How do you convince people god exists?

antiskeptic

@ nozz

Huge swathes of humanity are theist.

Whilst the atheists (here at any rate) tend to focus on the diverging and indeed contradictory gods, the sense is that they do so to divide and conquer. "Even if I wanted to be a theistx which God or version of each God would I / could I chose.

What they don't seem to want to focus on, in very.much woods for trees fashion, is what function the gods serve. Unless that function serves the atheist end: which is to reject anything that would threaten the self directed life.

'God' deals with the ultimate questions on destination.. But they also deal with how we ought to live. Life goals (often centred around family life and the establishment and protection of same) is one such..morality, both personal and wrt to others is another. Our place in the world - not Kings ourselves is another.

Most people recognise that to self determine such things is a fools errand. Every.man his own King. What an utter folly. Rely on Mindless Evolution to keep us on the right path? Evolution might have produced society and empathy and fit-morality. But everyman who is King has transcended that which brought him to this place. He can do precisely as he likes.

The vast majority (since the Royal We is so beloved here) of the world think that to be utter hogwash.

-
One wonders why an atheist objects so strenuously to Religion anyway. We have evolved to be theists in the main. Arguing against is arguing against the onward March of Evolution. Just a gene mutation that ended up in some being theists and others atheists, I suppose. Much ado..

karlitob

smacl wrote: »

Seems like one the one hand you're complaining about blaming a group for the actions of an individual member of that group and then doing exactly the same thing yourself.

Nice try but that’s a fairly weak point.

smacl wrote: »

I suspect you've got some rather divisive correlation going on there. Many types of violent crime tend to be higher in socially disadvantaged groups within our society and certain ethnicities are over represented in such groups. This issue isn't one of ethnicity so much as social disadvantage where it is our collective responsibility as a society to eliminate such disadvantage. Where the problem does squarely lie with a given group, e.g. FGM as part of a cultural tradition, then yes, pressure needs to be applied to that group to fix it.

You can suspect all you want - it’s data from the Met and the CPS. I suspect that you’re using a nasty insinuation to undermine me rather than address my point.

I fully agree with you that the problem - and solution - is multifaceted and requires a collective responsibility as a society. That’s exactly my point.

Where we divert is that you - like your mod colleague - seem to be the one who decides what societal problem is ‘squarely’ within a given group as what isn’t.

So by your reasoning - and that of you mod colleague - I have no responsibility to address the scourge of sulky racing on national roads as I’m not part of a particular ‘given group‘ but I have responsibility to the same men - the exact same men - to call them on on crimes that they have yet to commit as somehow my voice will be listened to by those men from that separate ethnic community and culture. Or is sulky racing an ‘issue of social disadvantage’ rather than ethnicity. You’re having a laugh.

You reference a ‘cultural tradition’ of FGM - what cultural tradition and given group are you speaking about? When women in these ‘cultures’ give their daughters too these Male and female cutters, it’s an everyone problem.

No mention of the male genital mutilation of course. Or response to my point on what responsibility mothers and fathers have to rapists, when compared to ‘men’. Maybe try tackling the ball rather than the man.

Why in the name of pink unicorns would a mass going old biddy in lahinch have any responsibility to prevent fundamentalist Christians cause harm to someone purely on the basis that they both believe in the same god. As ridiculous as that meant to sound, it’s the same as saying - as your mod colleague said - that ‘Muslims’ have a responsibility to stop Islamic fundamentalism. Sure why bother taking on isis militarily - should’ve just sent in a few non- fundamentalist Muslims to tell them to cop on to themselves. If only the Muslims in Manchester told the Manchester bomber to not bomb anyone.

karlitob

smacl wrote: »

Seems like one the one hand you're complaining about blaming a group for the actions of an individual member of that group and then doing exactly the same thing yourself.

Who guards the guards, eh?

Stop taking my quotes out of context. You know perfectly well that the first quote was in response to your mod colleague where I said that I have no responsibility to prevent future crimes of a person purely on the basis of my gender.

The second quote was in response to the rather ridiculous question of why I am on this thread, ‘challenging those who believe in god’ or something silly like that. I responded as you quoted above. It is clear that your mod colleague is not a believer in god, moderates a thread of both believers and atheists and does so without gender being an issue for anyone. So that’s why I said what I said in that quote.

You know full well that both points were separate and responded to separately.

Maybe the Jesus heads in here are right - it is a nasty place when you don’t agree with the leftist ideologies.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

'God' deals with the ultimate questions on destination.. But they also deal with how we ought to live. Life goals (often centred around family life and the establishment and protection of same) is one such..morality, both personal and wrt to others is another. Our place in the world - not Kings ourselves is another.

Who said the ultimate question is where do we go when we die? We just die - Newton’s first law covers that off nicely. Surely the ultimate question is how to live?

God doesn’t deal with the ultimate question - a book a few lads wrote who wrote a book a 1500+ ago already told you that there’s a magical place in the sky that everyone goes to after judgment day. There’s that myth and 1000s of others. That doesn’t mean that there is a god, only that it is of interest to the human race.

Your god is not the source of morality. Morality does not prove the existence of a deity. I already know not to kill someone - or rape someone. I don’t need Odin for that.

karlitob

Sorolla wrote: »

The thing about the snowflakes is that since the beginning of time they have been trillions upon trillions of snowflakes and not one of them resembles another in any way.

That is the truest proof to me that there has to be a higher Devine being.

Anytime I am questioning my faith I like to stand out in the back field and hold a spoon up in the air and catch a few snowflakes and once I see that no two are the same my faith is restored

I cannot understand why more people don’t do this

Nice. I presume this is low level trolling. Because if it’s not - then presuming you live in ireland -
I) your lapses in faith occur in or around when snow falls in ireland,
ii) (and I’m not certain of this point) but the identicality of snowflakes is seen under a microscope so while you might know they’re not identical you can’t see that they’re not identical, meaning you can just imagine snowflakes or google a picture of snowflakes to get you through your faith hump,
iii) who in the name of (insert mythical creature / being here) would base their life on the presence of snowflakes. What would you have based your life on before someone looked down a telescope and found out they weren’t identical?
IV) your reference of snowflakes seems like a nice - if simple - double entendre

Bannasidhe

karlitob wrote: »

Stop taking my quotes out of context. You know perfectly well that the first quote was in response to your mod colleague where I said that I have no responsibility to prevent future crimes of a person purely on the basis of my gender.


.

Speaking of taking quotes out of context

I said:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

and men need to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings.
.

You took this personally so I clarified:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

.

I did not say that all men are rapists. I said that men have a duty to challenge other men who view women's bodies as playthings . In exactly the same way as white people have a duty to challenge white supremacists. And yes, Muslims have a duty to challenge Radicals Islam, and Christians have a duty to challenge Radical Christianity. And feminists have a duty to challenge TERFs and straight people have a duty to challenge homophobes.

At no point did I say all men are responsible.
At no point did I say you were responsible.

I said men (general term meanings more than one man) need (meaning it is necessary but in no way implies responsibility) to get the message out (to convey information) to all men (indicating there is a sub-set of men within the general male population)

I never used the term responsible. I never even implied, suggested, posited that all men are responsible for the actions of some men.

In my clarification I did use the term duty to challenge - again, this in no way implies responsibility for any crimes that are committed.

karlitob

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my clarification I did use the term duty to challenge - again, this in no way implies responsibility for any crimes that are committed.

Haha - duty doesn’t imply responsibility. Good one.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my clarification I did use the term duty to challenge - again, this in no way implies responsibility for any crimes that are committed.

karlitob wrote: »

Haha - duty doesn’t imply responsibility. Good one.

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point here. Challenging a crime is in no way the same as committing said crime, thus the duty and responsibility relate to very different things.

Steve F

antiskeptic wrote: »

What belief system caused you to arrive at that conclusion?

Biology.

Mark Hamill

Sorolla wrote: »

The thing about the snowflakes is that since the beginning of time they have been trillions upon trillions of snowflakes and not one of them resembles another in any way.

That is the truest proof to me that there has to be a higher Devine being.

Anytime I am questioning my faith I like to stand out in the back field and hold a spoon up in the air and catch a few snowflakes and once I see that no two are the same my faith is restored

Why?

A snowflake weighs about 0.005 grams. That means they contain about 2*10^20 molecules of water. That is 2 with 20 zeros after it. Or 200 million trillions of molecules.
The shape of a snowflake is determined by how these molecules are effected by minute differences in temperature, pressure and humidity where it formed and falls. For the most part, you can't even see the differences without a powerful microscope, as the changes are on a molecular level.
Even assuming they were all different in an easy and immediately discernible way, so what? Why does that mean that any god must exist? What part of that is not easily explainable by basic science?

karlitob

smacl wrote: »

You seem to have spectacularly missed the point here. Challenging a crime is in no way the same as committing said crime, thus the duty and responsibility relate to very different things.

As do you - your mod colleague did not speak about those commit the crime but those who have yet to commit a crime.

I - or any man in the basis of being part of a particular demographic - have a responsibility (or duty even though it’s the same thing) to prevent any future crime. It’s a multi-faceted societal issue that requires a multifaceted societal response.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In my clarification I did use the term duty to challenge - again, this in no way implies responsibility for any crimes that are committed.

If there is a duty to challenge, but no responsibility for any outcome can be laid at your feet if you don't follow that duty, then what exactly are they responsible for/to?

Are you saying that men have a duty to challenge, but have no more responsibility than women (who have no such duty) do over the outcome?

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If there is a duty to challenge, but no responsibility for any outcome can be laid at your feet if you don't follow that duty, then what exactly are they responsible for/to?

Are you saying that men have a duty to challenge, but have no more responsibility than women (who have no such duty) do over the outcome?

Sweetest F.

Talk about a thing growing legs.

Nowhere did I say ONLY men.

In the context of a post about rape and the suggestion that rapists should be taken care of violently I said a better way would one where men challenge other men who treat women like playthings.
I explained why - it has to do with peers.
Men will listen to other men. It's not rocket science.
A 'cop yourself on' from a mate goes a long way.

And That is my final word on that.
I have clarified.
I have explained.
I have corrected where I have been accused of 'blaming all men' and 'identity politics'

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is an analogy.

And a failed one because as I repeat, equally analagous, it is possible to evidence the existence of things a blind person can not see. So while they might not see X, they can still be shown it exists.

You can not even do that. You can not only show me the evidence you claim I am blind to, you can not even show the thing I am blind to exists either. So the analogy fails.

Your "damaging behaviour" analogy equally fails because we can make attempts to show the adult in quesiton their behaviour and how it is damaging. Once again you do not even make the attempt to do the same. You just screech "You are blind" at people and make no attempt to uncover their eyes.

Once again following the MO I pointed out before of how you like to talk ABOUT evidence without ever offering any of it. Which is a linguistic stalemate and a fetid canard, and not the loft philosophical stalemate you laud yourself of proffering.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have long said that God is the only one who can evidence himself to you. Drumbeat message of mine

And anyone can make up pretty much any unsubstantiated nonsense on the spot and make the same claim. Saying some nonsense can only substantiate itself does not substantiate it or make it any more than completely non-credible guff. Much as you might like to pretend otherwise.

But charlatans do it all the time. Even people selling bull**** alternative medicines or woo practices will often convince the mark that it's failure of efficacy is due to their not being invested enough, or believing enough.

Your entire approach to pushing your god belief around these parts is straight out of the charlatan 101 playbook in fact.

Mark Hamill

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nowhere did I say ONLY men.

In the context of a post about rape and the suggestion that rapists should be taken care of violently I said a better way would one where men challenge other men who treat women like playthings.
I explained why - it has to do with peers.
Men will listen to other men. It's not rocket science.
A 'cop yourself on' from a mate goes a long way.

But you are still only saying what men have to do.

I do somewhat see the merit in what you say - if a man is likely to open up to anyone else to advance such views of women, it is far more likely to be with men than women and those men will have the best opportunity to free him of such idiocy. I would put it, though, that such men do not actively share such views, except in company that they are fairly sure share them and as such is not likely to be contradicted. Personally I have never, in schools or college or my years working, met such a man (at least not one who advertises himself).

You have yet to say what women have to do, what duty is on women.

jobeenfitz

I think all religions are stupid.

I think arguing about religion with believers is also stupid.

nozzferrahhtoo

jobeenfitz wrote: »

I think all religions are stupid.

I think arguing about religion with believers is also stupid.

XKCD are years ahead of you on this.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I did not say that all men are rapists. I said that men have a duty to challenge other men who view women's bodies as playthings . In exactly the same way as white people have a duty to challenge white supremacists. And yes, Muslims have a duty to challenge Radicals Islam, and Christians have a duty to challenge Radical Christianity. And feminists have a duty to challenge TERFs and straight people have a duty to challenge homophobes.

Because the problem is within a demographic of whom you are a member so your word carries more weight.

Rather than take that on board you decided your very manhood is being challenged. Seriously?

Saying that men need to challenge the narrative that some men have which portrays women as being nothing but sexual objects is a threat to anyone's manhood is a notion I have to say I find ridiculous.
So is it only women who should challenge this narrative then? Is it perfectly ok for non-rapists to shrug their shoulders and say it has nothing to do with me?

The idea that it's men who rape but rape is only a woman's issue is part of the problem.

(and yes, I do know women can and do commit sexual assaults and I believe women need to acknowledge that and challenge any narrative that would portray male victims of sexual assault as 'not a real man' because it's B.S.)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you are still only saying what men have to do.

I do somewhat see the merit in what you say - if a man is likely to open up to anyone else to advance such views of women, it is far more likely to be with men than women and those men will have the best opportunity to free him of such idiocy. I would put it, though, that such men do not actively share such views, except in company that they are fairly sure share them and as such is not likely to be contradicted. Personally I have never, in schools or college or my years working, met such a man (at least not one who advertises himself).

You have yet to say what women have to do, what duty is on women.

Perhaps read the thread?

Bannasidhe

MOD

Following complaints (which I personally agree with) that this thread is being dragged off topic henceforth any posts on the general topic of identity politics will be deleted. I duly acknowledge my own role in engaging in off topicness.

If anyone wishes to discuss Identity Politics from an Atheist perspective feel free to open a thread on that.

Thanking you.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And a failed one because as I repeat, equally analagous, it is possible to evidence the existence of things a blind person can not see. So while they might not see X, they can still be shown it exists.

What happens when someone can't see and someone else is talking about red. "Evidence Red" the blind man says. But the person can't. They are unable to think of a way to evidence red. Now someone who is very clever (perhaps you even) can think of a way to evidence red. Bit this particular person can't. Does that mean the blind person is on strong ground if supposing there is no such thing as red?

You can not even do that. You can not only show me the evidence you claim I am blind to, you can not even show the thing I am blind to exists either. So the analogy fails.

The analogy was pushed beyond what it was meant to point out. I've reworked it for you above.

Your "damaging behaviour" analogy equally fails because we can make attempts to show the adult in quesiton their behaviour and how it is damaging. Once again you do not even make the attempt to do the same.

Same issue. In the case of the damaged adult it takes expertise to both understand what the issue is and to bring the person to see it. Not everyone can aid the damaged person - you and your Royal We.

God on a par with the Counselling Psychologist and me = Joe Public (who has no ability to aid the damaged adult)

You can continue to be obtuse and try to find another way to wiggle away.from all that an analogy can be.

The point is that not everyone can aid a blind person see.

You just screech "You are blind" at people and make no attempt to uncover their eyes.

I'm not sure what part of "only God can do that" you don't understand. Indeed, I think you do understand - in that you don,'t like where it leads. Stalemate.

Once again following the MO I pointed out before of how you like to talk ABOUT evidence without ever offering any of it.

The context is me having evidence, you not being able to put any debt in that claim, you being blind to the evidence and only God able to show you it. There is no need for me to produce any.

Which is a linguistic stalemate and a fetid canard, and not the loft philosophical stalemate you laud yourself of proffering.

Your supposition about what constitute evidence, which are equally void of an ability to demonstrate as mine puts you in the same boat my friend. You rely on royal we and accumulated evidence despite the fact that there is nothing at all universal about your view. It's a minority view in fact.



[Quote♧And anyone can make up pretty much any unsubstantiated nonsense on the spot and make the same claim. [/quote]

Define the scope of what constitutes evidence so. That'll be pretty much unsubstantiated 'woo'

nozzferrahhtoo

So all you are saying with your failed analogy is you think you have evidence, you want to pretend you have evidence, but your cop out if you can not think of a way to show that evidence.

As I said before, I simply do not buy it. I do not believe you have ANY evidence, and you are just hand waving cop outs around to do anything but admit that.

So come back to me if and when you find some evidence, or think of a way to communicate the evidence you supposedly (yeah, right) have.

Because last time I checked this thread was called "How do you convince people god exists?" not "How do you cop out from convincing people god exists?" or "How do you pretend to stalemate a conversation about whether god exists by not engaging with the conversation in good faith, while pretending the 'stalemate' is actually some coy philosophical move?"

You can continue to be obtuse and wiggle away all you want. But no one else is. You have nothing, and pretence that people around you are blind is just that. Pretence.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So all you are saying with your failed analogy is you think you have evidence, you want to pretend you have evidence, but your cop out if you can not think of a way to show that evidence.

As I said before, I simply do not buy it.

I'm not asking you to buy it, for if you bought it, it wouldn't be a stalemate, it would be checkmate.

I do not believe you have ANY evidence, and you are just hand waving cop outs around to do anything but admit that.

But that's precisely what the blind man would say if someone couldn't demonstrate red to him!

If the blind man had what he believed were good reasons to suppose there wasn't such thing as red. Like, lots of other blind people around saying the same thing

So come back to me if and when you find some evidence, or think of a way to communicate the evidence you supposedly (yeah, right) have.

Because last time I checked this thread was called "How do you convince people god exists?" not "How do you cop out from convincing people god exists?" or "How do you pretend to stalemate a conversation about whether god exists by not engaging with the conversation in good faith, while pretending the 'stalemate' is actually some coy philosophical move?"

You can continue to be obtuse and wiggle away all you want. But no one else is. You have nothing, and pretence that people around you are blind is just that. Pretence.

I'm pretty sure my stance has been the same throughout. Some asks how and I say 'I don't think you can't is fair enough.

You've been trying to wiggle away from stalemate for about that long. You might not like it but I think we're there. It's okay if you think its baloney, for that doesn't matter.

nozzferrahhtoo

But there is no stalemate or checkmate. There is just you refusing to engage with the actual topic of the thread with even a modicum of honesty or good faith.

The topic of the thread is "How do you convince people god exists?"

Your answer has been a clear and resounding "I just cant".

That is not a stalemate. That is an answer. You have used 100s of words to say precisely nothing.

As for me if I thought I was not yet in a position to evidence "red" to a blind man (though I currently am) I would instead of showing up and making an absolute fool of myself in your way, go off and do the study, the research, the leaning and the personal development and would come back when I had something of any actual use to say.

I certainly would not try to dress up a string of abject cop outs as some kind of philosophical stale mate chess move, when it is in fact nothing of the sort.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've been trying to wiggle away from stalemate for about that long.

A stalemate implies you have actually played the game, at least made moves to counter and neutralise the opponents gains.

If you put Garry Kasparov up against a pigeon in chess, and the pigeon just keeps crapping all over the board and knocking the pieces off the table, then can you really declare it a draw?

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A stalemate implies you have actually played the game, at least made moves to counter and neutralise the opponents gains.

If you put Garry Kasparov up against a pigeon in chess, and the pigeon just keeps crapping all over the board and knocking the pieces off the table, then can you really declare it a draw?

Agreed, to arrive at a stalemate you need both players playing the same game by agreed rules. I'm not seeing this at any level here.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, to arrive at a stalemate you need both players playing the same game by agreed rules. I'm not seeing this at any level here.

The game hasn't started.

Nozz demands evidence and has some or other idea about what constitutes evidence.

I don't agree with his idea. I have my own idea.

Neither of us can demonstrate that evidence is encompassed by our idea.

And so we're stuck. For want of a way to arrive at common ground. Stalemate before we begin.

A fight in which neither side can make the first move never gets going. Stalemated before it begins.

So you are correct in what you say smacl. Nevertheless, a stalemate.

robindch

Mod:

antiskeptic wrote: »

For want of a way to arrive at common ground. Stalemate before we begin. A fight in which neither side can make the first move never gets going. Stalemated before it begins.

You seem to have failed to notice that A+A is a discussion forum where people discuss ideas - evidence back and forth, a joke here and there, communication, that kind of thing. Your post above declares that you've no interest in a discussion and instead, intend to bring discussion to a halt by obstinately refusing to engage in it. That kind of soap-boaxing is prohibited by the forum charter, so in line with that, you've been banned for 24 hours. Further refusals to engage in discussion will attract longer forum bans.

Anyway, you can use the next 24 hours to remind yourself of the the forum charter.

storker

antiskeptic wrote: »

But that's precisely what the blind man would say if someone couldn't demonstrate red to him!

It wouldn't matter what the blind man might say because we know that the existence of red as a colour has been proven through observable, testable experiment.

If the blind man had what he believed were good reasons to suppose there wasn't such thing as red. Like, lots of other blind people around saying the same thing.

That's just groupthink, not unrelated to the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you put Garry Kasparov up against a pigeon in chess, and the pigeon just keeps crapping all over the board and knocking the pieces off the table, then can you really declare it a draw?

I'd be expecting it to start like this.

Gerry T

If a blind man can't prove red exists then there is no proof that red exists. In the same way you can't prove God exists.

Just because red does exist doesn't mean God exists, its a silly argument.

Just swap god for millions of pink flying elephants, are you saying because a blind man can't see red that's the proof that millions of pink flying elephants exist ?

The op said there was evidence that god exists, where is this evidence ?

For the same reason I can prove god doesn't exist, hes supposed to be all forgiving, generous kind etc.... how come he created such an evil hurtful thing as us humans.

antiskeptic

storker wrote: »

It wouldn't matter what the blind man might say because we know that the existence of red as a colour has been proven through observable, testable experiment.

a) In this case, the blind man represents people who suppose that knowledge can only be obtained through empirical means. Any atheist here who includes empiricism in his world view is, for the purposes of the illustration, the blind person. "We" would be that group of people who have access to information that the blind man, by virtue of his blindness, has not. These would be theists who know God exists.

b) The issue is not what the "we's" know. The issue is what the blind man knows. And in this case, he is limited to what he can perceive with his 5 senses.

c) Combined: we can conclude that if some people know God exists (and that knowing need not be empirically derived) then the fact that empiricist atheists can't see the evidence of God is really a reflection on empiricist atheists inability to perceive, not on people who know God exists.


What we have on this forum, I propose, is blind people hopping up and down asking for evidence of something they simply can't see. And when it isn't forthcoming, they suppose the problem lies with another and not with them.


-

Overarching point: generally, empiricist atheists suppose that they occupy the higher ground. That somehow or other, their philosophy about what constitutes evidence / sight / etc. is actually objectively true. Or if not objectively true, then the biggest kid on the block

Their position is actually a faith based position though: they can't show that their belief about evidence and the primacy of their philosophy about evidence and perception of same, is true. They can only believe it to be the case.

Which is amusing: faith based empiricists looking down their nose at faith based theists!