, empirically approachable.

you believe whatever it is you believe for no other reason than it's personally "satisfying" suggests a sense of entitlement infinitely beyond us more careful, lesser mortals.

I would have thought an empiricist believes what he believes because it is personally satisfying to him. I can't see what other basis he has.

But maybe you beg to differ, in which case posit something that doesn't rest on own satisfaction ultimately?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

and presumably want their belief system to hold sway in society.

Kettle, pot, black abounds.

...and we're back to the old "secularism = antitheism" guff.
Nobody wants to prevent you from believing what you want, from worshipping how you want, from teaching this to your kids.

What secularists don't want is the perpetuation of religious dogma through our statute book and constitution, and the warping of public services to pander to religion(s) and be used as a means to proselytise to citizens, frequently the vulnerable, ill or very young.

We are perpetuating a system of education which is not only not fit for purpose today, but has never been fit for purpose and was found to be so comprehensively unfit as far back as 1831. It has caused endless division, sectarianism, discrimination and misery on this island and continues to do so to this day. But RCC and CoI like it so we are stuck with it in this democracy of sorts.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We are perpetuating a system of education which [...] has caused endless division, sectarianism, discrimination and misery on this island and continues to do so to this day.

As you suggest, from the religious perspective, that is the point of it.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...and we're back to the old "secularism = antitheism" guff.

We're back to displacing one thing involving replacing it with another thing. Nature abhorring a vacuum and all

What secularists don't want is the perpetuation of religious dogma through our statute book and constitution, and the warping of public services to pander to religion(s) and be used as a means to proselytise to citizens, frequently the vulnerable, ill or very young.

And having displaced what they don't want, they fill the gap with what they do want. Which was my point.

You're only talking about belief systems.

The secularist (even the theist secularist) wants their view to hold sway.

We are perpetuating a system of education which is not only not fit for purpose today, but has never been fit for purpose and was found to be so comprehensively unfit as far back as 1831. It has caused endless division, sectarianism, discrimination and misery on this island and continues to do so to this day. But RCC and CoI like it so we are stuck with it in this democracy of sorts.

Naturally you believe your system to be better. But it can't be proven to be thus. Its mere belief you have about it. I mean, if you are, by faith, an empiricist, you'll view as better, an education system that promotes this world view.

nozzferrahhtoo

For me it is not about having "faith" in one system over the other. It is simply that I experience that one system performs better than another.

For example if I go to the top of a building I can hear voices in my head telling me I can fly, and I might decide to pretend those voices come from certain sources, or believe they come from certain sources, or both. Or I can use a system of observation, data collation, and prediction to see what normally happens to things I throw off the side of a building.

After this process it is not that I have "faith" in the empirical method.... or that I "believe" that I can not fly. It is simply that given all I have observed, my best educated guess is that no matter what the voices in my head might be telling me.... if I go off the side of the building I will travel down not horizontally or up.

I do not have faith in the empirical methods therefore. I do not have faith there is or is not a god either. I simply go based on the experiences that one methodology has consistently afforded results. One methodology simply has not. Even once. Ever.

Were that data set to change, I would happily change with it, not being wedded to any world view in particular. Certainly not so wedded that I define myself as being "right" by default and then define myself as being "anti" anyone who is sceptical of my assertions and declarations by first principle default.

The idea of "proving" the empirical method therefore is comical to me given that the word "proof" within that method means an entirely different thing that it does to a complete lay man OUTSIDE that methodology who is presuming to use that word in reference to it I giggle every time. YMMV.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

We're back to displacing one thing involving replacing it with another thing. Nature abhorring a vacuum and all

You mean teaching kids actual facts in school? The horror! Where will it end!

If you deny the existence of facts then there is definitely no point in having any further discussion with you.

Naturally you believe your system to be better. But it can't be proven to be thus. Its mere belief you have about it. I mean, if you are, by faith, an empiricist, you'll view as better, an education system that promotes this world view.

It's proven that education systems which do not segregate and discriminate on the basis of religion (or indeed anything else) lead to better outcomes in society. You want to perpetuate a sectarian and class-ridden system which leads to better outcomes for a few.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's proven that education systems which do not segregate and discriminate on the basis of religion (or indeed anything else) lead to better outcomes in society. You want to perpetuate a sectarian and class-ridden system which leads to better outcomes for a few.

What is "better" depends on who is writing the standard for better or worse. That is unavoidable.

I've no issue with secularism per se - I was no fan of Catholic Ireland - I'm merely pointing out that there is always a belief system at work - namely the belief that such and such is "better".

-

Quite how you think we've moved beyond a class system is, well, beyond me.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For me it is not about having "faith" in one system over the other. It is simply that I experience that one system performs better than another.

Empiricism: the belief that all reality is approachable empirically. You might have your reasons for believing so. But that position, if you hold it, is a faith based one.

In your experience, the system you find performs best is the one you adopt. This makes sense. In my experience, the system I find performs best (or explains most) is the one I adopt.

Which was my point: we adopt that which we find most satisfactory to us.

For example if I go to the top of a building I can hear voices in my head telling me I can fly, and I might decide to pretend those voices come from certain sources, or believe they come from certain sources, or both. Or I can use a system of observation, data collation, and prediction to see what normally happens to things I throw off the side of a building.

After this process it is not that I have "faith" in the empirical method.... or that I "believe" that I can not fly. It is simply that given all I have observed, my best educated guess is that no matter what the voices in my head might be telling me.... if I go off the side of the building I will travel down not horizontally or up.

As pointed out, it's the "Empiricist" I was referring to in terms of a faith position.

Your example merely points out the observation above: you go with what you decide works best.

I do not have faith in the empirical methods therefore. I do not have faith there is or is not a god either. I simply go based on the experiences that one methodology has consistently afforded results. One methodology simply has not. Even once. Ever.

Not ever ... for you. And so you hold to the system that works best, given your experience. And others, like me, do likewise.

The Empiricist demands that his faith-based system (all reality is approachable empirically) be bowed to. And when it isn't bowed to, he supposes, not unnaturally, that the problem lies outside his system.

But it is only by faith that his position is sustained.

Were that data set to change, I would happily change with it, not being wedded to any world view in particular. Certainly not so wedded that I define myself as being "right" by default and then define myself as being "anti" anyone who is sceptical of my assertions and declarations by first principle default.

Nevertheless, you operate from the position that all reality is empirically approachable in principle, that that is the measure against which all else is to be assessed. You yourself say you have been asking for evidence of God for years to no avail. You're whole approach is one whereby you expect God to be provable or demonstrable to you by another. Just as anything else in the empirical world.

nozzferrahhtoo

Always nice to have people tell me what I think or believe, especially after me saying what I think and believe and what they tell me is the opposite.

But once again, when you are the kind of person who declares themselves correct by default and that you are on first principles against sceptics of your own assertions... that is the kind of thing we can expect. Observation, prediction, test and repeat. The same method strikes again.

Tell us your faith as you wish. You do not get to invent one vicariously for me and tell me I have it when I don't. I explained my position. You can invent another one for me to talk past me if you like, or you can engage maturely and honestly with the one I actually tell you I hold.

However, all that said, it is nice to see that your ignoring my posts is contrived and select, rather than absolute.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Always nice to have people tell me what I think or believe, especially after me saying what I think and believe and what they tell me is the opposite.

But once again, when you are the kind of person who declares themselves correct by default and that you are on first principles against sceptics of your own assertions... that is the kind of thing we can expect. Observation, prediction, test and repeat. The same method strikes again.

Tell us your faith as you wish. You do not get to invent one vicariously for me and tell me I have it when I don't. I explained my position. You can invent another one for me to talk past me if you like, or you can engage maturely and honestly with the one I actually tell you I hold.

However, all that said, it is nice to see that your ignoring my posts is contrived and select, rather than absolute.

You conclude no God via whatever elements go into making up your worldview. You have reasons for believing your worldview to be the best available to you.

I don't know each and every element but no matter. What matters is that you believe they are fit for purpose - such as to decide and conclude as you currently do.

I do no differently. The problem is you supposing your methods superior to mine, when there is no firm ground under your feet. You cherry pick the likes of voices in ones head vs. empirical experience of falling objects .. as if your cherry pick is representative of anything. That's just a weak, play to the gallery attempt to elevate what is only founded, ultimately, on a belief.

Empirical assessments are fine. But they can only comment on what it is appropriate for them to comment on. And that need not be all reality.

We are in agreement on the narrow issue of objects falling from buildings. But we're talking about where we are not in agreement.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You conclude no God via whatever elements go into making up your worldview.

I have never made that claim no. I just made a post about you making up positions for me, and you respond by directly and instantly doing so again. In fact time and time again I have made posts about how I, like many atheists, do not have a believe in "no god" they just do not have a positive belief there IS one.

Once again though, entertaining informed expectations based on observation of a data set is not a faith based position. I do not know if I can fly off a building or not. I have no knowledge about this, or faith position. All I can say is that having observed what happens to every other person who ever went off the top of a building without the age of technology........ I EXPECT the same would happen to me.

But who knows. Perhaps I actually can fly. I just do not expect so because the data set does not suggest it. Listening to voices in my head is not going to change that data set.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

you operate from the position that all reality is empirically approachable in principle, that that is the measure against which all else is to be assessed.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You conclude no God via whatever elements go into making up your worldview.

Mod: If you are going to make a definitive claim about another poster's beliefs or worldview can you please back up that claim with a solid reference. Unsubstantiated claims of this nature constitute a form of personal attack and will be dealt with accordingly. As always, play the ball, not the man. Thanks for your attention.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Quite how you think we've moved beyond a class system is, well, beyond me.

Where did I say that? Nowhere.

Maybe instead of telling people what it is you think they believe or think, try listening carefully to what they say?

nthclare

Peatys wrote: »

Childhood cancer is all i need to know about your god

You're trying to get a response where over 50 people thanked this post without the poster getting an infraction and you think you can get anywhere trying to convince regular posters that God exists...

This is what is thought of your belief system.
They don't believe in God, but yet a percentage undermine children with cancer by bringing religion into it.
No doubt plagerised from some jumped up superstar Atheist they adore.

I don't understand why people post this gibberish...

Bannasidhe

nthclare wrote: »

You're trying to get a response where over 50 people thanked this post without the poster getting an infraction and you think you can get anywhere trying to convince regular posters that God exists...

This is what is thought of your belief system.
They don't believe in God, but yet a percentage undermine children with cancer by bringing religion into it.
No doubt plagerised from some jumped up superstar Atheist they adore.

I don't understand why people post this gibberish...

MOD
I don't understand why you felt the need to go back to June 2019 in order to find a post and comment that you think that post is gibberish. Yet, that is what you did.

It's almost like you are trying to provoke a reaction, attract some mod action, and then complain you are being picked on.
This could be read as attempting to inflame/low level trolling but, in the light that were it so you will be hit with a week long ban as per Robinch's warning here https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114121977&postcount=666, I am giving you one last benefit of the doubt.

THIS is your final warning to stop having a go at other posters and start to genuinely contribute or face an immediate one week ban as per Robinch's warning.

Hotblack Desiato

nthclare wrote: »

You're trying to get a response where over 50 people thanked this post without the poster getting an infraction and you think you can get anywhere trying to convince regular posters that God exists...

This is what is thought of your belief system.
They don't believe in God, but yet a percentage undermine children with cancer by bringing religion into it.
No doubt plagerised from some jumped up superstar Atheist they adore.

I don't understand why people post this gibberish...

I don't know why you're having a go at "superstar atheists" or anyone else in relation to this question.

It's a question which those who support the notion of an "all knowing, all loving" god struggle to address. The question of evil being another major one.

As I understand it, you're not a theist, so I don't know why you are laying in to atheists questioning some of the more familiar theist tropes.

nthclare

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't know why you're having a go at "superstar atheists" or anyone else in relation to this question.

It's a question which those who support the notion of an "all knowing, all loving" god struggle to address. The question of evil being another major one.

As I understand it, you're not a theist, so I don't know why you are laying in to atheists questioning some of the more familiar theist tropes.

I got delayed responding, I'm not a thiest nor am I all for sunshine lollipops and rainbows.

I was only giving an example of what he or she's up against.
It ain't easy to be a thiest and try to get a debate here.

I suppose being a former thiest I can see it from the thiests point of view as well as the atheists.

I'm sitting on the patio rather than the fence if you get my drift.

Hotblack Desiato

The vast majority of atheists in Ireland would be either former theists, or at some point in their upbringing wanted to be and/or their parents and school wanted them to be, but it just didn't take.

Very very few of us grew up in a religion-free environment at home and in school. Even those whose parents would rarely if ever go to church themselves would more often than not have insisted on them doing communion/confirmation etc.

So to suggest that most of the regulars here don't understand what it's like to be a theist is off the mark. Even if they were never one themselves, they will have family and friends who are. They'll also be well familiar with the usual theist arguments they never found at all convincing - or did at one time, but no longer.

Also I don't know what "It ain't easy to be a theist and try to get a debate here" really means - this is a forum where ideas without supporting evidence or even reasonable arguments behind them are given short shrift, and rightly so imho. Some theists find that concept very difficult to cope with, they expect ideas to be respected simply because they are religious ideas. That ain't how it works here and increasingly in Irish society in general it's not how it works anymore either.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Also I don't know what "It ain't easy to be a theist and try to get a debate here" really means - this is a forum where ideas without supporting evidence or even reasonable arguments behind them are given short shrift, and rightly so imho. Some theists find that concept very difficult to cope with, they expect ideas to be respected simply because they are religious ideas.

To refashion a comment from elsewhere - when you're used to shutting down arguments by claiming religious privilege, suddenly having to justify yourself with facts and reasoning starts to look like prejudice.

nthclare

robindch wrote: »

To refashion a comment from elsewhere - when you're used to shutting down arguments by claiming religious privilege, suddenly having to justify yourself with facts and reasoning starts to look like prejudice.

The other side of the argument is it worth arguing if you are already confident that your position is solid and as the Cranberries album states "No need to argue"

I've an interest in Theology and Mythology, and I've spent a long time untangling it all, between the Abrahamic faiths and a lot of creation stories from different cultures.

And because I am still mystified by a lot of it, I am not searching for enlightenment but more so I wonder about the expance of the cosmos then right down to atomic level and it's very interesting.

Basically I'm curious and try to get a grip on it all.

zimmermania

Why would anyone need to convince someone that god exists.

nthclare

zimmermania wrote: »

Why would anyone need to convince someone that god exists.

Well if they're content with their own beliefs or lack thereof then they need not worry what other people think.

But then again if they're interested in the subject of theology and religion it makes sense to debate the existence of a diety.

But if you've already made up your mind,is there any point in debating ???

Peregrinus

nthclare wrote: »

But if you've already made up your mind,is there any point in debating ???

God, yes. I love an argument.

nthclare

Peregrinus wrote: »

God, yes. I love an argument.

Lets get it on

karlitob

nthclare wrote: »

You're trying to get a response where over 50 people thanked this post without the poster getting an infraction and you think you can get anywhere trying to convince regular posters that God exists...

This is what is thought of your belief system.
They don't believe in God, but yet a percentage undermine children with cancer by bringing religion into it.
No doubt plagerised from some jumped up superstar Atheist they adore.

I don't understand why people post this gibberish...

Well it’s a fair point. Those who believe in a god typically pray for some form of intervention from their god. Why would a god, who intervenes in the lives of the plebs ever give a child cancer. If you believe in a god that supervises the laws of nature that he or she established, ie a non interventionist god, then why create a world Where a child can get cancer. Why would an all seeing all powerful god ever give any innocent child cancer.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

You conclude no God via whatever elements go into making up your worldview. You have reasons for believing your worldview to be the best available to you.

I don't know each and every element but no matter. What matters is that you believe they are fit for purpose - such as to decide and conclude as you currently do.

I do no differently. The problem is you supposing your methods superior to mine, when there is no firm ground under your feet. You cherry pick the likes of voices in ones head vs. empirical experience of falling objects .. as if your cherry pick is representative of anything. That's just a weak, play to the gallery attempt to elevate what is only founded, ultimately, on a belief.

Empirical assessments are fine. But they can only comment on what it is appropriate for them to comment on. And that need not be all reality.

We are in agreement on the narrow issue of objects falling from buildings. But we're talking about where we are not in agreement.

This is faulty logic.

I think I understand what you are trying to say - we’ll all the sum of our parts, hard wired and soft wired based on upbringing, experience and view point. Some of your experiences that make you, you - are not easily explainable etc and to you represent the god that you were inculcated into from a young age. Whatever floats your boat.

But your experiences do not prove that there is a god.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

For example, some lad truly believe that the ‘virgin’ Mary appeared in Mayo on October 31st 2009. Quite luckily it was at knock and not Ballaghadreen - or everyone would’ve missed her. He claims that he saw a vision - Sun shimmering or something to that effect. So did his fellow believers. The docs reckon that the vision was solar retinopathy, where the backs of their eyeballs were damaged from stupidly staring at the sun.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/hospital-sees-increase-in-eye-condition-after-knock-visions-1.782084%3fmode=amp

Do you believe the mother of your god appeared in mayo a few years ago? Or do you ‘believe’ that the sun burned holes in the back of their eyeballs?