How do you convince people god exists?

Rock77

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its a very arbitrary thing 'if it doesn't affect people in a negative way'. War affects people in a negative way, yet its legal. One mans negative is anothers positive. Clerics abused kids / clerics set up hospitals and schools.

What you mean is: so long as I think it a negative way.

Take out the word negative then.. you already stated that if I don’t know a god exists and nobody is able to prove it to me then I shouldn’t believe in a god.

So if I shouldn’t believe in a god why would it be ok for me to be affected in anyway whatsoever by someone else’s belief in a god?

Hotblack Desiato

nthclare wrote: »

Religion = there's hope and if you're feeling down, say a few prayers and maybe you'll feel better soon.

There's also guilt, shame, fear of going to hell, ostracisation, etc.

Vincent50 wrote: »

Why do we even have a term Atheist, after all we don't have terms for people who don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy (well apart from adult) so why should a person who does not believe in something that does not exist have to have a label?

Because for some reason or other religious belief is still regarded as the norm. If you want to become President or a judge, you must take a religious oath. All primary schools in Ireland are organised on the basis of religion, they all either have a "denomination" or are "multi-denominational", there are no non-denominational schools receiving State funding. Religion infuses everything and poisons everything.

antiskeptic

Rock77 wrote: »

So if I shouldn’t believe in a god why would it be ok for me to be affected in anyway whatsoever by someone else’s belief in a god?

Because you live in a society? Everyone is affected by everyone else?

Should I be affected by someone else's lack of belief in God (which has it's own effect).

Rock77

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because you live in a society? Everyone is affected by everyone else?

Should I be affected by someone else's lack of belief in God (which has it's own effect).

If I know pink unicorns exist but can’t prove it to you, do you think it’s ok that you are required to swear an oath on the book of pink unicorns to get a state funded job?

igCorcaigh

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because you live in a society? Everyone is affected by everyone else?

Should I be affected by someone else's lack of belief in God (which has it's own effect).

We are responsible for our actions, not our beliefs.

antiskeptic

igCorcaigh wrote: »

We are responsible for our actions, not our beliefs.

?

If you are not responsible for what you believe, then who is?

antiskeptic

Rock77 wrote: »

If I know pink unicorns exist but can’t prove it to you, do you think it’s ok that you are required to swear an oath on the book of pink unicorns to get a state funded job?

That's a question of the hand the rocks the cradle. Right or wrong doesn't really come into it. Is it okay that the unborn are killed (to me, slightly more important that you swearing an oath you don't believe)? Or that we are led into obesity and a wrecked planet by corporations selling us shyte we don't need?

Some would say it is, some would say it isn't. So what?

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Religion infuses everything and poisons everything.

*modsnip*
Below standard inflammatory post that adds zero to the discussion.
Up your game please. This is a discussion forum not a placard.

antiskeptic

jaxxx wrote: »

Here's my own twist on an old quote by a scholar some 2000 years back:

Religion is a drug for the common, a tool for the powerful and a cancer for the world.

Sounds like you could put '21st century consumerism' in the place of religion in there. And consumerism is birthed in a survival of the fittest view:

Produce heaps upon heaps of variation and something will stick. Pretty much our world today. Until it can go on no more and goes extinct.

Check..

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Produce heaps upon heaps of variation and something will stick.

An excellent summary of the memetic explanation for religion - produce endless interpretations of vague metaphorical texts of no especially fixed meaning (while declaring, boldly, that their meanings are fixed and immutable) and sooner or later somebody will raise their index finger into the air and - in the manner of the Emperor's New Clothes - announce that not only is it true, but only really clever people can understand it.

Rock77

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a question of the hand the rocks the cradle. Right or wrong doesn't really come into it. Is it okay that the unborn are killed (to me, slightly more important that you swearing an oath you don't believe)? Or that we are led into obesity and a wrecked planet by corporations selling us shyte we don't need?

Some would say it is, some would say it isn't. So what?

That’s a whataboutery answer if ever I seen one! Do you have a background in politics? Look I’m not trying to be condescending but we weren’t talking about abortion or wrecking the planet.

We were talking about a belief in a god. I’m trying to be open to your side of the argument, in my opinion it is possible for you to know a god exists even though you can’t prove it. You stated that if I don’t know a god exists and nobody can prove it to me then I shouldn’t believe.

Now your saying even if I have good reason not to believe I should have to swear by some book written about this thing I shouldn’t believe in!?

Just take a second and think about how our conversation went...

Your answer, instead of moving the goalposts and saying ‘well there’s more important things’ should have been ‘yeah, I agree, you shouldn’t have to be affected by something you don’t have any reason to believe in’

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

*modsnipped*

I'd love to know what sort of thoght process could produce the above as a response to my post. We are still very far away from living in a secular society which treats everyone fairly regardless of their religious belief or non-belief.

nthclare

robindch wrote: »

An excellent summary of the memetic explanation for religion - produce endless interpretations of vague metaphorical texts of no especially fixed meaning (while declaring, boldly, that their meanings are fixed and immutable) and sooner or later somebody will raise their index finger into the air and - in the manner of the Emperor's New Clothes - announce that not only is it true, but only really clever people can understand it.

Indeed Hans Christian Andersen's story and metaphors can be equated with a lot of political grandstanding and organised religion,or disorganized religion, whatever floats one's boat. Whether there's a storm or it's glassy and still, if the boat's fit for purpose and it's intention is good it won't steer you wrong.

We all need shelter and somewhere to lay our heads at night.

But our actions, decisions and socioeconomic status will dictate the end result of a wooden box, or pile of ashes and hopefully leave a good legacy behind.

Indeed I have no issues with Atheists or Religious people in general but your post got me thinking.

Very well put Robin, sometimes a simple paragraph can cover a lot of ground.

I'll hold onto to that one, it can't be denied.

I sometimes think we're living in a perpetual loop of the Emperor's New Clothes.

There's a lot of lies and manipulation going on all around us, be it political religious or economic lies...

I even screen shot it

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

An excellent summary of the memetic explanation for religion - produce endless interpretations of vague metaphorical texts of no especially fixed meaning (while declaring, boldly, that their meanings are fixed and immutable) and sooner or later somebody will raise their index finger into the air and - in the manner of the Emperor's New Clothes - announce that not only is it true, but only really clever people can understand it.

Its not that difficult. Paul, in his opening of Romans describes all men as sinful - inventing, as we do, ever new ways to sin

Your answer to that is that there is no such thing as sin: the only wrong done is what yourself decide, by whatever means you happen to decide to measure wrong.

Those are your beliefs. A religion. With a self written scripture.

Kettle, pot, black.

jaxxx

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its not that difficult. Paul, in his opening of Romans describes all men as sinful - inventing, as we do, ever new ways to sin

Your answer to that is that there is no such thing as sin: the only wrong done is what yourself decide, by whatever means you happen to decide to measure wrong.

Those are your beliefs. A religion. With a self written scripture.

Kettle, pot, black.

Jesus christ, you literally couldn't be more wrong.. .. .. Beliefs do not automatically equate to a f*cking religion with "self written scripture". But go ahead, continue to have faith in a centuries old book written and editted by mankind.

karlitob

jaxxx wrote: »

Jesus christ, you literally couldn't be more wrong.. .. .. Beliefs do not automatically equate to a f*cking religion with "self written scripture". But go ahead, continue to have faith in a centuries old book written and editted by mankind.

He can have my book that I wrote this year on one true religion of pink unicorns. It’s the same as the bible. Even the first commandment is the same - which, you’ll agree, is handy.

nthclare

karlitob wrote: »

He can have my book that I wrote this year on one true religion of pink unicorns. It’s the same as the bible. Even the first commandment is the same - which, you’ll agree, is handy.

I never knew we had creative writer's in our midst, is it online ?

I'm interested in metaphoricall stories about different perspectives on the Abrahamic story.

I always love to shop local and support our own writers.

karlitob

nthclare wrote: »

I never knew we had creative writer's in our midst, is it online ?

I'm interested in metaphoricall stories about different perspectives on the Abrahamic story.

I always love to shop local and support our own writers.

It’s based on an Abrahmic story, it’s based on an alien-ic story.

And no - it’s not online, you can’t buy it. As leader of this religion I only train a few people how to interpret it and they tell you what to think, feel and do. But - importantly - you have to believe it if you’ve got any issues with gravity, or the Big Bang.

Hotblack Desiato

Akesh wrote: »

This is a strawman argument.

Seems you're at the "get the atheists to prove a negative" stage.

the Big Bang Theory only explains what we can see in our universe

Firstly I don't think anyone said anything otherwise?

Secondly, it means from the earliest moment of our universe's existence we can explain how it developed right up to the present day. We have no need of an interventionist theistic god to do this - that is the point about invoking the Big Bang, evolultion, etc.

Throughout the history of scientific enquiry, we have moved more and more away from "we don't know, therefore god did it" to "we can explain that".

You can continue to hand-wave about the possibility of a deistic god outside our universe who does nothing, but as I explained earlier I simply don't care about that.

Well I'm glad you're so sure but I would rather have facts before making a conclusion.

I conclude that vague claims wrapped in woo and with zero evidence provided are nonsense. As Hitchens said, what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong.

We can't detect 96% of the 'particles' in the universe yet I'm glad you're so sure of what is an isn't true about the origins.

This is a complete inversion of the burden of proof. i.e. "We're not 100% sure, therefore god." But like the postulated god, whatever this is does it intervene in our lives in any way?

It's hard to take you seriously when you're trying to make an argument based on it sure isn't this.

Your posts don't appear to be based upon anything at all.

What's the point in debate when you aren't willing to accept basic facts and the possibility that we may never be able to tell the true origin of the universe/multiverse.

Already acknowleged and explained in my earlier post, why should we give a damn about the possibility of some vague entitiy who does not interfere in our universe or our lives and, by definition, we cannot have any evidence of?

It's also worth noting that while the Big Bang is a nice theory, the current widely-accepted theory is simply a pick'n'mix of our observations. To suggest it is a theory of origin or a fact that disproves religion is complete nonsense.

It disproves the Abrahamic creation myths, and the notion that a theistic god is necessary to explain the development of the universe.

karlitob

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It disproves the Abrahamic creation myths, and the notion that a theistic god is necessary to explain the development of the universe.

Isn’t it funny how the bible-bashers can’t get their heads around nothing before something when it comes to the Big Bang; that our understanding of time now is likely different to what it was then so that the question of ‘before’ might not make sense.

Yet, when asked to explain where their magic man (or woman) comes from - well that’s different. She/he/them/they were always there.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Those are your beliefs. A religion. With a self written scripture.

As I've pointed out before in reply to this kind of silly, nihilistic comment - when the only tool in your kit is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its not that difficult. Paul, in his opening of Romans describes all men as sinful - inventing, as we do, ever new ways to sin

Your answer to that is that there is no such thing as sin: the only wrong done is what yourself decide, by whatever means you happen to decide to measure wrong.

Those are your beliefs. A religion. With a self written scripture.

Kettle, pot, black.

If man is sinful it's because we must function within the complex parameters of existence. Sin can be across a broad range of actions - from the unarguably serious to the mild - and, in religious terms, even include thought. It would be hard, surely impossible, to avoid this offence.

Hotblack Desiato

Outside of the tenets of a specific religion, the concept of "sin" is entirely meaningless.

Plode

jaxxx wrote: »

Jesus christ, you literally couldn't be more wrong.. .. .. Beliefs do not automatically equate to a f*cking religion with "self written scripture". But go ahead, continue to have faith in a centuries old book written and editted by mankind.

It is a volume of 60–70 books, by many authors, written over millennia, that repeats the same message consistently.

And it has inspired many of the greatest people in the history of mankind.

feargale

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

How do you in history?


And how do you do it now?

With all the evidence etc.

How do you convince God that people exist?

karlitob

Plode wrote: »

It is a volume of 60–70 books, by many authors, written over millennia, that repeats the same message consistently.

And it has inspired many of the greatest people in the history of mankind.

Humans get inspiration from all sorts of places, things etc.
Just because someone gets inspiration from a book a few lads put together 1500 years ago about a magical mystery man in the sky and his son who is still god and who’s first miracle of turning water into wine shows that he was really Irish, in no way whatsoever proves that there is a god.

Thomas Crapper was inspired by dirty smelly s**t. That doesn’t mean that the s**t is divine.

And before you start referencing art and buildings and all that sort of stuff - da Vinci, Michaelangelo etx. They plied their trade to those who offered patronage. That just so happened to be the corrupt church. Imagine what they could have created if enlightenment took hold and they plied their trade to science, logic and reason.

How inspirational that would be.

auspicious

You can't. It's easier to convince them God doesn't exist.

auspicious

auspicious wrote: »

You can't. It's easier to convince them God doesn't exist.

false equivalence

when no evidence is available for something its not something to convince anyone of

auspicious

Okay. You can convince people that their belief in God is unsubstantiated.

auspicious

auspicious wrote: »

Okay. You can convince people that their belief in God is unsubstantiated.

Granted this statement doesn't address the op.
I'd need to think about this.