Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

How do you convince people god exists?

12930323435

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,832 ✭✭✭✭ Pherekydes


    How feeble a worldview that can't evade being stalemated by a worldview you find so feeble.

    You're like a 7 year-old who keeps moving his chess pieces around. He can't accept that he was checkmated after 4 moves by his Granddad.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob



    Faith in reasoning (Rationalism) to establish truth. Faith in evidence (which is why I believe as I do) is faith based. I have faith that discernment and evaluation of the evidence available to me is accurate).

    It really is hard to know what you’re going on about.

    Faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something – it does not matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence. If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    karlitob wrote: »
    It really is hard to know what you’re going on about.

    Faith is a state of mind that leads people to believe something

    Faith– it does not matter what – in the total absence of supporting evidence.


    1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

    There is no mention of whether the faith is based on evidence or not. Although convention would suggest we have complete trust in someone because they have given us good reason to trust them (a.k.a. evidence)

    Ever hear of stranger danger?





    If there were good supporting evidence, then faith would be superfluous, for the evidence would compel us to believe it anyway.

    I have faith that my car brakes will halt my progress. That faith is based on evidence.


    Your supposition about religious faith (which is the faith I think you are talking about) is based on your supposing the faith holder has no evidence. I don't have faith in your supposition - for you can provide no evidence that I have no evidence.

    All you potentially* can do is suggest that your faith in a philosophy about what constitutes evidence is correct. But since you can't evidence your faith in this regard, your faith has to be considered by outside observers as blind faith.

    Which is the point. Atheists who believe evidence is limited to that which can be seen, touched, smelled etc are expressing their faith in a philosophy which holds so. They can't evidence it and so throw rocks at theists from their position in a glass house.



    *potentially. I don't know what you believe and have been warned not to project beliefs onto you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    You're like a 7 year-old who keeps moving his chess pieces around. He can't accept that he was checkmated after 4 moves by his Granddad.


    What is it they say about claims being dismissed without evidence. I hear it often enough but do wait with interest for the other side to produce evidence of their quite remarkable claims.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robindch


    I have faith that my car brakes will halt my progress. That faith is based on evidence.
    Based upon evidence? It certainly is not. This so-called "evidence" is based solely upon your belief that evidence has some relevance to whether or not your brakes work.

    Therefore evidence is just a belief and therefore, your brakes don't work.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭ nozzferrahhtoo


    Got a belief system?

    Well since you have returned to your usual MO of ignoring my posts on this thread, I will take this one.

    I tend not to operate on beliefs at all. I explained this to you before but since you dodged and ignored that too I will happily repeat it too.

    What I do is accumulate all the evidence offered to me and make educated guesses on the state of the universe. I do not "believe" or "disbelieve"..... these are your crutches not mine..... any of the positions that leaves me in however.

    The example you previously ran away from and ignored was that of my being able to fly. I do not believe I am capable of flight without the aid of technology. I however also do not believe I am NOT capable of flight without the aid of technology either. Perhaps I am.

    What I do however have is a data set replete solely and wholly with examples of people who leave surfaces without the aid of technology. And in 100% of cases they plummet downwards.

    I do not "believe" I am the exception to this. Nor do I "believe" I am the same. Rather I can only make my best guess based on the data available to me. Prudence alone has me act as if I operate under the assumption/belief I can not fly.

    I also appear to be in a universe with the rest of you people. I have no idea how this came to be at this time. There are plenty of hypothesis out there. However the data set available to me contains NOTHING at this time to suggest that the explanation for this lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agency.

    When I ask you to add to that data set anything you feel I might not be including you invariably do one of three things:

    1) Make up things about me and what I think/beleieve.
    2) Moan about the dataset itself and how you feel it is unfairly treated.
    3) Run away from my posts and wait for other posts not directed at you you can snipe at.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭ Millionaire only not


    Don’t know about the **** wrote in last few pages , asking about convincing people does god exist !

    Ask that 15 year old girl raped in mayo on Saturday or her parents!

    I know god could sit this one out if I found him.

    A clear message needs to be sent home to the lads that were in this black car .


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Bannasidhe


    Don’t know about the **** wrote in last few pages , asking about convincing people does god exist !

    Ask that 15 year old girl raped in mayo on Saturday or her parents!

    I know god could sit this one out if I found him.

    A clear message needs to be sent home to the lads that were in this black car .

    As someone who was raped as a 15 year old I am struggling to understand what the hell this little rant has to do with the topic under discussion.

    But I can tell you that 'the something that needs to be done' is for victims to not be placed on trial and have their clothes, life, history become part of the alleged perpetrators defence; the mechanism whereby the guilt can get away with paying a fine needs to be abolished; stiffer custodial sentences; and men need to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings.

    But rape has nothing to do with whether or not God exists - it has to do with some men's need to dominate women and belief that their desires trump all - such men may believe in the existence of God or they may not, either way they are still rapists and should be accordingly punished by the State.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭ Millionaire only not


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As someone who was raped as a 15 year old I am struggling to understand what the hell this little rant has to do with the topic under discussion.

    But I can tell you that 'the something that needs to be done' is for victims to not be placed on trial and have their clothes, life, history become part of the alleged perpetrators defence; the mechanism whereby the guilt can get away with paying a fine needs to be abolished; stiffer custodial sentences; and men need to make sure that all men get the message that women's bodies are not their bloody playthings.

    But rape has nothing to do with whether or not God exists - it has to do with some men's need to dominate women and belief that their desires trump all - such men may believe in the existence of God or they may not, either way they are still rapists and should be accordingly punished by the State.

    The rant has to do with the thought of a 15 year old girl in little old Ireland being raped in broad day light at a park by strangers.
    My rant is where is god if he does exist , did she or her parents ask for these pricks to mess up her life !
    That’s what my rant is about


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,316 ✭✭✭ nthclare


    Well since you have returned to your usual MO of ignoring my posts on this thread, I will take this one.

    I tend not to operate on beliefs at all. I explained this to you before but since you dodged and ignored that too I will happily repeat it too.

    What I do is accumulate all the evidence offered to me and make educated guesses on the state of the universe. I do not "believe" or "disbelieve"..... these are your crutches not mine..... any of the positions that leaves me in however.

    The example you previously ran away from and ignored was that of my being able to fly. I do not believe I am capable of flight without the aid of technology. I however also do not believe I am NOT capable of flight without the aid of technology either. Perhaps I am.

    What I do however have is a data set replete solely and wholly with examples of people who leave surfaces without the aid of technology. And in 100% of cases they plummet downwards.

    I do not "believe" I am the exception to this. Nor do I "believe" I am the same. Rather I can only make my best guess based on the data available to me. Prudence alone has me act as if I operate under the assumption/belief I can not fly.

    I also appear to be in a universe with the rest of you people. I have no idea how this came to be at this time. There are plenty of hypothesis out there. However the data set available to me contains NOTHING at this time to suggest that the explanation for this lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agency.

    When I ask you to add to that data set anything you feel I might not be including you invariably do one of three things:

    1) Make up things about me and what I think/beleieve.
    2) Moan about the dataset itself and how you feel it is unfairly treated.
    3) Run away from my posts and wait for other posts not directed at you you can snipe at.

    Now I know why you're allowed to stay in the forum, because you're posting absolute bollix.

    You respond to me and others in the same way, twisting everything, and on about people's MO, suggesting that people are running away from your posts, people making up things about you and what you should think and believe etc...

    And Im glad I've decided to leave this sh1t show, and never post here again.
    This is just a place for atheists to slag off people and its all a one way moderation system.

    I was thinking to myself I never get warnings on any other forums but this place is so strict and fcked up with its own contradictions... That is why people don't want to post here because its gone to the dogs, an absolute wreck....

    It's like the muppet show with a dark side...

    Anyhow G'luck :)


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,625 ✭✭✭ Millionaire only not


    nthclare wrote: »
    Now I know why you're allowed to stay in the forum, because you're posting absolute bollix.

    You respond to me and others in the same way, twisting everything, and on about people's MO, suggesting that people are running away from your posts, people making up things about you and what you should think and believe etc...

    And Im glad I've decided to leave this sh1t show, and never post here again.
    This is just a place for atheists to slag off people and its all a one way moderation system.

    I was thinking to myself I never get warnings on any other forums but this place is so strict and fcked up with its own contradictions... That is why people don't want to post here because its gone to the dogs, an absolute wreck....

    It's like the muppet show with a dark side...

    Anyhow G'luck :)

    Look at all the nut jobs that respond to this thread , I should not have bothered myself


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭ nozzferrahhtoo


    nthclare wrote: »
    Now I know why you're allowed to stay in the forum, because you're posting absolute bollix.

    Returning to the forum in high form there I see. No change in your standards anyway. The reason I am allowed post on this forum is I tend to point to something a user said, explain exactly what I think they said was wrong or problematic, back my position up with arguments and evidence.... and then often post an alternative view too.

    What I do not do, would never do, and would be ashamed of myself if I did is simply roll in and should "it's all bollix" and then run away again. No. I offer specifics. I offer rebuttals. Try it. What did I say that was wrong or problematic exactly? And where exactly did my error lie?
    nthclare wrote: »
    You respond to me and others in the same way, twisting everything, and on about people's MO, suggesting that people are running away from your posts

    I have twisted nothing. If you think I have then offer SPECIFICS rather than vague accusations thrown into the ether. That is just the intellectual equivilant of throwing all your pasta at the wall and waiting to see if a piece sticks.

    The user I was writing to has a not once, not twice, but continuous ongoing MO of ignoring or running away from my posts that I write to him.... waiting some times.... then sniping at a post I write to someone else instead. Often, but not always the sniping will include a near verbatim reiteration of something I already dealt with in the previous post that was originally ignored.

    Nothing there is twisted. It is demonstrable fact.
    nthclare wrote: »
    people making up things about you and what you should think and believe etc..

    This is also demonstrable fact and not twisted either. You are on even weaker ground here too because I am not the only one who has pointed THIS one out. The user has CONSISTENTLY being pulled up on this MO by me, by other users, and by pretty much every single member of the moderation team.

    So the only one twisting anything here is YOU I am afraid.
    nthclare wrote: »
    And Im glad I've decided to leave this sh1t show, and never post here again.

    Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forum posting states: The probability a user is going to post in a forum/thread again goes UP in direct proportion to the number of times they have previously declared otherwise.

    A tongue in cheek law I made up as a joke but has surprised me in being true significantly more often than not. However if you are indeed refusing to post here any more I doubt it has anything to do with anything I have said/done or posted. Rather it will be because your views have been decimated consistently by the user base here as unsubstantiated nonsense.
    nthclare wrote: »
    I was thinking to myself I never get warnings on any other forums but this place is so strict

    I SOMEWHAT agree that I think this forum could be more lenient and has in fact been so in the past. However thinking it could be a small but significant bit more lenient is much different to the persecution bias you are inventing out of it. The reason you get more warnings here I think is because you get triggered when people disagree with you and you just happen to post more disagreeable nonsense here than other parts of the forum.... thus you get triggered more often.... thus you get more warnings and infractions on your account. This place is not good for you. And that is an attribute of YOU, not this place.

    But I can point to exact posts you have made where you represented yourself really poorly, and went over the line in disparaging and insulting others. Then you act all the victim when this comes back and bites you. This is on you. You. Yourself. And you alone. Get that mirror I told you about, the prices are STILL good I think.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Bannasidhe


    The rant has to do with the thought of a 15 year old girl in little old Ireland being raped in broad day light at a park by strangers.
    My rant is where is god if he does exist , did she or her parents ask for these pricks to mess up her life !
    That’s what my rant is about

    It, however, has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
    I find your passionate concern for this girl's well being to be at odds with you using an attack on her to make this particular argument tbh.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭ Ty Straight Villa


    You trotted out a string of fallacies which me and a number of other posters basically decimated. You ignored nearly all of those rebuttals, then eventually ran away. Now you slink back in acting like the opposite somehow happened?

    This is a discussion forum. You have demonstrably refused discussion. So no, you have not given an account of arguments for the existence of god and anyone can scroll back to your earlier posts, and the responses to them, and see that.

    The best you can do is respond to an old man who is not even here (Dawkins) to cover your dodges of the people who actually are.

    I am struggling not to be rude.

    Despite your constant assertions that "not a shred of evidence was supplied" for this or that (which you appear to make on many of the threads you join), I have previously argued my case succinctly. I have set out at least two arguments for the existence of God from reason alone (in detail) and drafted lengthy posts on the credibility of the Scriptures. All of this is available earlier in this thread (supplemented here). As far as I see, despite receiving replies, no serious dint was made in these arguments.

    You have 1) ignored arguments I made (the constant "not a shred of evidence" hum), 2) misrepresented my position 3) made snide little remarks in your replies. You are right - I have been ignoring your posts. For the reasons I just mentioned.

    As a Christian, I am committed to having charity to all on this thread, but boy is it testing :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭ Ty Straight Villa


    Cabaal wrote: »
    I tell you, for a apparently all powerful being he seems to need lots of humans to work out what he meant. Funny that.

    It's almost if numerous people made up stuff and badly edited it together. But I'm sure that would never happy.
    ��

    Christians believe that the Bible is authored by both God and men. The process of divine authorship is known as Inspiration.

    God can weave in His message of love, forgiveness and joy among the imperfect human expressions. It just takes a bit of patience to extract it.

    In a way, God is hidden in the Scriptures.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,353 Mod ✭✭✭✭ smacl


    nthclare wrote: »
    Now I know why you're allowed to stay in the forum, because you're posting absolute bollix.

    You respond to me and others in the same way, twisting everything, and on about people's MO, suggesting that people are running away from your posts, people making up things about you and what you should think and believe etc...

    And Im glad I've decided to leave this sh1t show, and never post here again.
    This is just a place for atheists to slag off people and its all a one way moderation system.

    I was thinking to myself I never get warnings on any other forums but this place is so strict and fcked up with its own contradictions... That is why people don't want to post here because its gone to the dogs, an absolute wreck....

    It's like the muppet show with a dark side...

    Anyhow G'luck :)

    Mod: You have been warned on numerous occasions by myself to keep this type of content to the feedback thread. You have also received multiple infractions and bans from all the mods here and been told to improve the standard of your posts but seem unable or unwilling to do so. While we welcome all points of view in this forum, we do so under the proviso that you stay within the charter. You've mentioned you don't intend to post here again, so I've given you a three month ban should you choose to change your mind at some point in the future. Should you do so, please read and understand the charter first as the next ban will be permanent. Thanks for your attention.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭ nozzferrahhtoo


    I am struggling not to be rude.

    How odd, it comes naturally to me. I do not struggle to do it. I think because unlike many people I see people and their ideas as separate. While other people conflate them.
    All of this is available earlier in this thread

    And was replied to, rebutted and decimated. The issue is you then left the thread and did not engage in or with any of those rebuttals. That is not how conversation works. That is how SERMONS work. Though the terms the forum rules use for Sermons is, I think, "Soap Boxing".
    As far as I see, despite receiving replies, no serious dint was made in these arguments.

    Given there is no ON THREAD evidence you read any of those replies... your evaluation holds little to no weight to be honest.
    1) ignored arguments I made

    I replied to them DIRECTLY (you ignored those replies). I would love to know what dictionary you use because whatever way it defines "ignore" seems to be massively different to how mine does. In yours it seems replying to something directly is "ignoring" it and not replying to something at all, is not? What year was your dictionary published out of interest?
    2) misrepresented my position

    That happens to me sometimes too. You know what I do? I reply DIRECTLY to the misrepresenation, show how it is a misrepresentation, then re-state my position in a new way different to how I stated it before.

    What I do NOT do is ignore the misrepresentations for weeks... then fall back in to declare there was a misrepresentation but not tell anyone where it is or what it was.

    So maybe you might consider offering some specifics here? Imagine for example I simply declared you told 3 lies. But I did not say what the lies were. I did not even say what posts they were in. I just asserted on nothing that you lied.

    You would feel, I hope, aggrieved. An accusation without evidence or specifics is not an accusation you see. It is a defensive posturing and reactionary bull. Which is why I do not do it. You want to. I would never.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    The rant has to do with the thought of a 15 year old girl in little old Ireland being raped in broad day light at a park by strangers.
    My rant is where is god if he does exist , did she or her parents ask for these pricks to mess up her life !
    That’s what my rant is about

    The trouble with your rant is where you chose to draw the line. You draw it a rapist and a 15 year old girl. God draws it such that lusting after a woman is equated to adultery.

    Now you might argue the toss and say that God is being unreasonable - what harm's a little lust. But open that door and the rapist will be standing in line behind you saying the line should really be drawn at the murderer, not at the killing of that aspect of a person (a little girl in this case) brought about by rape.

    God's view is that lust not only affects the lustee (they feel the effects in their lives of being seen as meat) but affects the life of the luster also. Nobody lists without darkening their own soul.

    His prohibition is aimed at protecting all.

    Anyway, thats the problem. Either you are God and get to decide where the line is drawn (I've no interest in your argument for why you draw the line as you do - arguments are like arseholes after all). Or the rapist is God. Or God is God.

    And God has given us free will. For good or for ill. Your level of ill or the rapists level of ill or Hitlers level of ill. With only the promise that a man will reap as he sows. No rapist walks with joy in his heart: he either bears his conscience or, if burying that, lives with the death-in-his eyes and soul that befalls a man who buries his conscience. Hitler will have suffered the torment of his ill - indeed, the very ill tend, as he did, to go mad in the end.

    At which point they get to face God.

    The athiest who loves truth and righeousness and justice can rejoice in a God he doesn't believe in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    What I do is accumulate all the evidence offered to me and make educated guesses on the state of the universe. I do not "believe" or "disbelieve"..... these are your crutches not mine..... any of the positions that leaves me in however.

    What you believe is what it is that constitutes 'evidence'. Now, you are better than the one who would run to a dictionary at this point. But were you to, and you chased down the words that are used in such a definition, you would likely find that they don't terminate in the demand that evidence be empirical.

    Perhaps you don't argue that evidence need be empirical (for I am on thin ice with the mods in this regard). Perhaps you argue that the evidence that I have is no use to you because you cannot access it.

    That would be fair enough if you halted right there. But you don't. You go on to argue that the 'accumulated evidence at your disposal' indicates that I have no evidence. Which is poppycock really: all the evidence in the world of a primitive tribesmen, which leads him to conclude 'skygod' at the sight of an over flying passenger jet, is a comment on the quality of his evidence, not on the actual reality.

    But you presume you are on the high throne, as it were. When you really have no means to ascertain that.

    Hence stalemate the offer, welcome as a fart in a tent as that might be.


    The example you previously ran away from and ignored was that of my being able to fly. I do not believe I am capable of flight without the aid of technology. I however also do not believe I am NOT capable of flight without the aid of technology either. Perhaps I am.

    What I do however have is a data set replete solely and wholly with examples of people who leave surfaces without the aid of technology. And in 100% of cases they plummet downwards.

    I do not "believe" I am the exception to this. Nor do I "believe" I am the same. Rather I can only make my best guess based on the data available to me. Prudence alone has me act as if I operate under the assumption/belief I can not fly.

    I do the same. We are talking about that which we are not in agreement with. Evidence. How do we decide what it is?

    You argue from all that makes sense to you. There can be no succour in the Royal We since there are too many who deviate from the Royal We. Indeed, it need take only one to deviate from a Royal We to present you with the same problem. You, or many, many youz can be but tribesmen. Or blind, as the Bible puts it.

    I also appear to be in a universe with the rest of you people. I have no idea how this came to be at this time. There are plenty of hypothesis out there. However the data set available to me contains NOTHING at this time to suggest that the explanation for this lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agency.

    There is plenty in the data set to suggest God. But you have what you feel are more satisfactory answers. And that has all been argued to death and life is too short. So, cutting to the chase: it tends to be when those answers aren't sufficient: a person cannot suppress a sense that their life must have more meaning than can be attributed to accident and happenstance for example, that the alternatives are considered in fresh light. Or, like me, a sense of my own being disjointed and not right that opened the door. The gospels are replete with the myriad of ways in which pain drives a man from his self-directed, self-defined, self- determined path. Sick, lame, prostitution, thief on a cross, bereavement, having achieved a position of power but empty, following religious laws but still out of sorts. Every which way a man can find himself toppled from the throne of reliance on self is in there. Indeed, it surprises me that that message is so sorely missed.

    We are made to be children. To have someone to run to who looks after the big picture. We need a dad (and a mam).

    Had that not happened, had I not reached a place where the same answers that satisfy you now, failed to satisfy me, then I would, naturally, have carried on upon the straight line that saw me arrive at that point.

    And so I think you are doing only that which you can see no alternative for: going where the evidence, insofar as it is available to you, leads.

    Same for me. Pressures came upon me, the old answers (which, though not so thought out as yours, certainly didn't come within a rat's ass of God) didn't work and I surrendered them, not knowing where that would lead.

    So. I respect where you are. I don't hold you to be dishonest or combative or obtuse. I just think you project the information you have onto others. As if their experiences and the information that could very well become available to them in the event God is in this with us, ought be measured by your measure


    For you are not agnostic in this. You take a positive, Dawkinsian approach. That your information is the highest available information against which all else be measured.

    There is just one problem with that Nozz. God, in the event of his existence and his communion with those who come to realize they need him, need not bow to your rules.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob


    1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

    There is no mention of whether the faith is based on evidence or not. Although convention would suggest we have complete trust in someone because they have given us good reason to trust them (a.k.a. evidence)

    Ever hear of stranger danger?








    I have faith that my car brakes will halt my progress. That faith is based on evidence.


    Your supposition about religious faith (which is the faith I think you are talking about) is based on your supposing the faith holder has no evidence. I don't have faith in your supposition - for you can provide no evidence that I have no evidence.

    All you potentially* can do is suggest that your faith in a philosophy about what constitutes evidence is correct. But since you can't evidence your faith in this regard, your faith has to be considered by outside observers as blind faith.

    Which is the point. Atheists who believe evidence is limited to that which can be seen, touched, smelled etc are expressing their faith in a philosophy which holds so. They can't evidence it and so throw rocks at theists from their position in a glass house.



    *potentially. I don't know what you believe and have been warned not to project beliefs onto you.

    You’re confusing faith and belief. Not only does faith require no evidence, it requires the suspension of evidence that does exist - or else there would be no need for miracles.

    Belief is confidence or trust. I have belief that my car brakes will work based on a wide variety of evidence. That’s not faith.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    Based upon evidence? It certainly is not. This so-called "evidence" is based solely upon your belief that evidence has some relevance to whether or not your brakes work.

    Therefore evidence is just a belief and therefore, your brakes don't work.

    Huh?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob


    God's view is that lust not only affects the lustee (they feel the effects in their lives of being seen as meat) but affects the life of the luster also. Nobody lists without darkening their own soul.

    His prohibition is aimed at protecting all

    Ah, finally, the mask drops.

    Nothing more dangerous than the mortal who can read into the mind of, and speak of behalf of, the divine.

    Always amazes me that such an omniscient power - who made the universe and all within in - has such need to not only ban adultery, but also thinking about adultery. How fragile must your god be if he has laws against thought crime.

    Such fragility - Interceded by mere mortals - would never manifest in people being stabbed to death to avenge the caricature of god. Can a god be a ‘god help us’ case? If only a mortal could tell me.

    Well I for one am thankful that the god that doesn’t exists has stopped me from being raped because he has a law against thinking such things.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    karlitob wrote: »
    You’re confusing faith and belief. Not only does faith require no evidence, it requires the suspension of evidence that does exist - or else there would be no need for miracles.

    Belief is confidence or trust. I have belief that my car brakes will work based on a wide variety of evidence. That’s not faith.


    You seemed to have omitted the dictionary definition of faith in your argument. One wonders why.

    Faith in someone can also be faith in something. Brakes for example.

    And I'm not sure what 'the suspension of evidence that does not exist' means.

    You seem to be starting from the premise that faith is belief in the absence of evidence. But even a simple dictionary definition renders that problematic (not that the dictionary, influenced as it by the commoner garden philosophies of men, are my guide, but we need common ground to discuss)


    But if it really matters to you: I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord .. based on a shed load of evidence.

    At which point you might start not only perusing the word evidence in your dictionary, but also the words used in the definition of same. You'll doubtless find that you run out of road on the necessity for 'evidence' to be empirically demonstrable. Else nobody would have any evidence that anyone loved them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    karlitob wrote: »
    Ah, finally, the mask drops.

    Nothing more dangerous than the mortal who can read into the mind of, and speak of behalf of, the divine.

    'But we have the mind of Christ' 1 Cor 2:16

    Even if my nether regions chose not to apply his mind to their wanderings.

    Bible affirmation aside, for you likely won't place much stock in that: you seem to be saying the divine cannot chose to let us know his mind.

    Which would be a divine claim indeed.

    It wouldn't be that strange anyway. The basic set up is thus:

    - you've been going you own way with your self directed life. You called time on that particular gig and put yourself under new management

    - the new management is saying that this is the way to go.

    Hard to do without some two way communication. One way would suffice, but two way is better.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob


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

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob


    'But we have the mind of Christ' 1 Cor 2:16

    Even if my nether regions chose not to apply his mind to their wanderings.

    Bible affirmation aside, for you likely won't place much stock in that: you seem to be saying the divine cannot chose to let us know his mind.

    Which would be a divine claim indeed.

    Well I’m saying there’s no such thing as good so yeah, that would be the general gist of what I’m saying for the believers on this thread.

    Similarly, I presume you would be advocating men to sell their daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7) since we’re quoting a 1500-1800 year old text written by a few mad lads.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob


    'But we have the mind of Christ' 1 Cor 2:16

    Even if my nether regions chose not to apply his mind to their wanderings.

    Bible affirmation aside, for you likely won't place much stock in that: you seem to be saying the divine cannot chose to let us know his mind.

    Which would be a divine claim indeed.

    But we’ll done on avoiding the Charlie Hebdo murders by those who have faith in your god.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob


    You seemed to have omitted the dictionary definition of faith in your argument. One wonders why.

    Faith in someone can also be faith in something. Brakes for example.

    And I'm not sure what 'the suspension of evidence that does not exist' means.

    You seem to be starting from the premise that faith is belief in the absence of evidence. But even a simple dictionary definition renders that problematic (not that the dictionary, influenced as it by the commoner garden philosophies of men, are my guide, but we need common ground to discuss)


    But if it really matters to you: I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord .. based on a shed load of evidence.

    At which point you might start not only perusing the word evidence in your dictionary, but also the words used in the definition of same. You'll doubtless find that you run out of road on the necessity for 'evidence' to be empirically demonstrable. Else nobody would have any evidence that anyone loved them.

    Will you come off it - dictionary definition. Is that what you base your life on. A dictionary definition.

    As I’ve already pointed out to you on this thread - and everyone else has. No one cares about what you believe in. We only care how it affects everyone in society - from schools to hospitals to the constitution - let alone the religious dictatorships across the world. And atheists (and I would imagine everyone) clearly have an ontological and intellectual Interest in religion.

    But since you say it’s based on a shed load of evidence - and this is a thread about evidence - then provide your evidence.

    Looking forward to reading a lot of ‘personal Jesus’ stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭ nozzferrahhtoo


    What you believe is what it is that constitutes 'evidence'.

    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 B) 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.

    So rather than you telling me what I think evidence is or means, in your constant campaign to tell me what I think over and over again... let me tell you what I think it means. I think evidence is a process. Simple as. And the process is simple:

    1) State what your claim is clearly.
    2) State what you think supports the credibility of that claim clearly.
    3) Equally clearly explain how the things listed in step 2 support the claim made in step 1.

    Wanna try it? For the first time EVER with me? It seems a useful way to break your little contrived stalemate agenda, rather than sit around listing a string of "perhaps" about what you imagine I will or will not say about what you present or worry about how we "decide what it is".

    The only stalemate you reach therefore is not the lofty one you pretend to be striving for. But a simple, simplistic, more base canard of a stalemate. Which is that you refuse to ever present evidence but hand wave around pretending to know how it will be taken if you ever did.
    There is plenty in the data set to suggest God.

    If you say so. But until you get around to pointing it out, rather than vaguely and ineffectually claim it is there without telling anyone where, I simply to not believe your claim it actually is. You do nothing but remind me of that one kid every school yard seems to have who claims over and over again he has a girlfriend.... but somehow always manages to find a way to ensure no one ever meets her. But he SWEARS she exists.
    So, cutting to the chase: it tends to be when those answers aren't sufficient: a person cannot suppress a sense that their life must have more meaning

    This sounds like nothing more than saying that people who do not like or accept the reality the world presents them with, they simply make stuff up to fill in the gaps. On that we would have little argument. I already know this about people.

    However the sense that life "must" have more meaning is just that.... a sense or a feeling. Feeling that that is true does not in any way suggest it IS true.

    Further there are perfectly good evolutionary reasons for feeling that way. We are narrative driven animals. So much so that Terry Pratchett suggested calling us the "Wise Ape" (homo sapien) was a bad choice. We should have been called "Pans Narrans" which means the Story Telling Chimpanze.

    Hyper active agency detection, pattern seeking brains, and narrative driven minds are enough for us to derive things like "meaning" and "purpose" within our own lives. It is a natural enough sense for this to misfire and project outwards and..... driven by a narrative of meaning in our own lives simply to be unable to "suppress a sense" that everything else must have one too.
    We are made to be children. To have someone to run to who looks after the big picture. We need a dad (and a mam).

    Speak for yourself. Many of us out grow that requirement somewhere between age 16 and 24. Imagining a sky daddy to fulfil some internal need to remain always a child is a position I have no need for. Certainly not enough need that it drives me to subscribe to entirely unsubstantiated notions about the universe in order to satiate it.

    But Christopher Hitchens for one did speak a lot about needing a god as fulfilling a need to always be a child with a parent to run to, or always be a serf with a master. I have no such need myself.

    I also do not share your need to have "answers" all the time. If some answers "don't work" for me as you put it then I abandon them. I do not need to instantly replace them with unsubstantiated nonsense just so I have SOME answers. I can wait until new answers with actual credibility arrive. A period of not knowing for me, to simply say "I do not know" is not something that gives me the terrors it seems to give others I have met.
    I just think you project the information you have onto others.

    And like pretty much EVERY other time you move to tell me what I think, or feel, or believe.... you are wrong again. The only ting I want/need is to increase the data set available to me. I have no need to project anything onto others. I challenge people who make what seem to me unsubstantiated claims for argument, evidence data and reasoning because the ones (not you, clearly) who do get around to offering some enrich MY dataset. And selfish as that might be, it is all that drives me.

    Some day you might enrich my set. So far however you have done nothing but practice the art of saying absolutely nothing, but saying it with the maximum possible number of words. Which is, I suppose, in itself a moderately impressive art form if nothing else.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ karlitob


    And I'm not sure what 'the suspension of evidence that does not exist' means

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


Advertisement