How do you convince people god exists?

nozzferrahhtoo

kneemos wrote: »

With all due respect the height of critical thinking I've ever heard from an atheist is I can't see him therefore he doesn't exist.

No idea what Atheists you have been talking to because once again this doesn't not describe a single one I know. Especially as we have evidence for many things we do not "see" like bacteria and atoms. So not being able to "see" something is rarely a preclusion for an atheist to believe something.

No the problem with the claims there is a god is not that we do not "see" god, but that you have yet to provide a single shred of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest there is one. Simple as.

Get around to FOR ONCE in your life making such offerings and we might start believing. Simple make up reasons vicariously on our behalf for why we do not believe you however..... and I doubt you will convince anyone but yourself of that nonsense.

kneemos wrote: »

No harm to have an open mind,unless you believe everything we know is all there is to know. To be rather aggressively cock sure that God doesn't exist just has a hint of a teenage rebellious tantrum.

But the "cock sure" is just positions you are inventing for them rather than them expressing for themselves.

I for example am entirely open to the idea a god might exist. I see nothing precluding the possibility at least.

What I am sure of however is that no one, least of all yourself, has yet gotten around to providing a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that any god actually DOES exist.

That does not mean there is not one. That does not mean I am "sure" there is not one. It just means there is absolutely no reason at this time for me to even suspect there might be one.

Maybe you might get on that, and provide some evidence or..... well anything really.

kneemos wrote: »

That a universe can pop into existence out of nothing is as bizzare as it gets.

Why do you assume it did though? We have no evidence for this. The idea there was "Nothing" or that there ever had to have been "nothing" is just your assumption. There might for example "always" have been "something". We simply do not know.

The issue is that the evidence from people like yourself that the eternal something was a non-human intentional and intelligent agent is currently absolutely none.

kneemos wrote: »

According to the science boffins there are ten or eleven dimensions.

Our resident Theoretical Physicist would disagree with you there. All those extra dimensions exist in pop culture like Star Trek sure.... but apparently it is not current Scientific Thought at all. But while I am above the lay average when it comes to the subject of Physics..... that level of it is well past my pay grade. He might wander in shortly and set you to rights.

kneemos wrote: »

People suffer because freewill exists.

Do you have any evidence Free Will actually does exist though? It is quite the contentious claim these days. It is certainly by no means a given.

I can certainly come up with arguments and reasons why we should operate AS IF free will exists, especially in our halls of justice. But I am at this time entirely agnostic on the subject of whether it actually does or not.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

You could show them near death experience videos on YouTube. You will even find hardened criminals, who following their n.d.e. became preachers.

I am never sure why NDE is used as evidence for an after life. I am even less sure why it is used as evidence for a god as even if you proved there was an after life..... it would not be evidence for a god. One could exist without the other.

However the clue is in the name NDE. NEAR death experience. That is to say..... the patient did not actually die.

An NDE is therefore no more an experience of the after life than walking up to a plane but not boarding it is an experience of a Sun Holiday away in Spain. The very name NDE tells you why it is NOT evidence for an after life in the same way the term UFO tells you why you do NOT have evidence of aliens.

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

If life is so meaningless/ pointless, you could always throw yourself off a bridge.

I suspect your error here is in not understanding the difference between objective meaning and other kinds of meaning. That life does not appear to have any OBJECTIVE meaning given by an external source.... that does not mean it is devoid of actual meaning to the people living it.

If YOU require a fairy tale in order to derive meaning from life then that would be your flaw, not a flaw of the atheist. And you certainly have my sympathy if life is so devoid of meaning for you that you need to simply invent imaginary ones.

My life, as an atheist however, is replete with sources of meaning for me. None of which require me to subscribe to ideas devoid of any and all evidence.

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

I find it too hard to believe that say the seasons, the way animals hibernate each year and the dependence of flowers on honey bees to complete their life cycle, is all an accident. But I’m sure I’ll be regarded as simple for saying that.

Wasn't it Bill OReilly who said his evidence for god was "Tides go in, tides go out!".

I do not think you are "simple" for saying that, so much as your thinking is simply incomplete on the issue.

The evolution which we suspect is the main and even entire explanation for hibernation and the other things you list is not an "accident" so much as "accident" (the better term is chance, or randomness) is merely one attribute/element of the entire process.

Even then what we mean by "randomness" is not clear cut. But it suffices for this point. Evolution is not random. It is a process with randomness as one element in the process.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Atheism. The superstition that everything came from nothing.

Speak for yourself I guess. While I do not use the word "atheist" myself I certainly qualify one. And the assumption anything came from nothing is not one I make. Nor is it one I am required to make.

Nobelium wrote: »

I get all this, but instead Fry's reaction wasn't to complain about some of the illogical claims of some believers/religions, but instead a full on emotional and angry rant at an entity he claims he doesn't believe even exists. Not very convincing of non belief. I'd be more like "meh . . so what else it true . . .and not true"

Depends how you look at it. Fry is an author and a long term reader of literature.

Even in the Leaving Certificate I wrote a "rant" about how I do not believe the character of Silas Marner can be forgiven.... in response to a question about how or why we should forgive him. In fact I got quite emotional writing it, and a lot of that came across in what I wrote. I got an A.

Did I have to believe Marner existed in order to rant about him? No. I did not.

Fry was just doing what he always does. Evaluating the character in a work of fiction. And taken under that interpretation his rant is perfectly coherent and is not required to be "convincing of non belief" as you put it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Pauliedragon wrote: »

It's called faith and it keeps a lot of people happy in their lives so let them be.

As a man better than I once said..... if it was JUST making them happy then that would be fine. Alas so many of them can not seem to be happy until we believe it too.

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I know plenty of people who will say there's no proof of a god so it doesn't exist but ask them if there's extra terestrial life out there they'll say of course there is we can't be the only planet out of billiions that's inhabited. Why need proof of one and not the other?

We need evidence of BOTH. What I think the people you are talking to are likely saying is that one is still more likely than the other.

Put it this way.... we have ZERO evidence for a god. We also have no examples of a god. So the god claims are at square one.

But when talking about intelligent life in the universe we DO have some evidence. US. WE are evidence that intelligent life exists in the universe. So the idea there might be OTHER life is at least off square one on the credibility stakes.

That is not evidence that there IS other intelligent life in the universe! But it is certainly a credibility boost to one claim over the other.

sbsquarepants

smacl wrote: »

Ah yeah, but water into wine though. Who wouldn't want a mate like that at a party?

Outdated - these days it would have to be flour into cocaine to impress anyone:D

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Outdated - these days it would have to be flour into cocaine to impress anyone:D

Time for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to send young Pot Noodle Girl among and do the business so. May she boil in chicken broth for our sins and maybe leave a few baggies too

sbsquarepants

kneemos wrote: »

That a universe can pop into existence out of nothing is as bizzare as it gets.

This one always baffles me.

One of the main "arguments" for the existence of a god is "something this complex surely requires a creator"

So I assume this creator being quite complex and all must also have been created? "No, don't be stupid - he was just always there"

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As a man better than I once said..... if it was JUST making them happy then that would be fine. Alas so many of them can not seem to be happy until we believe it too.

For me this is the crux of my response to the thread title - why do you need to convince people god exists?
What difference does it make to a person's belief in a god if other people don't believe?

I remember from reading Luther that the religious consensus among many theologians for centuries was that in order for Jesus to return (since he had completely failed to do so...) the whole world must be baptised. I found this interesting as 'belief' didn't come into it -the act of baptism, even when forced, was enough for people to be considered 'Christian'. And indeed forced baptism played a large role in the spread of Christianity (e.g among the Saxons and Angles). Luther agreed that everyone needed to be Christian to prompt the second coming but he argued that having Faith was the key. He believed that the reason the whole world wasn't Christian was beause Rome had gotten the theology completely wrong - whereas he, Luther, was on the right path. The failure of Jews to instantly convert to his 'true' interpretation led to Luther incorporating serious antisemitic view points in his theology - which was to have serious repercussions down the line in Germanic societies as we know.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For me this is the crux of my response to the thread title - why do you need to convince people god exists?

Hard to get into the mind of the theist on that one.

I think the concepts of things like Hell were an insidiously clever invention however.

If you genuinely believe false belief or non-belief is a threat to the ETERNAL well being of yourself and your loved ones..... then suddenly all the atheists and theists of different religions around you become an active threat to you and yours.

It is amazing how elegant and insidious that is. No longer must a religion actively promote hatred of "the other". You simply build a narrative in which "the other" is an active threat.... and the flock do the rest of the work on their own.

All that said though I think we are evolved as story telling meme machines. We "need" to share our ideas and conclusions and positions with others. In the same way theists need to spread their faith..... some people really need other people to watch the same shows they do on netflix. We feel strongly compelled to get people watching the same shows as us.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For me this is the crux of my response to the thread title - why do you need to convince people god exists? What difference does it make to a person's belief in a god if other people don't believe?

The Religion as Selfish Meme theory of religion explains why propagation is such a necessary part of many religions. Basically, the religions which are most widespread are widespread because they've evolved the most successful means of assuring their own propagation. The Shakers, for example, are celibate, so vertical propagation from parent to child is hard or impossible, and conversion to shakerism seems to rely entirely on horizontal propagation from person to person by active conversion. On the other hand, the catholic religion while allowing for the same horizontal propagation, also encourages vertical propagation by a) prohibiting sex before marriage; b) during the marriage ceremony, requiring parents to agree to bring up their kids as catholics; c) once married, prohibiting abortion and use of contraception and d) once children arrive, parents are required to turn them into little catholics adhering to the same rules; e) appointing godparents to ensure that (d) takes place;

It's easy enough to see which religion is going to outbreed the other.

So to answer your question - propagating the religion is believed to be vital for the simple, vacuous, reason that the religion tells them to believe that it is. In christianity, it's called The Great Commission.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The failure of Jews to instantly convert to his 'true' interpretation led to Luther incorporating serious antisemitic view points in his theology - which was to have serious repercussions down the line in Germanic societies as we know.

On the Jews and Their Lies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

smacl

robindch wrote: »

The Religion as Selfish Meme theory of religion explains why propagation is such a necessary part of many religions.

Apart from not being a Dawkins fan, the issue I'd see with religion as a meme is that if it were true, religion would essentially spread through the masses of its own accord whereas its spread seems largely dependent on the external control mechanism of an active church hierarchy. I tend to think of religions such as Christianity more like huge factional power structures used by the few to control the many. If you look at religion in this country for example, it has fallen into decline as the church has lost its influence. I full accept that heaven and hell are carrot and stick mechanisms but don't think they work unless there's someone trying to drive the donkey forward.

I wonder if Dawkins was a William Burroughs fan? Burroughs was talking about language as a virus as early as 1962 and we now see the metaphor of viruses commonly applied to marketing and various other online fads.

Hotblack Desiato

Nobelium wrote: »

I get their point than circumstances might not alter someone belief / non belief, but the pic isn't very convincing. They are in a barracks, in barracks uniform, with a whiteboard, under a shady palm tree.

Bringing large whiteboards into an area of battle and then posing for photos is generally discouraged by the chain of command.

Nobelium wrote: »

Yeah but ranting at a so called God that is indifferent at best to the interests of humanity isn't actual atheism. I can't get emotionally worked up into having a hypothetical rant with something I genuinely believe doesn't even exist, and even if it turned out to . .I would actually know nothing about what is true and not about it, or what kind of entity it even was.

He's an actor, making convincing emotional reactions to hypothetical/fictional scenarios is his job.

kneemos wrote: »

If you want freewill and experience the full range of emotions you're going to have suffering.

Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes or indeed lightning bolts have nothing to do with free will (although the looniest evangelicals tend to blame these occurrences on teh gheys)

You say free will causes suffering, yet we restrict free will as a means of imposing suffering (imprisonment, house arrest, shunning, silencing, etc) - The RCC is quite fond of doing the latter to its own clergy.

Cabaal

kneemos wrote: »

People suffer because freewill exists.

I wasn't aware children getting cancer and women having miscarriages was because of other people's decisions that had no impact on the people who actually suffered.

If however you believe that your decision to cross the road OR not cross the road (freewill after all) somehow causes a child in the UK to have cancer then you sir are one messed up person.

Cabaal

sbsquarepants wrote: »

This one always baffles me.

One of the main "arguments" for the existence of a god is "something this complex surely requires a creator"

So I assume this creator being quite complex and all must also have been created? "No, don't be stupid - he was just always there"

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

"Turtles all the way down" pops into the head

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Apart from not being a Dawkins fan, the issue I'd see with religion as a meme is that if it were true, religion would essentially spread through the masses of its own accord whereas its spread seems largely dependent on the external control mechanism of an active church hierarchy.

A proselytizing church hierarchy just provides additional vectors by which a religious meme can control and direct its own reproduction - catholicism, which is a fairly top-down religion, seems to wither where it doesn't have the state doing something to help enforce rituals promoting vertical transmission (ie, control of primary schools). Protestantism, on the other hand, with all its many variations is not a top-down religion and these variations tend to develop their own means of propagation which can work without state support.

The memetic "software" running the priesthood is essentially the same as what the priesthood installs into the minds of their flocks - one of the principal rules of which is to propagate the religion by whatever means necessary - tight control of access to sex for christianity, and things like the "church-planting" of fundamentalist protestant missionaries to make up for the lack of access to state control.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

A proselytizing church hierarchy just provides additional vectors by which a religious meme can control and direct its own reproduction

I'm not convinced these are additional vectors rather than the main sustaining force though. More simply I wonder that without a hierarchy in place whether Christianity in this country would collapse in a generation. If this was the case, Christianity is not self sustaining or something that can be reasonably thought of in terms of a self replicating social imperative or software. It possibly once was in simpler times, when the messages of Christianity were contextually appropriate to the intended audience and that audience had neither the means, nor the education, nor the desire to question them. I think one key ingredient that religion needs to succeed is an element of desperation. Without this it has to be actively foisted on people at a young age to take root.

The problem with applying abstract ideas such as Dawkins' mimetics to religion is when the reality doesn't quite fit the tidy abstract construct we try to shoehorn it into place rather than re-evaluating our abstract. While I'll admit my bias, not being Dicky Ds biggest fan, I find mimetics to smack of pseudoscience in this regard.

Nobelium

igCorcaigh wrote: »

In that sense of the word ^believe^.
Sure.
But that means, strive.

no not in that sense, in the sense you have to believe alien life has a probability of existing out there somewhere, before to commit to spending billions searching for it.

Hotblack Desiato

This thread and the other one only go to show how utterly weak the case for a god is.

smacl

Nobelium wrote: »

no not in that sense, in the sense you have to believe alien life has a probability of existing out there somewhere, before to commit to spending billions searching for it.

Probability of existing and possibility of ever being reachable without FTL travel being two separate things there. Probability of ever achieving FTL is unknown. Even at sub-light speeds with an AI sitting dormant for millennia the probability of ever making meaningful contact is infinitesimal as a function of the probability of alien intelligence actually existing. Remember this all has to be done before the sun goes out.

As a belief, extra-terrestrial contact does suffer from the same problems as religious belief to some extent insofar as we have to distinguish what we would like to be true from what is probably true. Is there any evidence to suggest that we can or will make extra-terrestrial contact in the life time of our species? Always worth spending those few billions to take a punt at it, but I reckon it is rather a long shot.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nobelium wrote: »

no not in that sense, in the sense you have to believe alien life has a probability of existing out there somewhere, before to commit to spending billions searching for it.

As I pointed out to another user though when we are discussing gods and alien life we are not comparing like with like.

Mainly because in terms of credibility at least we DO have some supporting evidence for the latter than we do not have with the former.

US.

WE are evidence life exists in our universe. So in that stake discussing OTHER possible life in the universe does not suffer from quite the same credibility issue the existence of a god does. The god claim having zero actual precedent to work with.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I pointed out to another user though when we are discussing gods and alien life we are not comparing like with like.

Mainly because in terms of credibility at least we DO have some supporting evidence for the latter than we do not have with the former.

US.

WE are evidence life exists in our universe. So in that stake discussing OTHER possible life in the universe does not suffer from quite the same credibility issue the existence of a god does. The god claim having zero actual precedent to work with.

A pantheist might reasonably argue that we are also that one god

Fourier

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Our resident Theoretical Physicist would disagree with you there. All those extra dimensions exist in pop culture like Star Trek sure.... but apparently it is not current Scientific Thought at all. But while I am above the lay average when it comes to the subject of Physics..... that level of it is well past my pay grade. He might wander in shortly and set you to rights.

That's correct.

According to current physics there are four dimenions. The usual three and time. The LHC has performed tests for others, but so far the results are negative. According to quantum field theory there is something "special" about four dimensions, it's the last number of dimensions before physics becomes "trivial", i.e. just a bunch of particles that "ghost" through each other without interacting. Since our universe isn't like this many doubt more dimensions exist, for our reality at least.

The only other topic I can comment on is determinism and predestination which has come up. I think what I'll say has some bearing on this issue, but I'm not sure what exactly it is.

Quantum Mechanics has revealed that for some parts of reality their futures aren't fixed by the physical facts of their past since how they behave doesn't seem to involve a mechanistic process/algorithm. Sometimes phrased as they obey no scientific laws or "There are no laws" as John Wheeler said.

The best you can do is bet on what they'll do next. This is sometimes phrased to say they're "random", but that's not quite right in the usual sense of the word. In mathematics "random" means you, the observer, are betting on things and managing your beliefs about things.

So some parts of reality are non-mechanical with unwritten futures and all one can do in terms of describing them is bet on how they'll react in various situations and make sure your bets are self-consistent.

Perhaps somebody of a philosophical bent can say more.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

A pantheist might reasonably argue that we are also that one god

I grok that thou art god - Valentine Michael Smith

4068ac1elhodqr

Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective for the angry atheists, once the blinkers (to very limited senses) come off?

Atheists Found "God" or "Ultimate Reality" After Taking Psychedelic Drugs:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214377

21% of the psychedelic users reported being atheists before their experience, while only 8% reported being atheists after.
The biggest absolute change in atheist status occurred after mystical encounters induced by DMT:
25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7 percent (after, and when limited senses are restored).

Possibly swap {DMT} with Psilocybin (magic mushrooms), LSD, ayahuasca etc for similar results.
Other studies showed these 'medications' were useful for PTSD.

Seperately, in terms of alien life, any 'visitations' to earth would almost certainly be considered 'god-like',
- simply thanks to their obvious 'significantly advanced evolutions/inteligence', in being able to travel here in the 1st place.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

Perhaps it's just a matter of perspective for the angry atheists, once the blinkers (to very limited senses) come off?

Atheists Found "God" or "Ultimate Reality" After Taking Psychedelic Drugs:

Isn't it interesting though? NDE has the same effect sometimes on people who were atheist then stopped.

What is interesting to me is that this is something theists are proud of rather than embarrassed by. After all what they are saying is that people move from rational atheism to faith based theism...... when their cognitive faculties have been compromised physically or chemically or emotionally in an extreme fashion.

If I had a claim, and people tended to only believe that claim when they were compromised rationally..... I would not be touting that fact with any level of pride to be honest. Rather I would be deeply concerned that people had to LOSE critical faculties and rationality and coherence for my claim to be more plausible to them.

Death bed conversions please theists it seems. From where I sit, it should be massively embarrassing to them and at best pandiculation for me.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What is interesting to me is that this is something theists are proud of rather than embarrassed by. After all what they are saying is that people move from rational atheism to faith based theism...... when their cognitive faculties have been compromised physically or chemically or emotionally in an extreme fashion.

Early religions also depended on drugs, i.e. entheogens, in order to get the full religious experience. Huxley similarly talks about achieving sacramental visions on peyote in 'The doors of perception', so drug induced religious euphoria is hardly anything new. Unless there was a permanent change to the brain chemistry, one would expect most rational atheists to return to atheism once they've finished tripping.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Early religions also depended on drugs, i.e. entheogens, in order to get the full religious experience. Huxley similarly talks about achieving sacramental visions on peyote in 'The doors of perception', so drug induced religious euphoria is hardly anything new. Unless there was a permanent change to the brain chemistry, one would expect most rational atheists to return to atheism once they've finished tripping.

Smoking weed is a huge part of Rastafarianism. They call it "Reasoning" - when a group of people get together, discuss philosophical and religious ideas while smoking ganja. It's a religious ceremony really.

4068ac1elhodqr

smacl wrote: »

Unless there was a permanent change to the brain chemistry, one would expect most rational atheists to return to atheism once they've finished tripping.

As above, the study reported 25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7% percent (after, and when limited/default senses are restored).

Pherekydes

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

As above, the study reported 25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7% percent (after, and when limited/default senses are restored).

Note that identification with a Major Monotheistic tradition dropped in every group, too.

smacl

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

As above, the study reported 25% were atheists before their experience, versus only 7% percent (after, and when limited/default senses are restored).

The study doesn't quite show that though, insofar as it showed many of those atheists who had had a religious encounter experience on psychedelic drugs remained religious. From my reading it didn't ask whether those people continued to use drugs or not. Not saying that there weren't any 'one of' drug users in there, but I'd suggest that many people who use such drugs do so habitually. Habitual use of many drugs can permanently and negatively effect brain chemistry so there may never have been a return to the previous / default state.

What is interesting in the data is that the shift away from atheism was towards identifying as 'not atheist or major monotheistic tradition'. A large proportion of those who started out monotheistic also ended up in this category after the experience. This data seems to run contrary to repeated use of 'God' (with a capital 'G') in the title and throughout the study and its conclusion, which to many would imply a singular god, most likely the Christian one.



I also found the section titled "Can psychedelic drugs occasion genuine God encounter experiences?" rather bizarre in that a genuine God encounter would necessitate the existence of a genuine God. Again, which God and why not gods? To me this clearly illustrates a religious bias that has me questioning the study as a whole.

Interesting study for all that, thanks for sharing.