trying to be converted!!

irish_boy90

mate of mine is trying to convert me.

naturally he is trying to prove god exists to me.
anyone have some hard evidence i can just throw in his face.

bascily he says that the universe has to have began at one point and god made it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

just say 'fair enough, I can't argue with that' to every point he makes, but refuse to change your mind.. wreck his head

Zillah

irish_boy90 wrote:

bascily he says that the universe has to have began at one point and god made it.

- He says the universe has to have a starting point.
- Which means he cannot accept that something can exist forever or can exist for no reason.
- He then claims God has either existed forever or exists for no reason.
- Therefore, by his own argument, he can't believe in God.
- If he then changes his mind and says that God has existed forever, point out that the universe itself could be the same way.

Son Goku

Every year in work somebody decides to convert me. Usually it involves talking about the bible at lunch and when we're alone in the office. Now this I don't mind, because I understand they're trying to do me a favour in their mind. My usual way of dealing with it is saying that although I think Jesus had a good message for his time e.t.c., there isn't any reason for me personally to think he was divine and I probably will not change my mind.
Just say something polite like this to your friend and say you're not interested.

However occasionally you'll get people who won't stop even when you ask them. With them I'd just stop responding when the issues comes up. They'll get bored eventually.

the_syco

Ask them if the universe was created by god, who created god? Always love their answer to that, as when you remind them that by the logic that the universe couldn't have been there forever, that it was created by god at some point, who made god?

Finally, throw in the total lack of information in the bible about dinosaurs.

Oh, and Son Goku, where/what do you work as? Does your industry appeal to these god people, or something?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the bible does mention giant lizards...

Son Goku

the_syco wrote:

Oh, and Son Goku, where/what do you work as? Does your industry appeal to these god people, or something?

I'm a theoretical physicist now, I should have said somebody used to try and convert me. Those are my experiences from my undergraduate days and it was in a branch of the Health Service.

Tim Robbins

Son Goku wrote:

Every year in work somebody decides to convert me. Usually it involves talking about the bible at lunch and when we're alone in the office. Now this I don't mind, because I understand they're trying to do me a favour in their mind. My usual way of dealing with it is saying that although I think Jesus had a good message for his time e.t.c., there isn't any reason for me personally to think he was divine and I probably will not change my mind.
Just say something polite like this to your friend and say you're not interested.

However occasionally you'll get people who won't stop even when you ask them. With them I'd just stop responding when the issues comes up. They'll get bored eventually.

Sounds like a crazy place where you work. I thought you were doing a PhD?

Where I work about 5+ people have read the God Delusion. However, people don't speak openly about their beliefs. It's too awkard.

Back to OP, the hardest thing intelligent believers find to accept is the problem of evil. Why is there so much evil? hardship, pain in the world? Some of them, rebutt it with the free will argument, which has to be worst philosophical argument of all time but some of them (usually the really deluded) think it's a good argument. The more intelligent ones admit the limitations of human knowledge etc.

I think it really depends on your mate. It really depends on how deluded he is and what type of personality he has. Does he read a lot? If he's the PDN type, you could have a lot of interesing conversations. If he's doesn't read but is quite dogmatic about his views, I would seriously think about your approach.

Personally, first I would move slilghtly away from the Big G question and ask him what he thinks / knows about evolution.
If he can't accept / understand evolution theory, you need to seriously think about your approach. You need to be well informed about evolution theory, know all the straw man counter arguments and why they are so.

I wouldn't progress a debate with any God beliefer who cannot understand / accept evolution.
Let us know how you get on.

MoominPapa

irish_boy90 wrote:

bascily he says that the universe has to have began at one point and god made it.

Well you can only be impressed by how he choose to start but the possible finales are a bit crap

5uspect

How do any of your friends arguments disprove the existence of any god(s) in favour of his particular God?

Tell him you've seen the light and are now worshiping Zeus.

Zillah

Did anyone else notice that the grammar of the title of the thread refers to one who is trying to get themselves converted?

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the grammar of the title of the thread refers to one who is trying to get themselves converted?

I gave up worrying about the spelling and grammar on these boards a long time ago (except when someone who can't spell starts making snide remarks about others lacking intelligence). A lot of posts seem to be written in pidgin English, so I just do my best to translate them as I do when Scofflaw slips into French or Latin.

Dave!

Zillah wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the grammar of the title of the thread refers to one who is trying to get themselves converted?

Yes.

PDN wrote:

I gave up worrying about the spelling and grammar on these boards a long time ago (except when someone who can't spell starts making snide remarks about others lacking intelligence). A lot of posts seem to be written in pidgin English, so I just do my best to translate them as I do when Scofflaw slips into French or Latin.

lol

Tim Robbins

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sounds like a crazy place where you work. I thought you were doing a PhD?

Where I work about 5+ people have read the God Delusion. However, people don't speak openly about their beliefs. It's too awkard.

Back to OP, the hardest thing intelligent believers find to accept is the problem of evil. Why is there so much evil? hardship, pain in the world? Some of them, rebutt it with the free will argument, which has to be worst philosophical argument of all time but some of them (usually the really deluded) think it's a good argument. The more intelligent ones admit the limitations of human knowledge etc.

I think it really depends on your mate. It really depends on how deluded he is and what type of personality he has. Does he read a lot? If he's the PDN type, you could have a lot of interesing conversations. If he's doesn't read but is quite dogmatic about his views, I would seriously think about your approach.

Personally, first I would move slilghtly away from the Big G question and ask him what he thinks / knows about evolution.
If he can't accept / understand evolution theory, you need to seriously think about your approach. You need to be well informed about evolution theory, know all the straw man counter arguments and why they are so.

I wouldn't progress a debate with any God beliefer who cannot understand / accept evolution.
Let us know how you get on.

What?
I'm sick and tired of anyone trying to preach by bringing evolution into it, let's not start with atheists using it it...

Tim Robbins

bluewolf wrote:

What?
I'm sick and tired of anyone trying to preach by bringing evolution into it, let's not start with atheists using it it...

Can you elaborate?

Evolution theory casts serious doubt on literal Biblical interpretation and puts the theist in the position of having to experiencing doubt.
If they do not go through this process, it is evidence they are seriously deluded.

Therefore, by discussing evolution theory one can quickly know what type of theist one is dealing with:
1. A well informed theist (could be an interesting conversation).
2. A deluded or ignorant one (wouldn't waste my time having an intellectual conversation, unless they are sound and are willing to learn it).

irish_boy90

well evolution was my first defence. he said god did it, gave them eyes, how else would animals have eyes.

and that god created the first life. that it couldnt start on its own.

he kind of mixed evolution into his belief.

will take note of what Zillah said first.

i got a d3 in my jc english. that should explain the title.
should have said "someone is trying to convert me"

5uspect

Well you can explain the eye's evolution quite well without the need for God.
I would recommend you have a read of the Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.
It does a great job of debunking the argument from design.

Here's the cheesy 1980's video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2043771442443928848

Tim Robbins

irish_boy90 wrote:

well evolution was my first defence. he said god did it, gave them eyes, how else would animals have eyes.

and that god created the first life. that it couldnt start on its own.

he kind of mixed evolution into his belief.

will take note of what Zillah said first.

i got a d3 in my jc english. that should explain the title.
should have said "someone is trying to convert me"

Is he a good friend?
Ask him how god started on his own?

There is no need for a magic wand anywhere in evolution theory. Complexity derives from simplicty. This mean complicated organs and body parts such as eyes, ears, kidneys can evolve over a very long period time. There is no body part that cannot have evolved from something simpler.

The evidence is completly consistent with evolution theory. One billion fossils and an infinite amount of DNA analysis.

I wouldn't go anywhere with him until you have clarified evolution theory.

PS
Remember to be a bit sensitive about all this. People believe in God because they cannot deal with a life that there is no God. Fear of death, death of a loved one and many other reasons make people forget the simple fact there is absolutely no evidence for any God.

Zillah

irish_boy90 wrote:

how else would animals have eyes.

Evolution

Really. Thats the cool thing about evolution. It doesn't need any sort of guiding hand.

Talliesin

irish_boy90 wrote:

mate of mine is trying to convert me.

naturally he is trying to prove god exists to me.
anyone have some hard evidence i can just throw in his face.

No. However I do have "if you don't have the good manners not to proselytise why should I have the good manners not to tell you to **** off".

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote:

Evolution

Really. Thats the cool thing about evolution. It doesn't need any sort of guiding hand.

Your understanding of Christianity is very narrow if you think that evolution is a stumbling block to all Christians.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Zillah wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the grammar of the title of the thread refers to one who is trying to get themselves converted?

Aye, was expecting someone trying to become an athiest but wasn't quite sure.

OP, there's no point looking for arguments, just tell your mate why you don't believe Christianity

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Your understanding of Christianity is very narrow if you think that evolution is a stumbling block to all Christians.

I don't think it's stumbling block to all Christians.
I think it separates the crazy fundamentalists from the more reasonable ones that might be worth having a conversation with.

A Christian who accepts evolution has obviously moved beyond the absolute inerrancy of scripture and has a more mature faith.
A Christian who understands evolution obviously has an understanding of Science and again would perhaps have deeper, maturer faith.
A Christian who investigates evolutions obviously has the depth of character to question and investigate their own world view.

Unfortunaley,the Christians I usually end up in discussion usually don't know much about evolution theory or don't care. They say things like: "It could have been evolution. It could have been Adam and Eve. I don't know and I don't care".

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Your understanding of Christianity is very narrow if you think that evolution is a stumbling block to all Christians.

Did he claim it was? :rolleyes:

The OP's friend said eyes require God. How else could they be here? Zillah is pointing out that the eye, nor even life itself, doesn't need God.

Evolution works perfectly fine without God.

RiderOnTheStorm

wicknight wrote:

Evolution works perfectly fine without God.

Therein is the problem a lot of Christians / Jews / Muslims have with evolution. It denies the existance of God. But evolution (dare I say it) like God, cannot be proved. Evolution is a theory, and all theories need experementation and observation to be proved, and the time frame for evolution is so large that it becomes selfserving.

As for the existance (or lack of) for God. Its the same as trying to prove to someone that love exists if they have never experienced it themselves. Would you think there is no love if it cant be proved to you?

Doctor DooM

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

Therein is the problem a lot of Christians / Jews / Muslims have with evolution. It denies the existance of God. But evolution (dare I say it) like God, cannot be proved. Evolution is a theory, and all theories need experementation and observation to be proved, and the time frame for evolution is so large that it becomes selfserving.

As for the existance (or lack of) for God. Its the same as trying to prove to someone that love exists if they have never experienced it themselves. Would you think there is no love if it cant be proved to you?

Is the pentadactyl limb and the shared foetus not considered proof of evolution?

Dades

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

As for the existance (or lack of) for God. Its the same as trying to prove to someone that love exists if they have never experienced it themselves. Would you think there is no love if it cant be proved to you?

Were you watching "Contact" last week?

Tim Robbins

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

Therein is the problem a lot of Christians / Jews / Muslims have with evolution. It denies the existance of God. But evolution (dare I say it) like God, cannot be proved. Evolution is a theory, and all theories need experementation and observation to be proved, and the time frame for evolution is so large that it becomes selfserving.

As for the existance (or lack of) for God. Its the same as trying to prove to someone that love exists if they have never experienced it themselves. Would you think there is no love if it cant be proved to you?

Evolution does not deny the existence of God, it does not necessitate it.
It's the same with the theory of Gravity.
You are correct evolution can't be proved. But it's the same with gravity. If someone has a problem with evolution, they should also have a problem with getting into a airplane and flying in the sky.

You are wrong, theories in Science can never be proved.

As for the God / Love analogy well you cuold also apply that to Ghousts. How do you proof to someone Ghousts exists if they have never experience them themselves?
It's a typical meaningless C.S. Lewis style argument. Sounds reasonable but when you examine it, it falls apart.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

A Christian who accepts evolution has obviously moved beyond the absolute inerrancy of scripture and has a more mature faith.

Actually, no. I don't want to sidetrack this interesting discussion, but in the interests of accuracy I should point out that inerrancy involves belief that the Scripture is without error, but does recognise that different literary forms exist (poetry, figures of speech, metaphors etc.) To use an obvious example, when Jesus says "I am the true vine" (John 15:1) the inerrantist does not believe that Jesus metamorphosed into a tree!

Therefore there are a large number of Christians who accept evolution but are still 'immature' enough to believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

RiderOnTheStorm

SDooM wrote:

Is the pentadactyl limb and the shared foetus not considered proof of evolution?

No.
No right minded scientist has believed for decades that the 'progress' of the foetus through its stages has its basis in evolutionary leaps.

As for redundant limbs / tails / earlobes etc. They all still have functions.

I see evolution and God-created-universe as being remarkebly simular. In the beginning there was nothing, then all of a sudden... BANG! There was everything, and its just been reforming since then. The major difference between the two is one was started by God and the other by some unknown science. The other difference is the time frame.

But evolution is a different debate. Lots of people believe in it and God. And lots dont believe in one or the other. The OPs Q was what can I say to prove them wrong / put them off / stop them in their tracks? Well, imho, nothing. They believe in God as strongly as you do not. Just tell them you dont want to discuss it. If they are fair minded (ie not zealots) then that will be enough.

Contact? good film...... but i think that someone can believe in God and Science at the same time. Afterall, not everything has been explained yet, and many scientists believe in God because of the complexity and depth of their research / discoveries just lead to more wonders and perfect intricacies.

Doctor DooM

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

No.
a) No right minded scientist has believed for decades that the 'progress' of the foetus through its stages has its basis in evolutionary leaps.

As for redundant limbs / tails / earlobes etc. They all still have functions.

Not being smart dude but
a) is being taught right now in colleges across Ireland, and has nothing to do with any stage except the first few weeks and

b) you clearly don't understand the pentadactyl limb theory, its nothing to do with vestigial limbs, its to do with the shared bone structure in limbs between all animals.

I genuinely would like an answer for this... will start a new thread.

RiderOnTheStorm

SDooM wrote:

you clearly don't understand the pentadactyl limb theory, its nothing to do with vestigial limbs, its to do with the shared bone structure in limbs between all animals.

my bad. I thought that pentadactyl limb was indeed the vestigal limbs.
I dont know about pentadactyl limbs at all, so I cant comment.

Doctor DooM

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

my bad. I thought that pentadactyl limb was indeed the vestigal limbs.
I dont know about pentadactyl limbs at all, so I cant comment.

No prob I shall butt out, its in its own thread.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Actually, no. I don't want to sidetrack this interesting discussion, but in the interests of accuracy I should point out that inerrancy involves belief that the Scripture is without error, but does recognise that different literary forms exist (poetry, figures of speech, metaphors etc.) To use an obvious example, when Jesus says "I am the true vine" (John 15:1) the inerrantist does not believe that Jesus metamorphosed into a tree!

Therefore there are a large number of Christians who accept evolution but are still 'immature' enough to believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

I think Theology has invented a literary form of its own and put its own version of the word "inerrancy" in it.
People used to think the account in Genesis was factual inerrant. Now most educated, sensible people don't. It's either a metaphor or completly wrong.
Either way, it's a more evolved and mature faith that realises that than one who thinks it's literal inerrant truth.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Your understanding of Christianity is very narrow if you think that evolution is a stumbling block to all Christians.

I said absolutely nothing about Christianity. If you want to go off and have a conversation all on your own, then please go do just that, no need to involve me.

Wacker

I rarely contribute here as most of what I would ever want to say is said before I get there, and by people who are more well read than I am. However, I do observe the goings-on here on a very regular basis, and one observation of mine is applicable in this instance.

It happens frequently that you'll get a theist in here prosletysing and trying to show us the error of our ways. Every single ham-fisted arguement he makes will get torn apart with surgical efficiency, so the guy will go off and do some googling, and come back with something better. This may also get torn apart, but more importantly, everyone will see through what just happened.

I think the OP may be trying to do just that. OP, I think the last thing you should do when discussing your beliefs is to recycle some arguements that you don't fully understand. I'm not saying that stuff here is going over your head or anything. What I think you should do is post here your own reasons for atheism (it is atheism, right? I don't know if you're an atheist or an agnostic), and try to fit them in with what is said here.

Zombrex

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

Therein is the problem a lot of Christians / Jews / Muslims have with evolution. It denies the existance of God.

Well it doesn't really deny the existence of God. It provides a way for life to evolve that doesn't require God. To a lot of people that makes the concept of God rather redundant.

Of course to others it simply means they frame-shift what they believed God did, while still holding onto the idea that God must exist and must have done something to do with life, even if they have no idea what that was or have any rational reason for believing it.

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

But evolution (dare I say it) like God, cannot be proved.

Well nothing in science can be proven, as has been pointed out many times on this forum.

Science does not attempt to prove something right.

Its purpose is to model, through the use of theories, the natural world around us. Accuracy is what is important, not "proof", since accuracy of a model means that the model can be used for useful purpose (eg. evolution heavily effects medicine).

Neo-Darwin evolution is a model of how biologists believe the system of organism life works on Earth.

Like all scientific theories, the more accurate this model appears to be the more weight is put in it by scientists. Which is why the model is constantly updated to make it more and more accurate when more and more tests are run.

And at this stage the model appears to be very accurate, it not only fits observation but predicts future observation, the sign of a good scientific theory.

Pompey Magnus

5uspect wrote:

Tell him you've seen the light and are now worshiping Zeus.

I was going to suggest exactly the same thing. That is what I would do in that situation.

Zillah

Wacker wrote:

It happens frequently that you'll get a theist in here prosletysing and trying to show us the error of our ways. Every single ham-fisted arguement he makes will get torn apart with surgical efficiency

Thats poetry right there.

Wacker

Zillah wrote:

Thats poetry right there.

Why thank you sir.

RiderOnTheStorm

RiderOnTheStorm wrote:

Therein is the problem a lot of Christians / Jews / Muslims have with evolution. It denies the existance of God.

No, it just doesn't include god, different kettle of fish entirely

But evolution (dare I say it) like God, cannot be proved. Evolution is a theory, and all theories need experementation and observation to be proved

Scientific theories don't get "proven", that's just maths theorems

"theory" means it has a ton of evidence backing it up and is as strong as you're going to get. If it was just an idea, it would be a hypothesis