Being stopped in the street to talk about "Jesus Christ".

philologos

Helix wrote: »

hold on. are you honestly attempting an argument that amounts to "LOL! you don't accept something for no reason other than there's absolutely no proof!"

seriously?

if i tell you that i can fly, but i can never show me, do you believe me or do you weigh it all up and decide that its probably a fair assumption i cant, despite the fact that you can never actually know for sure?

No, it simply means that you'll have to do better to convince Christians who believe that there is evidence for God's existence. Spouting off "no evidence" repeatedly will simply be meaningless.

RussellTuring

I was convinced I'd responded to this already but apparently I haven't. Here I go so.

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely RussellTuring, but if you are God and if you desire to communicate with people, people are inevitably going to have to be involved. There is no way of getting out of that one.

He could communicate with everyone. If it's a matter of requiring faith, why do the prophets get off?

I found personally that when I was reading the Bible for the first time, 17 nearly 18. I found that the process started by thinking about Creation. Is it more sensible or not that there is a Creator, or that this all came from itself? I thought about this all the more, but the more I thought about it the less it started to make sense that this could just be a cosmic accident. It was from the point of thinking about a Creator that I began to think about what God this could be, or indeed what gods. At this time I looked to the Qur'an also, and I also got exposure to other religions through my LC Religion class. I looked into a lot of stuff essentially, but it was from this stage of understanding that there was probably a Creator that I reached a point that I could understand what revelation or not best held up. I was admittedly surprised about what I had learned in Christianity that I had never seen before as a kid going to church with my parents, or indeed that didn't seem to be present in the other religions I looked at. I was also surprised to see how reasonable Christianity was, and I was surprised to see what a strong case there was for it by reading some Christian apologetics.

Can you be more specific about what led to the conclusion that a deity could exist over one not existing?

By the by, your argument against religions in particular could also be used against atheism, an idea unlike the others which is without doubt the brainchild of individuals.

And makes no claims to the contrary. Being an atheist doesn't require you to believe things without evidence. Quite the opposite in fact.

Christianity seemed to hold up pretty well. I would give arguments in favour of a panthenon of gods a consideration certainly.

I'm not even being as specific as Christianity. What made monotheism win out in the end?

I think the scale isn't all that useful. I don't believe that someone is authentically an "agnostic" if they believe that God's existence is as likely as fairies at the back of their garden to use a Richard Dawkin's phrase.

I would consider it as follows:

1: Atheist - someone who sees it as more likely that God doesn't exist.
2. Agnostic - someone who is unsure as to whether or not God exists.
3. Theist - someone who sees it as more likely that God exists.

If you want my answer on the scale in The God Delusion I am a 2.

Your definitions are incorrect. I haven't read any Dawkins but if I'm right about the scale, you're an agnostic theist. Quite simply, you accept the fact that it is not entirely provable but think it is highly likely. That's good.

Intuition and intelligent speculation are the product of ones rational faculty. The reason may be inaccurate and misguided, but ultimately if you want people to believe in things it needs to be inherently sensible and reasonable to the individual who is to believe in it.

So in other words, you think your intuition is a reasonable way to determine God's existence. Fair enough. I disagree that it is.

People should be able to understand the logic behind something. If they don't understand the logic there is no reason whatsoever why they would believe in it.

As you are well aware, logic is not a matter of opinion. This quote seems to imply that people never believe in things that are illogical.

People operate inherently as if it is universal. You have zero right to rebuke me for what I do unless there is a moral system that is in common between us. How can you be sure that you are right otherwise?

I don't claim to be right; that's the point. However, there are many points on which people will agree and that is where we have a legitimate case of a moral value.

The second you claim that someone is wrong you are assuming immediately that they should have some means of understanding you. What are those means if they are not a common moral system?

There are many common morals, evidently. It's also evident that they are not universal. What are the universal morals rule for abortion? Execution? Sex? Tell me and you'll have a case for objective morals.

You mention that there is a conflict to begin with, but why would one initiate conflict to begin with unless they genuinely believed that they were objectively right?

You just answered your own question. Often, it is because they believe they are objectively right and therefore their opponent is wrong. It's an attitude that is behind a lot of conflict in this world.

That's what I mean when I say that the mechanics of morality are geared towards universalism. I already mentioned that people can suppress their consciences by following their desires. It is possible that people can ignore aspects of their God given consciences. However, ultimately on a broad scale most humans in most societies agree as to the core nature of morality, and what is at its most basic right and wrong. At least that is what I have found from looking to a lot of ethical systems.

I think saying people can suppress their morals is cop out to avoid admitting that morals aren't universal. I realise why you do, the objectivity being a corner stone of your belief in God, but I think it's something you belief contrary to the evidence.

I'd be interested to know what you think is this core they believe in. You also admitted that it is most but not all humans and societies. It's hardly universal with so many exceptions.

I'm doubtful of this in practice to say the least!

Well I could be lying about everything I say here but I suppose you just have to take my word for it. Have some faith. If it makes it easier for you to accept, think of it like this: I am open to the possibility of there being a god but since it seems unlikely, I live as if there isn't. Likewise, I don't believe that is any such thing as objective morals but since we share many, I live as if they are. Until, of course, there is conflict. The difference then between you and me is that I don't assume that one of us may be right and the other necessarily wrong but that they are both just points of view and thus we can reach a compromise. Believing in objective morals does not leave as much room for this.

I think we were created for a good purpose but we lost our way. It doesn't mean that we cannot at times do what is good, but it does mean that for as long as we choose not to reflect God that we are prone to sin even if we can adhere to His standards momentarily.

What does it mean "to reflect God"?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Of course they are different things. But that was not the point of the analogy.

I can't hope but notice your deafening silence on the rest of the post.

You either believe that God exists or you do not believe that God exists.

You believe that the love exists in the mind of another for you or you do not believe that love exists in the mind of another for you.

You're just repeating yourself now and I never contradicted this anyway.

Helix

Jakkass wrote: »

No, it simply means that you'll have to do better to convince Christians who believe that there is evidence for God's existence. Spouting off "no evidence" repeatedly will simply be meaningless.

whats the difference between an atheist saying "no evidence" and and a theist saying "have faith"?

which one seems more logical? believing in the magic man in the sky or not doing so unless there is reasonable proof offered?

partyatmygaff

RussellTuring wrote: »

I can't hope but notice your deafening silence on the rest of the post.

First of all... You can't hope but notice? What does that even mean?

Second of all, the rest of his post can be split in to two parts

And PAMG trying to use love in his/her analogy, by saying "ah yes, but how do you know anyone loves you?" and "how do you know love is real, or even exists?" really is clutching at straws, and doesn't even hold water as an argument itself. I'll debunk his theory as follows:

"Oh dear... look at that PAMG fellow. What an idiot. He's trying (But failing of course for reasons undisclosed) to use an analogy. He's clutching at straws, his argument reeks of stupidity and is full of holes. Why? It doesn't matter why or how it is so. All that matters is that I said it's a poor argument. Now that i've done enough argument labeling I think i'll have a go at debunking a completely misinterpreted version of his 'theory'."

Love is an emotion that we know exists because we ourselves feel it for other people/things - therefore WE KNOW it exists - therefore, we don't have to prove that someone else feels it for us to know it exists. We already know, because we're capable of feeling it ourselves. "

I corrected this misinterpretation of my "theory" in my previous post.

You're just repeating yourself now and I never contradicted this anyway.

I'm repeating myself because others keep repeating the same misinterpretations.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

No, it simply means that you'll have to do better to convince Christians who believe that there is evidence for God's existence. Spouting off "no evidence" repeatedly will simply be meaningless.

Filoviridae.

partyatmygaff

strobe wrote: »

Filoviridae.

Strobe, is there any reason behind you quoting small sections of Jakkass' posts and then giving one word answers that consist of nothing more than the names of virii and diseases?

One would be forgiven for making the mistake of thinking that you're implying that Jakkass is the equivalent of a virus or disease in your eyes. I really hope you're not. It would be an awful shame if you got banned for personal abuse. You've made an excellent contribution to the thread so far

strobe

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Strobe, is there any reason behind you quoting small sections of Jakkass' posts and then giving one word answers that consist of nothing more than the names of virii and diseases?

One would be forgiven for making the mistake of thinking that you're implying that Jakkass is the equivalent of a virus or disease in your eyes. I really hope you're not. It would be an awful shame if you got banned for personal abuse. You've made an excellent contribution to the thread so far

Lol, no I'm not implying that Jakkass is a virus. I think he probably knows why I have posted River Blindness and the Ebola virus when he asked if there are any positive reasons for thinking the Christian God doesn't exist. But he doesn't seem to be biting.

Care to have a pop at an explanation yourself?

RussellTuring

partyatmygaff wrote: »

First of all... You can't hope but notice? What does that even mean?

Help but notice. I'm fairly sure you knew exactly what I meant.

Second of all, the rest of his post can be split in to two parts


"Oh dear... look at that PAMG fellow. What an idiot. He's trying (But failing of course for reasons undisclosed) to use an analogy. He's clutching at straws, his argument reeks of stupidity and is full of holes. Why? It doesn't matter why or how it is so. All that matters is that I said it's a poor argument. Now that i've done enough argument labeling I think i'll have a go at debunking a completely misinterpreted version of his 'theory'."


I corrected this misinterpretation of my "theory" in my previous post.

Your deafening silence on the rest of my post. As in the one you chose to mostly ignore. You either can't follow a conversation very well or this is one of the worst attempts at avoiding points that I've ever seen.

I'm repeating myself because others keep repeating the same misinterpretations.

And what did I misinterpret? I never denied these dichotomies. You're still to explain how two things being possible necessarily makes them equally likely, or even how it holds in the case of the existence of God.

Oh I think you might have ignored my response on the AI because you didn't expect me to side with it, did you? Maybe you should ask yourself why you can't try to be more rational. Humans are the ones who build Artificial Intelligence; it requires us examining why we do or do not believe certain things and think certain ways. There is no room for answers contrary to reason.

partyatmygaff

strobe wrote: »

Lol, no I'm not implying that Jakkass is a virus.

Really. You'd do well to actually say that then instead of making little one word mini-replies strobe.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Help but notice. I'm fairly sure you knew exactly what I meant.

Ah... You can never be too sure with people as illogical and idiotic as I supposedly am :pac:

Your deafening silence on the rest of my post. As in the one you chose to mostly ignore. You either can't follow a conversation very well or this is one of the worst attempts at avoiding points that I've ever seen.

No I don't think I will continue with the mathematical probability of God discussion. I'm not a statistician and getting a value of probability that everyone will agree on for the question is impossible. I don't want to branch off in to many different little discussions as I neither have the time nor inclination to do that. It's a topic for the Mathematics forum more than AH.

And what did I misinterpret? I never denied these dichotomies. You're still to explain how two things being possible necessarily makes them equally likely, or even how it holds in the case of the existence of God.

I am not arguing that one answer is more likely than the other. All I am saying is that those who say they are purely rational are wrong. Those who ridicule me for believing in something on faith are guilty of the very same 'crime'.

strobe

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Really. You'd do well to actually say that then instead of making little one word mini-replies strobe.

Well I'm sure not everyone needed it explain to them Pamg.

That would be a 'no' in regards to having a pop at explaining the simultaneous existence of an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God and river blindness then?

LuckyFinigan

I got stopped by two of them in Waterford a few weeks ago. I was walking down the street and the two of them swooped in like vulchers and blocked my path. Said something about being here to spread the word of jesus. I just stoped them and said Im not intrested and pushed my way past them. Whats worse is the ones that come knocking on your door, their very hard to get rid off.

partyatmygaff

strobe wrote: »

Well I'm sure not everyone needed it explain to them Pamg.

Have you forgotten already? I believe in God. According to certain people me and the few billion other theists are mentally retarded in some way or form. Surely you should keep that in mind before making such ambiguous posts in the future strobe?

That would be a 'no' in regards to having a pop at explaining the simultaneous existence of an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God and river blindness then?

Indeed that would be a no. I recall answering that very same point multiple times already on this forum. I've no real intention of repeating my answer. Not only that but I believe I have already said that in this thread my primary aim is not to convince others that God exists but to convince others that those who believe that God exists do not deserve ridicule or slander. As per my previous post....

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I am not arguing that one answer is more likely than the other. All I am saying is that those who say they are purely rational are wrong. Those who ridicule me for believing in something on faith are guilty of the very same 'crime'.

strobe

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Have you forgotten already? I believe in God. According to certain people me and the few billion other theists are mentally retarded in some way or form. Surely you should keep that in mind before making such ambiguous posts in the future strobe?

Ahh, of course. I'll try to keep that in mind. :pac:

Indeed that would be a no. I recall answering that very same point multiple times already on this forum. I've no real intention of repeating my answer.

A link then? To where you previously answered the question.

Not only that but I believe I have already said that in this thread my primary aim is not to convince others that God exists but to convince others that those who believe that God exists do not deserve ridicule or slander. As per my previous post....

I'm not aware that I have 'slandered' anyone.

partyatmygaff

strobe wrote: »

Ahh, of course. I'll try to keep that in mind. :pac:

Break it down for us simple folk

A link then? To where you previously answered the question.

I'm sure i've replied to it in one of the many religion threads here on AH. Which one in particular I don't quite remember. All that I remember was that the thread in question was posted last year.

I'm not aware that I have slandered anyone.

I never said you did. Other people on boards have.

RussellTuring

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ah... You can never be too sure with people as illogical and idiotic as I supposedly am :pac:

I suppose so.

No I don't think I will continue with the mathematical probability of God discussion. I'm not a statistician and getting a value of probability that everyone will agree on for the question is impossible. I don't want to branch off in to many different little discussions as I neither have the time nor inclination to do that. It's a topic for the Mathematics forum more than AH.

You instead prefer to make the claim with nothing to support it. Your lack of statistical credentials didn't stop you earlier from asserting that the probability of God existing was 0.5. However when asked to show a reason for this belief, only then do you claim ignorance in the area. I wish I were surprised.

I am not arguing that one answer is more likely than the other.

No you are arguing that when two possibilities exist, each is as likely as the other. I never said you were arguing otherwise.

All I am saying is that those who say they are purely rational are wrong. Those who ridicule me for believing in something on faith are guilty of the very same 'crime'.

If that's true, you didn't express it very well. Nobody can be purely rational but we can try instead of just giving up and rejecting it outright. Just because nobody is entirely rational does not mean we are all equally irrational.

Additionally, I'm tired of you trying to evade points/misrepresenting others/performing thought experiments that are quickly abandoned failing expected results. This conversation is over as far as I'm concerned.

partyatmygaff

RussellTuring wrote: »

I suppose so.
I wish I were surprised.

I wish I were surprised. Why is it that in debates like these there is always a certain degree of name calling and "I wish I were surprised" style posts?

You instead prefer to make the claim with nothing to support it. Your lack of statistical credentials didn't stop you earlier from asserting that the probability of God existing was 0.5. However when asked to show a reason for this belief, only then do you claim ignorance in the area

Thomas Bayes' formula and the work of Stephen D. Unwin. Hence my earlier statement that "getting a value of probability that everyone will agree on for the question is impossible."

I never said that I have no basis for what I said. You just assumed I didn't. I wish I were surprised indeed...

Nobody can be purely rational but we can try instead of just giving up and rejecting it outright. Just because nobody is entirely rational does not mean we are all equally irrational.

We all know this already.

Additionally, I'm tired of you trying to evade points/misrepresenting others/performing thought experiments that are quickly abandoned failing expected results. This conversation is over as far as I'm concerned.

Abandoned thought experiment? I'm still awaiting people to take up the challenge.

As for this conversation being over, I am glad of it. I dislike your caustic posting style and tactics of "interrogate, accuse and deride".

vampire of kilmainham

evercloserunion wrote: »

I was once stopped by a Korean man and woman, the man was holding a laptop and the woman was holding a clipboard and they asked me if I would help them by doing a survey (this was in TCD campus so I presumed they were students doing research or something). I said grand, and they said they'd show me a video and ask me about my reactions to it. The video was all about how God is actually a woman and when it was over they told me they were part of some Korean religious sect and would I consider joining them.

i hate those religious sects ya never know what your getting into with them i just tell them all im not into orginised religions and keep going :eek:

vampire of kilmainham

starbelgrade wrote: »

It's funny how you never see atheists stopping people on the street to talk about the non-existence of God.

I'm all for allowing people to believe whatever the hell they want, but there is a rather odd element to Catholicism that tries to convince non-believers into believing. It's not as sinister as it used to be with the Crusades, but it's still very odd.

You believe in God? Sound. You want to convince me to do the same? Fuck off. I have a mind of my own, thank you very much.

me too mind of my own belive only your own eyes and not the voices of others...

vampire of kilmainham

Buceph wrote: »

It's not really. They believe that if you don't accept Jebus and his ways, you're going to go to hell. It'd be fairly cúntish not to try and convince people to believe.

It'd be like me looking at you walking down the street and a piano about to fall on your head. It'd be fairly dickish not to shout out to you (these guys) or push you out of the way (the Crusades.)

Except in this case, there's no piano visible in fact there's nothing above your head except a sturdy roof, and I have a persistent phobia that piano's are going to drop out of the sky caused by people who make money selling me anti-piano falling insurance.

what........wait........omg.....piano's falling what are ya on about:eek:

vampire of kilmainham

Seloth wrote: »

Theres quite a few American ones around recently ><.

I dont mind the ones who preach at a street or cornor,its the ones that go up to you or stop you are the worst!Theres two fellas down in cork who are bearded,freakishly tall and look crazy and come up to you...Scary guys!

men in black:eek::eek::eek:

opinion guy

I'm not reading all 16 pages of this so forgive me if I am recapping old ground but was wondering from the OP - the people who stopped you - well dressed suits etc - sounds like Mormons. Were they American ?

vampire of kilmainham

m@cc@ wrote: »

No one truly has a mind of their own and is very much influenced by the environment and society within which they live. To try to claim otherwise is ridiculous.

no it's not i have a mind of my own iv trained my mind through medatation and contact with other spirit relems to be free from the enviroment and the society in which i live:pac::pac::pac:

DanWall

These people have a genuine concern for your wellbeing, they are volunteering their time, don’t be disrespectful to someone who is trying to help you.

opinion guy

DanWall wrote: »

These people have a genuine concern for your wellbeing, they are volunteering their time, don’t be disrespectful to someone who is trying to help you.

AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Brilliant

Gneez

I was woken by a knock on the door last week at 11am, I had been up the previous night until 6am working on some stuff so I got out of bed, still in a pair of dodgy tartan boxer shorts and bleary eyed and opened the door to see a little old lady of about 100 years of age and some goofy nervous looking effeminate young man who seemed to be nervously eyeballing my hairy legs, and the little old lady says ''have you heard the word of jesus christ and left him into your heart?''

After a few minutes of me standing there mostly naked like chewbacca with a scowl on my face they got the message, I tried to give them a lecture but fumbled it because I was half asleep and just said 'go away I don't need your dogma and don't call here again'

Cool story eh

MrSir

Once had a man come up to me and my friends to spread the word of the Lord. Or something. He was very hard to understand as he was quite drunk but I remember him saying all schools should be abolished, something about trees being hermaphrodites, he was the son of God and that "you can blame the jews".


A lovely fellow through and through.

smokingman

DanWall wrote: »

These people have a genuine concern for your wellbeing, they are volunteering their time, don’t be disrespectful to someone who is trying to help you.

If I had my way, they'd be swiftly beheaded...but hey, that's just my belief.

DanWall

I find people and kids knocking on my door for sponsorship annoying. They want the money before they even do anything, it's basically a donation not a sponsorship.
Plus I am not interested in helping a school or GAA etc, I will help a good cause eg. Cancer research or something for children health

Tar.Aldarion

Odin is spinning in his grave.

philologos

Sacramento wrote: »

By definition, other forms of thought are as you describe them. OTHER FORMS OF THOUGHT. Of course they'd be different. Religions around the world share a common theme, with differences within their core beliefs that have been so at odds, wars begin.

I personally can see some stark differences between belief systems. My point being that your argument can be applied equally to atheism. There are a number of systems of thought in the world that are mutually contradictory. Atheism is mutually contradictory with a number of systems of thought, not all formal theisms. If the atheism involves disregarding the existence of Gods or gods it comes into conflict with deism, or indeed the God of philosophy. Why should we presume that atheism is correct, and that your skepticism isn't misplaced? The presumption that just because you are skeptical of something that it is rational doesn't logically follow.


I can give you a number of examples of how skepticism can be wholly irrational.

Flat-earthers are skeptical about the claim that the earth is round.

Young Earth Creationists are skeptical about the claim that the universe and the earth are both old and indeed that biological evolution took place.

Skeptics of vaccination are skeptical about the claim that vaccines given to children at birth are generally good for them.

Why is your skepticism in relation to God valid?

Sacramento wrote: »

You're picking and choosing here, there is no archaeological evidence for many things the bible claims, the only "evidence" you can quote, are the actual bible verses themselves, which believe it or not, are not forms of evidence. I'm not talking about "there was a Nazareth, therefore it's all right!" I'm talking Noah's Ark, Jesus rising from the dead, Moses parting the sea and so on...

I don't need to substantiate all of these for your position to be false. I only need to show that there is at least some evidence for believing in Biblical claims. You have claimed that there is absolutely no reason to see the Bible as being reliable in any respect.

Although there are arguments for the veracity of the Resurrection that have been presented by Christian apologists.

Moses parting the sea ultimately comes down to whether or not you can regard miracles. If you believe there is no God, then of course believing in miracles is ridiculous. If you do believe that there is a God who is Lord over the universe, and indeed knows each and every aspect of its created order down to a tee then miracles don't become so outlandish.

If you deny that God is Creator, then of course you won't be able to believe in miracles. That's only logical. That's why it is always best to start off looking at whether or not it is reasonable to believe that this universe indeed was created, and by extension had a Creator.

Do you believe the Noah's ark nonsense? Because it is in direct conflict with archaeological evidence and findings. If you don't though, I'll give you some other examples.

Sacramento wrote: »

No, it's an argument against your morale compass argument. And with Christian belief, it's homosexual sex acts that are considered wrong/evil/immoral by the majority of Christians, not the minority. So Christianity on a whole is against it more than anything else. And religion as a whole is almost 90% against it, not just in a "we don't much like it" way, in a "we will persecute/kill/condemn you to hell" way.

Morality isn't really about what I think. If it was about I think I could tailor my moral system to justify anything I'd like. Rather morality starts with God, His created order and what He desires for this. This is the only way to possibly get any form of objective morality. Otherwise we're condemned to inadequate forms of moral shepherding.

I believe that sexual relations outside of a marriage are against God's standard and I consider them wrong. It doesn't logically follow that I hate everyone who does this. Indeed, that would be wrong of me actually. As Christians because Jesus died for our sins, who the heck made me the moral leader for all mankind. Indeed, I'd be a pretty poor example considering that I am only really able to stumble after Jesus the exemplar of human behaviour.

Sacramento wrote: »

You do realise that you're the lazy one here don't you? By saying that "people cannot use the no evidence argument because it's easy", you are taking the lazy approach by not addressing that very valid argument. That's why I consider your argument to be laughable.

Laugh as much as you'd like. I'm glad that if I can do anything for you it will be to make you laugh :pac:

In consideration. I've been arguing for years back and forth with non-believers. It's been enjoyable for the most part. However, I have put a lot of effort into arguments time and time again, and from what I've seen non-believers often don't. I think it is high time that we had a proper discussion rather than a Q&A session and yes that will require you to make positive arguments rather than taking the easy option. I could also reject everything you say and spout for evidence. I don't though primarily because I want to have a proper discussion.

If you want to have a proper discussion, lets do that. If you don't then don't. I don't believe there are special terms for you because you're and atheist Russell's teapot or not.