How do you convince people god exists?

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 7:02pm

karlitob wrote: »

I am certainly very sorry about what happened to you. I would not wish it on anyone.

And I agree with most of what you say - I note that you qualify your statements with ‘most’ men. However I disagree with this point you made.

It’s no more my job than anyone else’s to inform other men that women’s bodies are not playthings.

Just because I am a male does not mean that I have some sort of connection to a male rapist or a responsibility to one to ensure that they don’t do something that they might do in the future. No more than I don’t have a responsibility to tell a murderer not to murder, or a thief not to steal. Male or female.

Associating some responsibility on me on the basis of my gender is like saying that men are responsible for making sure men don’t kill themselves.

But as you say - this is a thread about evidence of god, and not personal experiences or the role of gender across a wide range of issues.

I would disagree with your statement inferring that men are no more connected to rapists than are anyone else (women being the alternative, in my view).

Men have a testosterone level that women don't have. Men have a conquer with violence characteristic that women don't have (that said: I'd frequently prefer a punch in the face to the kind of caught-in-a-briar experience that is engaging with a woman who feels you've scorned her). Men have an ability to rape that women don't have. Men are more peculiarly attracted to women, such as to employ the aforementioned attributes, than are women.

Men are more a threat to women wrt rape, by significant degree, than are women.

Fact.

By all means distance yourself as a person. But not as a man.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 7:06pm

karlitob wrote: »

You know - dead people coming back to life. She’s load of resurrections in the bible.

I don't see the particular problem with people raised from the dead. All it takes is God.

You might not believe the evidence. But that's as much a belief issue as an evidence one.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 7:14pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And YET AGAIN despite many people pulling you up on it you ignore the challenge directed at you and A) Contrive to talk about evidence without presenting any and Talk about what you think I believe rather than listen to me tell you what I believe.

However your inventions about my positions on what is and is not evidence is baseless because you have refused to offer any. As I said I am open to listening to anyone who presents any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend credence to their claims. We can THEN discuss whether I accept it as evidence, or not, and why.

Since you absolutely refuse to do step 1, I can not even begin step 2.

But my position is that you can't see the evidence. Indeed, if you could we wouldn't be having this conversation. We might be arguing the toss between Arminianism and Calvinism. But not on the existence if God.

How do you propose we resolve this?

I don't mean arguing about the veracity of the gospels and the like. I mean evidence that I have that you are, until such time as you (hopefully) see are blind to.

The tribesmen continues along with his sky God such time as he can see (have a boatful of aeronautical engineers arrive on shore with their easy-learn experiments). Failing such arrival, doesn't the tribesmen continue in his view?

A category of evidence outside anything that you currently have access to. I know the usual arguments (Royal We, multiple religions etc). That's all arguing along lines which you and everyone else has access to.

I'm talking about a line you have no access to. You blind, me see.

How do we approach that possibility? Your blindness? It is not addressed by calling it a challenge that pink unicorns could mount.

Which is why stalemate is the only option and you are left relying on comparisons with pink unicorns to break it. Works only with those of like mind as you - it has no actual purchase in argumentation terms.

karlitob · 28-09-2020 7:25pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would disagree with your statement inferring that men are no more connected to rapists than are anyone else (women being the alternative, in my view).

Men have a testosterone level that women don't have. Men have a conquer with violence characteristic that women don't have (that said: I'd frequently prefer a punch in the face to the kind of caught-in-a-briar experience that is engaging with a woman who feels you've scorned her). Men have an ability to rape that women don't have. Men are more peculiarly attracted to women, such as to employ the aforementioned attributes, than are women.

Men are more a threat to women wrt rape, by significant degree, than are women.

Fact.

By all means distance yourself as a person. But not as a man.

Don’t you dare personalise this. Or impugn my manhood.

I have no more connection to a male rapist than a female one. I have no more connection to a male murderer than a female one. I have no more connection to a male jihadist than a female one. I have no more connection to men who believe in gods or pink unicorns than a female one.

Whether or not men have more testosterone than a women does (most men and most females that is), and whether or not all the above that you have stated is true - which in my view it is - does not mean I have a personal responsibility to stop Male rapists from raping just by the nature of my gender. That is sexist.

Sure next you’ll be saying that (insert identity in here) people need to ensure that there’s no (insert terrible social crime in here) committed by (reinsert identity in here) people.

Why don’t all the Muslims who don’t commit acts of terror stop all the Muslims that do? Or Irish people if you lived through the troubles. Or travellers.

All rapists have mothers - why are they not more responsible for their son, rather than me for a man I don’t know, for a crime he has yet to commit?

karlitob · 28-09-2020 7:27pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

But my position is that you can't see the evidence. Indeed, if you could we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Haha / to be fair, it’s fascinating logic.

‘There’s loads of evidence your honour. But the jury ‘can’t see’ it. QED - he’s guilty. Easy-peasy, lemon squeezy’

Bannasidhe · 28-09-2020 7:47pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

karlitob wrote: »

And I agree with most of what you say - I note that you qualify your statements with ‘most’ men. However I disagree with this point you made.

It’s no more my job than anyone else’s to inform other men that women’s bodies are not playthings.

Just because I am a male does not mean that I have some sort of connection to a male rapist or a responsibility to one to ensure that they don’t do something that they might do in the future. No more than I don’t have a responsibility to tell a murderer not to murder, or a thief not to steal. Male or female.
.

karlitob wrote: »

I have no more connection to a male rapist than a female one. I have no more connection to a male murderer than a female one. I have no more connection to a male jihadist than a female one. I have no more connection to men who believe in gods or pink unicorns than a female one.

Whether or not men have more testosterone than a women does (most men and most females that is), and whether or not all the above that you have stated is true - which in my view it is - does not mean I have a personal responsibility to stop Male rapists from raping just by the nature of my gender. That is sexist.

Sure next you’ll be saying that (insert identity in here) people need to ensure that there’s no (insert terrible social crime in here) committed by (reinsert identity in here) people.

Why don’t all the Muslims who don’t commit acts of terror stop all the Muslims that do? Or Irish people if you lived through the troubles. Or travellers.

All rapists have mothers - why are they not more responsible for their son, rather than me for a man I don’t know, for a crime he has yet to commit?

Hold your gallop there.

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

And now it's become the fault of rapist's mothers :rolleyes:

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.)

robindch · 28-09-2020 8:16pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Men have a testosterone level that women don't have. Men have a conquer with violence characteristic that women don't have (that said: I'd frequently prefer a punch in the face to the kind of caught-in-a-briar experience that is engaging with a woman who feels you've scorned her). Men have an ability to rape that women don't have. Men are more peculiarly attracted to women, such as to employ the aforementioned attributes, than are women.

As with your comment some years ago that you would murder somebody in cold blood if you believed that your chosen deity had told you to do so, your post here - lacking supporting evidence of any kind or the most cursory familiarity with the world you live in - is equally memorable.

Tell me - have you ever spoken with a woman, or even met one?

jaxxx · 28-09-2020 8:19pm

robindch wrote: »

As with your comment some years ago that you would murder somebody in cold blood if you believed that your chosen deity had told you to do so, your post here - lacking supporting evidence of any kind or the most cursory familiarity with the world you live in - is equally memorable.

Tell me - have you ever spoken with a woman, or even met one?

My deity, who's a gigantic Potato Dragon called Sprinkles McTickles, told me that there is a very high likelihood that they've never even been outside of their own basement before.. .. ..

I mentioned my deity so this is still on topic! .. .. I think.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 10:16pm

robindch wrote: »

As with your comment some years ago that you would murder somebody in cold blood if you believed that your chosen deity had told you to do so, your post here - lacking supporting evidence of any kind or the most cursory familiarity with the world you live in - is equally memorable.

Tell me - have you ever spoken with a woman, or even met one?

In writing terms, you ought to have fainted for lack of oxygen long before you got to the end of that .. er .. sentence.

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 10:21pm

karlitob wrote: »

Haha / to be fair, it’s fascinating logic.

‘There’s loads of evidence your honour. But the jury ‘can’t see’ it. QED - he’s guilty. Easy-peasy, lemon squeezy’

Er... pass...

karlitob · 28-09-2020 10:22pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hold your gallop there.

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

And now it's become the fault of rapist's mothers :rolleyes:

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.)

You can take my quotes out of context any way that you wish. My point is the same and it won’t change just because of your point of view or your need to label people into identities to help you to process the world.

I already know not to rape women or not to kill people based on their religion. I’m happy to repeat what I said in my above comments - it is no more my responsibility to prevent men from committing any crime before they have committed it, nor more than its your responsibility to prevent women from committing crimes that any women commits, purely on the basis of your gender.

It is only your opinion that men who go into rape a woman would be prevented from doing so because a man said something before they did it, purely on the basis of happening to the same gender. So when a woman tells a man who might be a rapist, don’t be one - that falls on deaf ears. But when a man says it - well they’ll listen to that and won’t be a rapist.

So yeah - I’ll repeat - I have no responsibility to prevent men from committing a crime that they have yet to commit purely on the basis that we share the same birth.

And not only have you told me what I should be doing or saying (Woman-splaining) when I disagree you tell me I’m wrong, insult me and misappropriate my comments. Some way to get men on board.

You know perfectly well that my point was that since all rapists have mothers and fathers, then they clearly have far more responsibility as parents to their child that I to someone I don’t even know and never have met for a crime they have yet to commit. If you think that the cause of rape is men who thing women are only sexy objects, then it’s not me who taught them that - where is the parenting?

It is simply outrageous of you to think that there is a responsibility on the near 2bn Muslims in the world to challenge the fundamentalist approach of terrorists who use religion to suit their murderous needs. I presume you have the same opinion that the negative aspects of racial and ethnic communities need to be sorted by those within those communities - purely on the basis they are part of that community. Two thirds of knife offenders under 25 in London were black or minority ethnic; the same rate for knife crime victims - what colour person should be leading the charge to prevent his using your identity politics approach.

And take care with your comments - I know you didn’t mean to infer that I believe that rape is only a women’s issue, but that is the end result. Since I agree with you that women also rape - I can’t therefore, come to a position that it’s only a women’s problem. Nor have I written that anywhere.

How do you engage with your female peers about them not raping men?

antiskeptic · 28-09-2020 10:30pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Well it's problem in across demographics. Men who are incited to consider women as meat are incited by both men and women to consider women so.

But men certainly have to challenge what I would consider to be a majority part.

Sorolla · 28-09-2020 10:33pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How do you in history?

And how do you do it now?

With all the evidence etc.

It has to be shnowflakes - no two are identical - that proves to be that there must be a Devine power

Another proof is the miracles carries out by the Saints

karlitob · 28-09-2020 10:43pm

Sorolla wrote: »

It has to be shnowflakes - no two are identical - that proves to be that there must be a Devine power

Another proof is the miracles carries out by the Saints

Are you messing?

karlitob · 28-09-2020 10:45pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Men who are incited to consider women as meat are incited by both men and women to consider women so.

Not sure what your mean by ‘incite’. To be clear, no one can ‘incite’ another person to consider anyone to do anything, let alone rape. ‘S/he made me do it’ is not a defence.

pauldla · 29-09-2020 1:54am

karlitob wrote: »

Are you messing?

It's as good an explanation as any other we have seen here, and is mercifully short, too.

antiskeptic · 29-09-2020 5:38am

karlitob wrote: »

Not sure what your mean by ‘incite’. To be clear, no one can ‘incite’ another person to consider anyone to do anything, let alone rape. ‘S/he made me do it’ is not a defence.

Incite: encourage, persuade esp in an unlawful direction. Given men and women encourage men and women to consider women as meat. And their considering women so is a component of rape, I'd say incite is a pretty good fit.

Take Wesley on disco night. Young girls tottering along doing their best to look like walking t*ts and ass. And groups of scrawny boys in their best trainers with eyes out on stalks. Add some booze and access to harcore porn a click away.

Satan isn't a rocket scientist. "Give me the boy until age post pubescent and I'll show you the man". Since its men who largely driven all this..

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-09-2020 7:26am

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see the particular problem with people raised from the dead. All it takes is God.

You might not believe the evidence. But that's as much a belief issue as an evidence one.

I would have to see the evidence first, but you have not offered any yet. Is there any evidence available that a story book about a dead man suddenly not being dead any more is actually a real historic event that actually happened?

antiskeptic wrote: »

But my position is that you can't see the evidence.

Which is the only position you can hold having not actually offered any to see. Reference my previous analogy about accusing someone of refusing peas at dinner when you offered them only an empty bowl. Claiming they magically can not see the peas in the bowl just makes YOU look worse, more dishonest, and more desperate. Not them.

Until you actually offer some evidence your claims that I am blind to it, will not see it, can not see it, will not accept it.... are all just white noise to project YOUR failings on to me. Nothing more. Nothing less.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 7:54am

pauldla wrote: »

It's as good an explanation as any other we have seen here, and is mercifully short, too.

No the fact that snowflakes - or fingerprints - are identical does not prove the existence of god.

Just because you say miracles occur does not mean that they do occur, nor does it prove the existence of god.

So no - it’s not as good an explanation as any.

antiskeptic · 29-09-2020 8:25am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would have to see the evidence first, but you have not offered any yet. Is there any evidence available that a story book about a dead man suddenly not being dead any more is actually a real historic event that actually happened?

Which is the only position you can hold having not actually offered any to see. Reference my previous analogy about accusing someone of refusing peas at dinner when you offered them only an empty bowl. Claiming they magically can not see the peas in the bowl just makes YOU look worse, more dishonest, and more desperate. Not them.

Until you actually offer some evidence your claims that I am blind to it, will not see it, can not see it, will not accept it.... are all just white noise to project YOUR failings on to me. Nothing more. Nothing less.

But couldn't a blind man be expected to say that? His protestations, though understandable, arises from his blindness.

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-09-2020 8:47am

Blindness is simply not the handicap you think it is. There are many things blind people can not see, but you can still evidence their existence to them. An entirely blind person might not be able to see light/color for example, but I can still evidence it's existence in many ways. They would still be left in a position of not being able to see what I can see.... but they can be still convinced the thing they are blind to actually exists.

You can not even get THAT far.

Am I saying that it is impossible that there is evidence I am blind to exists? No, of course not. But that someone who has consistently refused to present ANY evidence and is known to frequently dodge conversation for their position.... conveniently claims that the evidence is there but it can't be seen is monumentally suspect. At best. I simply do not buy it and feel it to be a canard.

Bannasidhe · 29-09-2020 10:37am

karlitob wrote: »

You can take my quotes out of context any way that you wish. My point is the same and it won’t change just because of your point of view or your need to label people into identities to help you to process the world.

I already know not to rape women or not to kill people based on their religion. I’m happy to repeat what I said in my above comments - it is no more my responsibility to prevent men from committing any crime before they have committed it, nor more than its your responsibility to prevent women from committing crimes that any women commits, purely on the basis of your gender.

It is only your opinion that men who go into rape a woman would be prevented from doing so because a man said something before they did it, purely on the basis of happening to the same gender. So when a woman tells a man who might be a rapist, don’t be one - that falls on deaf ears. But when a man says it - well they’ll listen to that and won’t be a rapist.

So yeah - I’ll repeat - I have no responsibility to prevent men from committing a crime that they have yet to commit purely on the basis that we share the same birth.

And not only have you told me what I should be doing or saying (Woman-splaining) when I disagree you tell me I’m wrong, insult me and misappropriate my comments. Some way to get men on board.

You know perfectly well that my point was that since all rapists have mothers and fathers, then they clearly have far more responsibility as parents to their child that I to someone I don’t even know and never have met for a crime they have yet to commit. If you think that the cause of rape is men who thing women are only sexy objects, then it’s not me who taught them that - where is the parenting?

It is simply outrageous of you to think that there is a responsibility on the near 2bn Muslims in the world to challenge the fundamentalist approach of terrorists who use religion to suit their murderous needs. I presume you have the same opinion that the negative aspects of racial and ethnic communities need to be sorted by those within those communities - purely on the basis they are part of that community. Two thirds of knife offenders under 25 in London were black or minority ethnic; the same rate for knife crime victims - what colour person should be leading the charge to prevent his using your identity politics approach.

And take care with your comments - I know you didn’t mean to infer that I believe that rape is only a women’s issue, but that is the end result. Since I agree with you that women also rape - I can’t therefore, come to a position that it’s only a women’s problem. Nor have I written that anywhere.

How do you engage with your female peers about them not raping men?

I take it from all that that your position is that while other people who may share a demographic with you (e.g.- groups for illustrative purposes only and I have no idea if you fit into any of these, apart from male as you told us -male/European/ablebodied/ethnic background ) etc etc) may do a 'thing', if you do not do that 'thing' it essentially has nothing to do with you and there is no reason whatsoever for you to challenge the people who do the 'thing' as you have no responsibility for their engagement with the 'thing'.

Yet here you are - challenging people who believe there is a God even when you do not.
And taking general comments very personally.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 10:59am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I take it from all that that your position is that while other people who may share a demographic with you (e.g.- groups for illustrative purposes only and I have no idea if you fit into any of these, apart from male as you told us -male/European/ablebodied/ethnic background ) etc etc) may do a 'thing', if you do not do that 'thing' it essentially has nothing to do with you and there is no reason whatsoever for you to challenge the people who do the 'thing' as you have no responsibility for their engagement with the 'thing'.

Yes. You got there in the end.

I’ve given you plenty of examples above. I don’t believe that women have a responsibility to prevent other women from committing infanticide - a crime overwhelmingly committed by women (notwithstanding murder-suicides of whole families by men) purely on the basis of their gender.

You can buy into identity politics, and simplify problems based on constructs that you deem important - I don’t.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet here you are - challenging people who believe there is a God even when you do not.

Ah, you were doing so well. I’m challenging people who believe in a god to provide evidence of their belief. And none it of course has got anything to do with my gender or theirs. I’m not sure what your point is.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And taking general comments very personally.

I’m taking personal comments personally. And general comments generally.

Bannasidhe · 29-09-2020 11:36am

karlitob wrote: »

Yes. You got there in the end.

I’ve given you plenty of examples above. I don’t believe that women do not have a responsibility to prevent other women from committing infanticide - a crime overwhelmingly committed by women (notwithstanding murder-suicides of whole families by men) purely on the basis of their gender.

You can buy into identity politics, and simplify problems based on constructs that you deem important - I don’t.

Ah, you were doing so well. I’m challenging people who believe in a god to provide evidence of their belief. And none it of course got to do with my gender or theirs. I’m not sure what your point is.

I’m taking personal comments personally. And general comments generally.

Ah - it's the gender thing that got your knickerunderpants in a twist.
How dare I say men need need to challenge a demeaning view of women held by other men and now lets talk about women. And whitter on about 'identity politics'.
Gotcha.

Tell me, is it just when it's gender based you believe in saying nothing? I listed quite a few things but you don't seem to want to refer to like religious extremism being challenged by co-religionists. Or racism...

Still doesn't explain why you feel the need to challenge a religious view you do not share. You are not religious - nothing to do with you if other people are.

And no - it's not actually about YOU. I made a general comment where I referenced 'men', antiskeptic made a general comment where he/she referenced 'men'. You decided to take those general comments personally.

karlitob · 29-09-2020 12:04pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah - it's the gender thing that got your knickerunderpants in a twist. .

See - there’s the personal comments directed at me. Imagine a man telling a woman not to get her knickers in a twist.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How dare I say men need need to challenge a demeaning view of women held by other men and now lets talk about women. And whitter on about 'identity politics'.
Gotcha.

Reread my posts. You can say what you want - it doesn’t mean you’re right or that I have to agree with you. You made statements that persons of a certain demographic have a responsibility to prevent crimes of people who share that demographic solely on the basis of being from the demographic. I don’t want to be siloed by you or anyone. I disagree with this perspective. This is identity politics. It’s not that hard to understand.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell me, is it just when it's gender based you believe in saying nothing? I listed quite a few things but you don't seem to want to refer to like religious extremism being challenged by co-religionists. Or racism...

Firstly, I never said that I wouldn’t say anything to anyone who says something inappropriate in my company - Male or female, black or white, gay or straight or whatever demographic you wish to label people as. You don’t know me and you don’t know who my friends are or how I interact with people or what standards I uphold.
Please reread my posts - I disagree point that I - purely on the basis of my gender - have a responsibility to other people in my gender to prevent a crime from occurring. But feel free to keep misrepresenting my posts. I presume there’s more than one mod to complain to if this happens again.

I did refer to your points on religion, race etc. I have the same response as in all my other points. I’ll try again....NO, I don’t think that any member of any demographic has a responsibility to other members of that demographic to prevent a future crime yet to be committed purely on that basis of being from that demographic.

You of course have yet to respond to my questions back on where you feel - in your world of identity politics - where the responsibility lies for BAME people in London with respect to knife crime - BAME are the highest perpetrators and highest victims. Are you saying this is a BAME problem and BAME has to fix it.

I’ve asked you what responsibility the parents - both mother and father - has to the upbringing of rapists and why the mother has less responsibility to her son that she made and reared (in all likelihood) than I, who has never met this man. How can I prevent a rapist from rapist when I don’t know who will be a rapist?

I’ve asked you what responsibility women have to other women who commit infanticide.

I can presume your answer but I won’t.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still doesn't explain why you feel the need to challenge a religious view you do not share. You are not religious - nothing to do with you if other people are.

I’m quite surprised that a moderator on this thread is asking that question. It’s the same response that was given to our religious friends on this post - and the same that Christopher Hitchens also gave when he was asked the same question. I’ll repeat it but again I’ll note to mods that I’ve been asked the same question again.

I’m challenging the evidence that people have which informs their decision to believe in god.

I have a right to do so. Especially when it effects me and my fellow citizens in society and around the world.

Why are you not questioning the integrity of other atheists on this thread and only me.

Religion and it’s study is an ontological and intellectual pursuit that I find interesting, allowed to study, and happy to debate with anyone who wishes to do so. I don’t need your approval. Is this toxic femininity, I wonder?

And finally, and most importantly, and again I repeat - I don’t debate the existence of god in this thread - or in any other sphere - on the basis of gender. Your reference to this point in our discussion within a discussion makes no sense.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And no - it's not actually about YOU. I made a general comment where I referenced 'men', antiskeptic made a general comment where he/she referenced 'men'. You decided to take those general comments personally.

I never said it was about me. YOU said it was about me when you brought ‘men’ into it. It seems you want me to part of a demographic when it suits you and assign a responsibility to me on some sort of moral high ground and then when a person from that demographic disagrees with it you get tetchy and climb even higher on your high horse.

And again, it’s for the mods to note - I highlighted your personal comments made to me in the last post. And I await your respond to my retort on what would happen - on this site as well as in real life - if a man told a woman not to get her knickers in a twist.

It is an unusual approach that you take to offend a man by using an offence normally directed to a woman but made gender specific by referencing underpants. I’m not sure if it’s more offensive to women or to men. Next you’ll be telling me to ‘man-up’.

I would suggest that this discussion ceases now as it clearly doesn’t relate to the topic.

smacl · 29-09-2020 3:01pm

karlitob wrote: »

You made statements that persons of a certain demographic have a responsibility to prevent crimes of people who share that demographic solely on the basis of being from the demographic.

karlitob wrote: »

I’m quite surprised that a moderator on this thread is asking that question.

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.

karlitob wrote: »

You of course have yet to respond to my questions back on where you feel - in your world of identity politics - where the responsibility lies for BAME people in London with respect to knife crime - BAME are the highest perpetrators and highest victims. Are you saying this is a BAME problem and BAME has to fix it.

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.

Sorolla · 29-09-2020 4:23pm

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

smacl · 29-09-2020 4:36pm

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

Not so, many are very similar, though not identical. Why would they be the exact same though? The conditions under which every snowflake is created are also different hence one would expect a correspondingly different result. I make pancakes for the family every Sunday for breakfast and no two are exactly the same. Would you also consider this a result of a divine hand at play? There are very few example of things being identical in the physical world when you consider it.

antiskeptic · 29-09-2020 6:02pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Blindness is simply not the handicap you think it is

It is an analogy. Someone can be blind to damaging behaviour they engage in as adults being sourced in subtleties of their upbringing. Sure, a counsellor might help them see after a fashion but the focus,.whilst they are still blind is on their being blind.

If you blind and the only way to see is to be led to some sight then lacking such leading (such as the intervention you list) blind you remain

You presume there is some intervention that I ought be able to.make. That there is not need not be a problem of mine. It can be yours

You can not even get THAT far.

Or you can't get that far.

Am I saying that it is impossible that there is evidence I am blind to exists? No, of course not. But that someone who has consistently refused to present ANY evidence and is known to frequently dodge conversation for their position.... conveniently claims that the evidence is there but it can't be seen is monumentally suspect. At best. I simply do not buy it and feel it to be a canard.

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

What I have also long since said is that your presumptions, aimed at evading stalemate don't and cannot achieve that goal

It is not impossible you are blind. Not only that, there is no way.for you to even begin to establish probabilities as to where the problem lies: you blind / me deluded. Its utterly 50/50

The logical option is agnosticism .. you just don't come across as an agnostic. No, you take the stance of someone who somehow holds the higher ground. But without the means to do so - other than convincing yourself of that being the case.

But on an argumentation level you've a busted flush. Not that that matters much - you are the one to live with your decisions and if your happy to assume the higher ground without being able to show your work then let that be so.

wench · 29-09-2020 6:10pm

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

So does this divine being, with nothing better to do with their day, sit there making snowflakes, while checking in their big book of snowflakes to make sure they haven't used that design already?

How do you convince people god exists?

Comments