How do you convince people god exists?

smacl · 13-06-2019 4:25pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

A solid answer for the opening question though

Q: How do you convince people god exists?
A: Give 'em loads of psychedelic drugs.

Gimme A Pound · 14-06-2019 12:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

Tbh I think the whole atheist trend that is happening now will turn out to be just a phase we go through..

So much of it is like listening to a disgruntled 15 year old..

Trend? That's silly. It implies that non belief is just the following of a fad. Why so difficult to grasp (and so annoyed by) the fact that some people don't believe in a higher being? It's surely a really easy view to get your head around. It's not that illogical! They have plenty of grounds not to believe.

Like personal preference, it's not a choice/voluntary. You can't make yourself believe. You just either believe or don't or occupy somewhere between.

What seems like a trend is people saying "atheists are so smug and like teenagers" (yeah every single one of them) and thinking they're so open minded when they're obviously not. It's exactly the same mindset - another version of "they're stupid but I'm not." It seems very much a case of "I'm a believer - people who aren't like me are wrong" - just like the atheists they condemn think.

Now I know there are atheists who are very sneery but plenty aren't, and just live their lives without saying much about it. And the exact same can be said about religious people - sneery ones ridiculing atheists but also those who just practise their faith and get on with it, accepting other beliefs or lack thereof.

You and others appear to condemn any atheists at all though - and I really can't see a difference between that outlook and the outlook of the fanatical atheists. It seems like one of those conservative boxes people feel they have to tick now also, so as to show 100% disagreement with the left.

I for example used to believe, then stopped believing gradually. The whole thing didn't make sense to me. But others believing? No problem for me - and to ridicule all believers would be dickish. I have family who are religious, and I love them dearly. The only time I'd ridicule someone being religious is if they're forcing their view on others, and if I'm asked, aspects of doctrine seem absurd to me. But I'm not asked, so that's that. And the only time I talk about being an atheist is like now. Plus I have an open mind - I think there's more out there than what we know. I just don't buy the way it's packaged.

Blaizes · 14-06-2019 12:45am

I don’t think it’s about convincing people, it’s about people making up their own minds.We have to allow people to express their own beliefs and thankfully at least in the Western world we allow people to do so. If we can be nice and civil to each other and respect the differences of the other it doesn’t matter.

smacl · 14-06-2019 7:13am

Blaizes wrote: »

I don’t think it’s about convincing people, it’s about people making up their own minds.

Ideally, yes.

We have to allow people to express their own beliefs and thankfully at least in the Western world we allow people to do so.

In this country we have a church run education system that works hard to foist the majority religion on Children at a young age. The real answer to the question "How do you convince people god exists?" is get them young enough that they're open to suggestion and have a figure trusted to provide objectively truthful information, i.e. a teacher, repeat that god exists every day. Little rituals such as prayer also help in this indoctrination process, as do promising lots of cash for taking part in the bigger rituals such as confirmation.

If we can be nice and civil to each other and respect the differences of the other it doesn’t matter.

Well exactly, and a big part of that civility is to respect the beliefs of others to the extent that we don't try to foist our conflicting beliefs on them. Unfortunately, one of the imperatives of many religions is to spread their belief system to 'non-believers', which runs contrary to respecting the beliefs of others.

Micheal Landon · 14-06-2019 7:15am

God exists everybody knows that.
It's just trendy to be an atheist

Bannasidhe · 14-06-2019 9:45am

Micheal Landon wrote: »

God exists everybody knows that.
It's just trendy to be an atheist

MOD : With a distinct feeling of deja vu your friendly mods with like to remind you that as this is a discussion forum posting one liners/slogans that read like bumper stickers is below the standard of discussion expected and required. No more of this kind of thing please.

Cabaal · 14-06-2019 10:06am

Micheal Landon wrote: »

god exists everybody knows that.
It's just trendy to be an atheist

Yes you are right, Thor exists!

Now bow in honor of Mjolnir or you will feel Thors wrath!

Pherekydes · 14-06-2019 12:45pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes you are right, Thor exists!

Now bow in honor of Mjolnir or you will feel Thors wrath!

Thor's day was yesterday!

Today is Frigg's day. TGIF.

Cabaal · 14-06-2019 3:18pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Thor's day was yesterday!

Today is Frigg's day. TGIF.

Thor is the one true god!

It's just trendy to not believe in Thor these days

Pherekydes · 14-06-2019 3:53pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Thor is the one true god!

It's just trendy to not believe in Thor these days

Ridiculous. How many people say "Thank God it's Thursday"? None*. Frigg is the O.T.G. Obviously.

*Apart from the splitters who don't work on a Friday.

smacl · 14-06-2019 4:06pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Ridiculous. How many people say "Thank God it's Thursday"? None*. Frigg is the O.T.G. Obviously.

*Apart from the splitters who don't work on a Friday.

I have only three things to say to that. Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah! Splitters indeed.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-06-2019 6:14pm

Nobody is to throw any stones until I blow this whistle! Not even if they say Jehovah!

robindch · 14-06-2019 6:52pm

Who said Jehovah first? There's cards and ban-hammers handed out for that kind of blasphemy.

Bannasidhe · 14-06-2019 7:16pm

robindch wrote: »

Who said Jehovah first? There's cards and ban-hammers handed out for that kind of blasphemy.

And in really serious instances a stern peering over the top of the reading glasses accompanied by pursing of the lips.

Pherekydes · 15-06-2019 12:23am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And in really serious instances a stern peering over the top of the reading glasses accompanied by pursing of the lips.

That's just going too far. :mad:

I've been pushed over the edge , so I'm going to murder a burger. Or maybe I'll just have another bottle of beer. Rage is just too much effort these days.

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 5:18pm

smacl wrote: »

Well exactly, and a big part of that civility is to respect the beliefs of others to the extent that we don't try to foist our conflicting beliefs on them. Unfortunately, one of the imperatives of many religions is to spread their belief system to 'non-believers', which runs contrary to respecting the beliefs of others.

Teaching kids in school that two mammies and two daddies is normal. That's a conflicting belief foisted on many parents of English kids at the moment.

What about the belief that Folau's expression of his belief was hate speech

Are you guilty of "mission statement speak" (i.e. words that sound good until you take a closer look)

Bannasidhe · 15-06-2019 6:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Teaching kids in school that two mammies and two daddies is normal. That's a conflicting belief foisted on many parents of English kids at the moment.

My son told everyone in school he had two mammies because it is normal and the truth. It is normal because it was part of his perfectly normal life.

Some kids have two daddies. Some kids have neither mammy or daddy. Some kids have just a mammy or a daddy. Some kids have a daddy and a mammy of different ethnic backgrounds. Some kids have a granddad or grandmother who parent them. For each one of those children that is their normal.

Telling children that there are different kinds of families is not foisting anything on anyone. It is recognizing the reality one kind of family may be the majority type but it is not the only type and other kinds are just as valid.

How dare anyone turn to a child and say 'your family isn't normal' :mad: - a person filled with such arrogance, lack of empathy, and understanding should be kept well away from children in my opinion.

smacl · 15-06-2019 6:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Teaching kids in school that two mammies and two daddies is normal. That's a conflicting belief foisted on many parents of English kids at the moment.

What about the belief that Folau's expression of his belief was hate speech

Are you guilty of "mission statement speak" (i.e. words that sound good until you take a closer look)

Firstly, as Bannasidhe has pointed out, modern families take many shapes and forms all of which are normal. Secondly, schools will teach many things that might conflict with some parent's beliefs, such as evolution and the fact that the world isn't flat. This is the parents problem, not one of the education system. Irish schools today actively promote inclusivity and teach that we don't discriminate against people based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religious beliefs. Note the difference here between discrimination against someone for holding a specific religious belief (i.e. discriminating against a person) versus teaching something that runs contrary to a specific discriminatory religious dogma. You don't get to a free pass to discriminate against others on the grounds that your religion promotes such discrimination.

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 6:36pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My son told everyone in school he had two mammies because it is normal and the truth. It is normal because it was part of his perfectly normal life.

Some kids have two daddies. Some kids have neither mammy or daddy. Some kids have just a mammy or a daddy. Some kids have a daddy and a mammy of different ethnic backgrounds. Some kids have a granddad or grandmother who parent them. For each one of those children that is their normal.

Telling children that there are different kinds of families is not foisting anything on anyone. It is recognizing the reality one kind of family may be the majority type but it is not the only type and other kinds are just as valid.

How dare anyone turn to a child and say 'your family isn't normal' :mad: - a person filled with such arrogance, lack of empathy, and understanding should be kept well away from children in my opinion.

"In your belief" would be closer to the point smacl made. For beliefs is what you have shared.

Smacl's point had to do with beliefs, which aren't necessarily shared amongst all.

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 6:56pm

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, as Bannasidhe has pointed out, modern families take many shapes and forms all of which are normal.

In the belief system of some.

Secondly, schools will teach many things that might conflict with some parent's beliefs, such as evolution and the fact that the world isn't flat.

You have this weakness. It is to phrase the argument in a way that makes it appear your case is strong - whilst avoiding the point. It is the same weakness that Mark displayed when his impartial onlooker was going to evaluate the many gods problem - until it was pointed out that his belief system had every bit as much right to sit at the table as any theistic belief system

This is the parents problem, not one of the education system.

You mean: not one of the predominant belief system, surely. For the education system derives from the predominant belief system. Rather, it derives from the philosophical view, political strength and goals of the minister for education who can drive a view forward without it even necessarily being the predominant social view.

Society shaping as it were. Heck, they want to drive Brexit on a fractional majority

You make it sound as it "The Education System" was some sort of neutral, wise oracle or something. A kind of watered down argument from authority.

Irish schools today actively promote inclusivity and teach that we don't discriminate against people based on gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religious beliefs.

There is a difference between discriminating (we're not going to teach gay kids) and promoting homosexuality as normal.

The latter is a function of a belief system that holds homosexuality as normal. Which if promoted, is foisting one set of beliefs onto those who don't believe it. Which was the point of your mission statement. Rather, contrary to your mission statement

Note the difference here between discrimination against someone for holding a specific religious belief (i.e. discriminating against a person) versus teaching something that runs contrary to a specific discriminatory religious dogma.

So if a school taught that 2 mammies and daddies wasn't normal - which ran contrary to a specific philosophical dogma, it wouldn't be discrimination?

You don't get to a free pass to discriminate against others on the grounds that your religion promotes such discrimination.

You ought to sense check your posts by inserting "philosophical belief system" where ever you have written religious belief system

I note another outing of the above weakness ("religious dogma"). Although dogma isn't actually a dirty word, it sounds more damning that "religious belief systme. Presumably because "religious belief system" lies too close to "philosophical belief system", which is where you lie.

It's a crass, transparent mode of argumentation

Bannasidhe · 15-06-2019 6:57pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

"In your belief" would be closer to the point smacl made. For beliefs is what you have shared.

Smacl's point had to do with beliefs, which aren't necessarily shared amongst all.

I was addressing your comment about "foisting" and you know that so stop trying to squirm off the hook you placed in your own mouth.

It is fact that some children have two mammies.
Some have two daddies.
Some have no mammy or daddy.
Some have either a mammy or a daddy.

It is a fact that not all children have a mammy and a daddy.

It may conflict with your beliefs.
It may not conform to your beliefs.
That does not make it either untrue or unfactual.

Teaching children the factual truth is not "foisting".

No one's religious beliefs gives them the right to tell, or imply, to any child that their family is not normal - after all, to other people the religious family raising their child according to the dictates of their religion would not be 'normal' but you would be shrieking about discrimination if schools were to teach that. And I would support you, because I may not agree with religions in general but no one has the right to tell any child their family situation is not normal whether they personally agree with it or not.

For that child it is normal. To tell them otherwise is, I believe, bullying.

antiskeptic · 15-06-2019 7:28pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was addressing your comment about "foisting" and you know that so stop trying to squirm off the hook you placed in your own mouth.

I was referring to the views expressed in your total post. All belief.

It is fact that some children have two mammies.

Some have two daddies.
Some have no mammy or daddy.
Some have either a mammy or a daddy.

That fact stems from a belief. Making it a belief (I ought to know - having engaged empiricists for so long)

Other people believe that the "mammy" is the one who's egg is fertilized by the "daddies" sperm and who bears the child. Certain allowances are made to deal with aberrations to that longstanding, widespread norm: a woman can become a step mammy. A couple can adopt a child. They too become mammies and daddies.

It's really a matter of the threshold for what a person is prepared to believe.

It may conflict with your beliefs.
It may not conform to your beliefs.
That does not make it either untrue or unfactual.

And when this can be attached to what I've said above?

No one's religious beliefs gives them the right to tell, or imply, to any child that their family is not normal - after all, to other people the religious family raising their child according to the dictates of their religion would not be 'normal' but you would be shrieking about discrimination if schools were to teach that. And I would support you, because I may not agree with religions in general but no one has the right to tell any child their family situation is not normal whether they personally agree with it or not.

It's not a matter of telling any child that their family situation is not normal. To teach such is an active action to shape a view and I'm not suggesting that.

To teach nothing about such family units (whether 2 mammies or religious) is a passive action. It doesn't shape views - although the kids will query what's going in. "Mammy, Johnny says' there's a big fella in the sky called God. Who's God". The parents can deal with as they will.

Teaching a belief actively shapes a view. And foists a belief on the kids that the parents don't necessarily share. Transgressing smacl's mission statement

For that child it is normal. To tell them otherwise is, I believe, bullying.

As I say, you're not telling them otherwise. You're telling them nothing. And in not telling them you are not foisting one set of beliefs onto another set of beliefs.

4068ac1elhodqr · 15-06-2019 7:35pm

Simple really: God = Spaceman. Chances of some intelligent 'spaceman' existing: more than likely.

e.g. '40 billion' Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs just in the Milky Way.
How many galaxies (like our M'Way) in the obs Universe? A. One hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.

Odds for 1/40bnx1bn?

Bannasidhe · 15-06-2019 8:06pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was referring to the views expressed in your total post. All belief.

That fact stems from a belief. Making it a belief (I ought to know - having engaged empiricists for so long)

Other people believe that the "mammy" is the one who's egg is fertilized by the "daddies" sperm and who bears the child. Certain allowances are made to deal with aberrations to that longstanding, widespread norm: a woman can become a step mammy. A couple can adopt a child. They too become mammies and daddies.

It's really a matter of the threshold for what a person is prepared to believe.

And when this can be attached to what I've said above?

It's not a matter of telling any child that their family situation is not normal. To teach such is an active action to shape a view and I'm not suggesting that.

To teach nothing about such family units (whether 2 mammies or religious) is a passive action. It doesn't shape views - although the kids will query what's going in. "Mammy, Johnny says' there's a big fella in the sky called God. Who's God". The parents can deal with as they will.

Teaching a belief actively shapes a view. And foists a belief on the kids that the parents don't necessarily share. Transgressing smacl's mission statement

As I say, you're not telling them otherwise. You're telling them nothing. And in not telling them you are not foisting one set of beliefs onto another set of beliefs.

antiskeptic - you know that is utter hogwash.

Facts are facts whether one wishes to believe or not so never mind waffling on about 'empiricist' this and that.

If a man and a woman can become parents by adopting than a woman and a woman or a man and a man can become parents by adopting.
A person marrying the biological parent of children can become the parent of those children regardless of gender.

But how sad it is that for you being a parent is all about the biology when we know for a fact that sharing dna with a child is no guarantee that one will be in away way a good parent - sometimes it's sadly quite the reverse.

antiskeptic · 16-06-2019 7:11am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

antiskeptic - you know that is utter hogwash.

Facts are facts whether one wishes to believe or not so never mind waffling on about 'empiricist' this and that.

If a man and a woman can become parents by adopting than a woman and a woman or a man and a man can become parents by adopting.
A person marrying the biological parent of children can become the parent of those children regardless of gender.

But how sad it is that for you being a parent is all about the biology when we know for a fact that sharing dna with a child is no guarantee that one will be in away way a good parent - sometimes it's sadly quite the reverse.

If it was all about biology then bad parenting by a mammy and daddy ought be normalised.

Just because some situations come about doesn't mean we ought teach it as normal. Single parenting happens. It isn't something to be taught as normal. For teaching it to be normal teaches it as something that is as optimal as parenting by a mammy and daddy - which it is not. Ditto adoption, ditto gay couples.

What you teach about these occurrences, if the education system is to be involved at all, since kids will ask questions, is open to question. But normal isn't it.

-

I don't believe that a woman can be a man. Not even a butch woman. I do believe that a man-child looks to download the software for manhood from his father from a young age, that downloading occurring day by day, year by year as the child develops. Neither a mother, nor gay woman partner can achieve this for the child. And so the child goes without, in single mother, mammy/mammy situations. They may look to uncles, other kids father and ultimately their peers for the software but it isn't the same as a father's day-in, day out coaching.

Sure, there are men whose software you would prefer not to be downloaded into a man-child, and men who are still children themselves. It happens, but you wouldn't normalise it.

In normalising gay parenting you are normalising that which is sub-optimal from the very get go. Comparing good mammy/mammy parents with bad mammy/daddy parents and saying the former is arguably better is a false comparison, since the latter is sub-optimal, whatever about the biological link and isn't to be normalised in the first place.

-

We are dealing with beliefs here. Not facts. Which returns us to smacls works-one-way mission statement.

His own statement isn't to apply, of course, to him.

smacl · 16-06-2019 9:39am

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the belief system of some
;
;
It's a crass, transparent mode of argumentation

We teach our children that being straight is normal, being gay is normal, being Christian is normal, being Muslim is normal, being atheist is normal, that women share all the same rights and privileges as men, that people share all the same rights and privileges regardless of race or ethnicity. We do this as it is a position that we have arrived at collectively as a global civilized society and continue to refine. We refer to it and document it as basic human rights. While I subscribe to this personally as a great marker for human progress, its basis has nothing to do with my personal belief, it is the collective position of civilized society with respect to being fair and just to all. Civilized countries, such as Ireland, stand against those who would seek to limit or abuse our basic human rights.

I would suggest that if you find this crass, you put your beloved bible down for a moment and take a long hard look in a mirror .

smacl · 16-06-2019 9:44am

Dean Broad Mound wrote: »

God = Spaceman

Why do you think a god is equivalent to a spaceman? After all, man largely makes gods in his own image for the most part, occasionally cutting and pasting in a bit of another animal or a few extra arms or legs. In my mind, gods are solely a creation of our own imagination.

antiskeptic · 16-06-2019 10:07am

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the belief system of some
;
;
It's a crass, transparent mode of argumentation

We teach our children that being straight is normal, being gay is normal, being Christian is normal, being Muslim is normal, being atheist is normal, that women share all the same rights and privileges as men, that people share all the same rights and privileges regardless of race or ethnicity. We do this as it is a position that we have arrived at collectively as a global civilized society and continue to refine. We refer to it and document it as basic human rights. While I subscribe to this personally as a great marker for human progress, its basis has nothing to do with my personal belief, it is the collective position of civilized society with respect to being fair and just to all. Civilized countries, such as Ireland, stand against those who would seek to limit or abuse our basic human rights.

I would suggest that if you find this crass, you put your beloved bible down for a moment and take a long hard look in a mirror .

'We' don't teach our kids. Some teach their kids some things - according to their belief system. Others, other things.

Your position rests on the 'majority flavour of the moment' (there have been other majority flavour of the moments).

This is turn rests on your belief in the onwards and upwards march of humanity.

As we have seen, that belief (e.g the supposed progress in human rights, whilst we witness Italy taking further steps to ensure those whose rights have been trampled on will drown in the Med) is anything but established.

That 'beliefs ought not be foisted upon other beliefs' only seems to work one way in your world: where it concerns belief you don't share being foisted on beliefs you do share.

This is problematic.

What I find crass is your employing flat earth comparisons with beliefs you don't share when your own dangle from the same set of sky hooks.

uck51js9zml2yt · 16-06-2019 10:16am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

I could say the opposite. I've yet to see an atheist prove that God doesn't exist.
Just because you away so doesn't make it true.

Anyway, don't worry. There are no dead atheists:)

mulbot · 16-06-2019 10:33am

Santino Ancient Disk wrote: »

I could say the opposite. I've yet to see an atheist prove that God doesn't exist.
Just because you away so doesn't make it true.

Anyway, don't worry. There are no dead atheists:)

You can't disprove someting that hadn't been proven to exist in the first place. Using that logic, you could literally claim anything to be true without any evidence.

How do you convince people god exists?

Comments