nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How do you convince people god exists?

ILoveYourVibes

How do you in history?

And how do you do it now?

With all the evidence etc.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hotblack Desiato

"Evidence" which is not empirical is not evidence.

But we get it, religion gives you "the feelz" so it must be true :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century.

Which just shows me once again that religion is toxic. Be it religion based on a sky daddy that.... despite being asked several times now.... you can not provide a SHRED or argument, evidence, data, or reasoning it even exists in the first place..... or state religion based on pretending the leaders are something more than human, lies, claims of biological miracles, inquisitions, and worse.

The problem is Dogma. So if you have Dogma to sell us, I suggest you might find it a time saver to just jog on. You can call these things "atheistic" all you want but that is not what they were. What they were was anti opposition, including if that opposition was another religion. Which tends to be a core feature of most religions actually. Take Christianity for example and other derivatives of the same monotheism. Jealousy of other religions and other gods is built right into the "Big 10" commandments right there in front of your face. Religions.... including state religions..... are not known for playing well with others.

You know what is also an imperfect but superior approach that has not resulted in the malicious and unjustifiable deaths and starvation of millions of people? Honesty. Free Speech. Democracy. A free press. Art. Enlightenment values. Argument. Debate. Evidence. Data. Reason.

Try them sometime. No human system is perfect. Especially as our society has been growing massively and becoming global rather than local. Our species is in a state of constant flux and turmoil and that has not died down yet nor shall it any time soon I suspect. We need to find a better way, better systems and better solutions.

But one think I do not suspect is that we will find those better solutions in fantasy, nonsense, or world views that are divorced from reality. Whatever the ultimate best approach turns out to be...... I suspect it will be something that tracks with reality and not something people are asked to believe just because it gives you Da Feelz.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.

That a religion commandeers useful values does not mean those values come from that religion.

There are absolutely nonsense diet fads for example that, at their core, contain useful values. Eat less processed food, take on some more water, exercise, vary your diet.

This is how nonsense and lies works. You build them up around a core of useful values. Be it diets or be it religion. Things like equality and dignity and reciprocity are built into those religions because it WORKS to do so. It by no means whatsoever means we require those religions to have, perpetuate, or support those values.

What your religion is therefore, is packaging for a good product. Nothing more. The product stands alone on it's own merits. But you are more interested in the packaging. You used small children as an analogy in your last post. Allow me to do the same. Really small children when they get a gift at Christmas have a tendency to ignore the gift, and play a lot with the box it came in. That appears to me to be pretty much all you are doing too.

But Marx said it well in his oft misquoted and oft misused speech on the subject. People tend to only quote the line about religion being an opiate. That is not what he said. What he said, and I defer to another writer greater than I by far to 'splain it to ya so you can get hip to it was:

Karl Marx was neither a determinist nor a vulgar materialist and never said that religion was "the opium of the people." What he did say, in his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, was that it was at once the expression of inhuman conditions and the protest against them: "the heart of a heartless world; the sigh of the oppressed creature; the spirit of a spiritless situation." Secular criticism, he said, had endeavored to "pluck the flowers from the chain, not in order that man shall wear the chain without consolation but so that he can break the chain and cull the living flower." It was only in this context and with these metaphors that he described religion as an opiate, and even then not as we would now define a mind-dulling (or mind-expanding) 'controlled substance,' but rather as an analgesic on the Victorian model.

It is a beautiful image. There is a baby in the bath water, but the water has gone fetid and rancid. We can throw out the water, and keep the baby. You can keep the water if you want. I want to watch the baby grow, thrive, and excel anything that water will ever produce.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

If God exists and makes himself known to someone then logically they should believe in God.

That is a big IF though given you have no example of a single case where we can verify that happened. Only people who claim it to have happened. And if THEY believe in a god that is fine with me. The moment they expect anyone else to believe in a god however they should realise just how uninteresting, useless, and misleading their self revelation is.

Contrary to the straw man all too many theists I have met want to sell, most atheists in my experience (in fact just about all but a few exceptions I can think of) do not actually care if any given individual believes there is a god or not. Personal faith is just that.... personal. And it should stay that way and not be attacked or derided by the likes of me or anyone else, until such time as perhaps their personal faith does them harm at which point perhaps we can step in and attempt to remove it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The usual issue revolves around the nature of admissible evidence. If you believe in a philosophy which says that the only evidence on which you ought base conclusions need be empirical, then logically you will wonder about people who base their conclusions on other evidence.

That is one of the reasons I LONG ago stopped demanding "proof" for god. It was a childish request that I grew out of. If someone wants me to think there is a god, or act in some way based on that assumption, I have a VERY specific sentence I employ that makes my demand both more general and more specific at the same time. You have been the recipient of this sentence many times I think, but I am happy to repeat it given you have not answered it yet:

Do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends any credence whatsoever to the claim that the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe or it's contents are the results of the machinations of a non-human intelligent intentional agent?

Quite a number of theists have been the recipient of that question from me so far in my life. Not one of them, just like yourself, has an answer to it that is not either circular reason, or based on one of the known fallacies.

Much easier I guess to take the approach of being anti-scepticism. Just declare the position you want to hold to be somehow default..... or that people already "know it is true" as you did in one thread..... and deride the very position of being sceptical of it. You see, you might not know this, but very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.

Akesh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a big IF though given you have no example of a single case where we can verify that happened. Only people who claim it to have happened. And if THEY believe in a god that is fine with me. The moment they expect anyone else to believe in a god however they should realise just how uninteresting, useless, and misleading their self revelation is.

You're asking for proof yet it is almost impossible to provide proof of such instances. You either believe it happened or you don't but there is no way you can prove an encounter without witnessing it yourself.

Contrary to the straw man all too many theists I have met want to sell, most atheists in my experience (in fact just about all but a few exceptions I can think of) do not actually care if any given individual believes there is a god or not. Personal faith is just that.... personal. And it should stay that way and not be attacked or derided by the likes of me or anyone else, until such time as perhaps their personal faith does them harm at which point perhaps we can step in and attempt to remove it.

That is one of the reasons I LONG ago stopped demanding "proof" for god. It was a childish request that I grew out of. If someone wants me to think there is a god, or act in some way based on that assumption, I have a VERY specific sentence I employ that makes my demand both more general and more specific at the same time. You have been the recipient of this sentence many times I think, but I am happy to repeat it given you have not answered it yet:

Do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends any credence whatsoever to the claim that the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe or it's contents are the results of the machinations of a non-human intelligent intentional agent?

This is another irrational argument. Man has only seen a minuscule fraction of the Universe. It is impossible to prove scientific theories on the origin of the Universe. Asking someone to prove something that is impossible is being irrational. Believing in The Big Bang Theory is a kin to believing in creationism as it's an irrational leap of faith without any evidence. It's a poor theory, that doesn't even address the origin or 'maintenance' of the Universe. When we get to the creation of the universe our understanding completely breaks down, every theory proposed has been debunked. That is a fact. We will never know the origin of the Universe and if we ever found out we'd be long dead by the time we could transmit that data back to Earth. Strongly having a belief based on no evidence because something is widely accepted is just another form of religious belief.

Quite a number of theists have been the recipient of that question from me so far in my life. Not one of them, just like yourself, has an answer to it that is not either circular reason, or based on one of the known fallacies.

Much easier I guess to take the approach of being anti-scepticism. Just declare the position you want to hold to be somehow default..... or that people already "know it is true" as you did in one thread..... and deride the very position of being sceptical of it. You see, you might not know this, but very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.

A better stance to take would be to accept that you don't know and won't ever know so don't hold strong opinions on something you neither understand or could ever comprehend.

nozzferrahhtoo

Akesh wrote: »

You're asking for proof yet it is almost impossible to provide proof of such instances. You either believe it happened or you don't but there is no way you can prove an encounter without witnessing it yourself.

I hope it is not a lot to ask, but it would be very kind of you to read my posts before you reply to them. You claim here "You're asking for proof" while replying to a post where I SPECIFICALLY and at some length went into the fact I actually do not ask for "proof".

As for whether I believe people had such experiences or not, that is a different question. It is not that I "believe" them or not. I have no real reason to doubt they had such an experience. They probably did. But that does not mean them thinking they had an experience of a god actually means they did. Just like someone who sees lights in the sky and decides those lights were an alien space craft.... this does not make it evidence that aliens are visiting our planet.

You see there is a difference of some magnitude between an experience a person (claims to have) had.... and the conclusions they leap to off the back of those experiences. I can entirely and wholly be sceptical of the latter while not at all being required, as I am not interested in, being sceptical of the former.

Akesh wrote: »

This is another irrational argument. Man has only seen a minuscule fraction of the Universe. It is impossible to prove scientific theories on the origin of the Universe. Asking someone to prove something that is impossible is being irrational.

Nothing irrational about it at all. The irrational thing is THEM making nonsense and unsubstantiated claims. All I have done to such people is say "You have made a claim..... do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support that claim?"

And the answer has been a consistent and clear "No". They don't have a shred of it.

As for claiming it is impossible, that is your claim not mine. I do not know what is possible or impossible to substantiate. I remain entirely open minded on that. There was a time we might have thought proving the existence of the atom was an impossibility. But we did just that.

You can close your mind to what is possible and impossible if you like. I will remain open minded and simply hold to the simple axiom that if someone makes a claim..... they should be the ones to substantiate it.

Akesh wrote: »

We will never know the origin of the Universe

Same thing as above. You can close your mind if you want. I have no interest in it. I only can comment on what we know today. I do not, nor will I ever, pretend to know the future like you do. What we MIGHT or MIGHT NOT know tomorrow..... neither of us can say with honesty. Only one of us is pretending to know things we actually don't. Clue: It aint me.

All we can do as a species is keep striving for more data, more evidence.... and work with that.

Akesh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hope it is not a lot to ask, but it would be very kind of you to read my posts before you reply to them. You claim here "You're asking for proof" while replying to a post where I SPECIFICALLY and at some length went into the fact I actually do not ask for "proof".

Maybe try reading you own post again.

As for whether I believe people had such experiences or not, that is a different question. It is not that I "believe" them or not. I have no real reason to doubt they had such an experience. They probably did. But that does not mean them thinking they had an experience of a god actually means they did. Just like someone who sees lights in the sky and decides those lights were an alien space craft.... this does not make it evidence that aliens are visiting our planet.

It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. What I said was that you cannot prove the experience either way.

You see there is a difference of some magnitude between an experience a person (claims to have) had.... and the conclusions they leap to off the back of those experiences. I can entirely and wholly be sceptical of the latter while not at all being required, as I am not interested in, being sceptical of the former.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you or suggesting otherwise.

Nothing irrational about it at all. The irrational thing is THEM making nonsense and unsubstantiated claims. All I have done to such people is say "You have made a claim..... do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support that claim?".

And the answer has been a consistent and clear "No". They don't have a shred of it.

Atheists make the claim there is no God, I've yet to see proof (both sides play this games). My point is that you shouldn't feel so strongly about something which you will never be able to prove.

As for claiming it is impossible, that is your claim not mine. I do not know what is possible or impossible to substantiate. I remain entirely open minded on that. There was a time we might have thought proving the existence of the atom was an impossibility. But we did just that.

I never suggested it was your claim, there is no need to be so defensive.

You can close your mind to what is possible and impossible if you like. I will remain open minded and simply hold to the simple axiom that if someone makes a claim..... they should be the ones to substantiate it.

Same thing as above. You can close your mind if you want. I have no interest in it. I only can comment on what we know today. I do not, nor will I ever, pretend to know the future like you do. What we MIGHT or MIGHT NOT know tomorrow..... neither of us can say with honesty. Only one of us is pretending to know things we actually don't. Clue: It aint me.

All we can do as a species is keep striving for more data, more evidence.... and work with that.

Perhaps you should brush up on your own scientific knowledge before making any more leaps of faith.

8kczg9v0swrydm

smacl wrote: »

You might want to check the veracity of the information in that particular book, given that even two of it's main contributors consider the figures exaggerated. More importantly perhaps, the vast majority of those who died were killed indirectly as a result of famine rather than directly by a communist state. This leads to the following observation by Noam Chomsky (source)

I'd suggest if you want to compare figures, e.g. against the genocide in the Albigensian Crusade you really need to compare number of people directly killed as a function of the total population at that point in time.

That aside, bringing up the evils of communism as a counter to the human slaughter carried out in the crusades is a very obvious red herring. One group committing atrocities is hardly excusable on the basis that other groups may have also done so.

Hi smacl

You are 100% correct in that Communist atrocities do not justify any other. What I was trying to show is that the 'look at what the Christians did 800 years ago!' line is a bit 'hmmm' when you look at the horrific fruits of atheistic Communism in modern times, continuing today. Even if we suspend our belief in the figures given in the Black Book of Communism, the other numbers I have found hover around the 100 million mark. Take 94 million from reason.com.

I deliberately say atheistic Communism because a rejection of the belief in God in an essential aspect of Communism. It is a core tenet. To quote Vladimir Lenin, one of the main Communist thinkers and a man who actually carried out a successful Communist revolution:

Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism".

Lenin: "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."

Now, if we can discern a cause between atheistic Communism and its high death toll. I think that the ideas of atheist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche can give us something to think about. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche talks about how once you get rid of the belief in God, your morality loses all underpinning. You are essentially free to make up a morality for yourself, because there is no longer any being necessitated upon you from the outside, no longer any natural morality to which you must subscribe to as a member of creation.

Before I get stoned or something, no, I am not saying that atheists are evil, immoral etc. Some are a lot more moral than some self proclaimed Christians. What I am saying is that atheism finds itself free to define a new morality. And this is exactly what the Communists did. The death of millions became, according to a famous Communist, statistics; all acceptable losses in the name of the progress of the Revolution.

A Christian is not free to do this. He sees himself as made in God's image and likeness alongside the rest of humanity. Always and everywhere he must render his brothers and sisters the charity and the respect they deserve. He shalt not kill. He shalt not bear false witness. He shalt not steal. He will love God above all else and his neighbour as himself.

Does this always happen? No. But any Christian who departs from Christ's moral teachings is, in a way, a bad Christian. He is AWOL and he is flying solo. Christ and His message cannot be fixed with the blame of the actions of such individuals.

Marhay70 wrote: »

So, in effect, what you are saying is that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent deity was unable to control his creation except by mass murder, then after 4000 years he decides to have another go trying a different method and fails miserably again. Not exactly a good reference for the job.
Without referencing numerous passages from the OT, which I really couldn't be bothered doing, I can tell you that, not only did God endorse the many barbaric acts carried out by the Israelites but actually designed a lot of them.
Incidences of slavery, rape, child abuse, cannibalism , human sacrifice etc, were all OK in his book.
Now, as I have said on numerous occasions I have no problem with whatever belief system anybody chooses to follow as long as they keep it out of my life but I find it difficult to accept the whitewashing act that many religious perform on the God of the OT, belief in which was often a matter of life and death for our forebears.

Hi Marhay

Yes, God was not able to control His creation. God would not leave people as deadpan automatons. He would not repent of His gift to humanity - our free wills. We are free and we can do whatever we want. Freedom is a precondition for genuine love therefore it must necessarily be so.

In the OT, God called out, begged, threatened and yes, punished (He is a just God), but the people did their own thing. As I have stated in my earlier post, the OT was a time when God was teaching humanity, weaning it away from ways and customs which were truly horrific. Yes, it took a long time. Yes, some dispensations were given (for example, divorce was allowed under Mosaic law). The fullness and beauty of Christian law would only be revealed by Christ. Christ was not having 'another go', He was completing what was already begun hundreds of years ago - smoothing out the pedagogical Old Law, perfecting it and, interestingly, making it more demanding ( for example, Luke 6:29 "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well").

Without referencing numerous passages from the OT, which I really couldn't be bothered doing, I can tell you that, not only did God endorse the many barbaric acts carried out by the Israelites but actually designed a lot of them.
Incidences of slavery, rape, child abuse, cannibalism , human sacrifice etc, were all OK in his book.

Sorry, but you will have to provide some evidence for this. I am no biblical scholar, but off the bat I can tell you that the things you mentioned received the harshest sentences under the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (bar slavery, but that is a separate discussion for a different day, I think).

Mark Hamill

Akesh wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. What I said was that you cannot prove the experience either way.

Which makes the experience indistinguishable from not having happened at all. In such a case, the reasonable position is to reject the claims about the experience until the "experiencer" provides evidence to support their claim.
That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Akesh wrote: »

Atheists make the claim there is no God, I've yet to see proof (both sides play this games). My point is that you shouldn't feel so strongly about something which you will never be able to prove.

Atheists reject theistic claims about the existence of god. As above, when someone makes a claim that (with all available evidence) is indistinguishable from the opposite of that claim, the correct position is to reject it.
How strongly an atheist will feel about a claim will depend on how strongly a particular theists believes their beliefs about their god should effect everyone else. Atheists on this board will likely generally feel strongly about Catholicism (given how much Catholicism interferes in Irish life) while feeling almost nothing about Norse theology, despite equally rejecting them.

Hotblack Desiato

Akesh wrote: »

Believing in The Big Bang Theory is a kin to believing in creationism as it's an irrational leap of faith without any evidence.

That is completely wrong.

Look up Hubble expansion, and three degree background radiation for starters.

Akesh wrote: »

Atheists make the claim there is no God

Wrong again. Atheists don't believe in any gods. That is not at all the same thing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Akesh wrote: »

Maybe try reading you own post again.

Well that's a nice throw away empty comment. If you want to show something I did not understand in my own post by all means do. Dropping this one liner and running away however is pretty weak. As I said, you claimed I asked for proof while responding to a post where I specifically explained I do not ask for proof. How that requires ME to re-read what I wrote is beyond me and, I suspect, beyond you too.

Akesh wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether you believe them or not. What I said was that you cannot prove the experience either way. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you or suggesting otherwise.

And what I said is that I do not care to, nor am I required to. I repeat, I have neither interest nor need to doubt their experience. It is solely and only the claims they make off the back of such experience that is of interest.

Take another case/example in point. There is a user on another forum I used to post on who makes claims at length about experiences he has had while meditating. He claims those experiences are evidence of a god. I do not doubt the experiences he claims to have had.

However there is another user who also used to post there, and who still posts on this forum boards.ie who has had all the same experiences and more. And he does not claim them to be evidence of god.

I have no cause to doubt either of them are being truthful about their experiences. However off the back of essentially the SAME experiences they make ENTIRELY different claims. What is interesting to me is whether either of them can further substantiate those claims.

One can. The other absolutely can not.

Akesh wrote: »

Atheists make the claim there is no God, I've yet to see proof (both sides play this games). My point is that you shouldn't feel so strongly about something which you will never be able to prove.

We always love it around here when people walk in and tell us what WE think. However when we are done pretending you are psychic your pretence is going to run into two firm brick walls.

The first is that many, if not most/all atheists around here do not fit or identify with the definition you have offered here. They identify not as people who claim there is no god. But as people who claim to not believe there is a god or to have seen any reason to think there is one.

The second is that I do not self identify with that term anyway so you are talking past me rather than with me. If someone ELSE wants to call me an atheist I rarely take issue with that. But it is not a term I use to describe myself. I find little utility for the term at all. Mostly in life we tend to identify people by what they ARE not by what they are NOT. "Atheism" is one of those few examples where people, historically I suspect for political and intimidation reasons, insist on identifying people by what they are not.

Akesh wrote: »

I never suggested it was your claim, there is no need to be so defensive.

It's not me being defensive, as I never said you said it was my claim. What I was doing was making it explicit how nonsense your claim is and how much I distance myself from such nonsense. It is absolute nonsense to claim to know the future. It is absolute nonsense to pretend to know what we will, or will not, prove or substantiate in the future.

We can have a two way adult conversation about the evidence and data we have TODAY if you want. If you can. But the moment you go into pretending to know what evidence and data we will, or will not, have in the future you have strayed into fantasy la-la land where I can not follow you.

Akesh wrote: »

Perhaps you should brush up on your own scientific knowledge before making any more leaps of faith.

You started your post like you finished it, with an empty substance free throw away one liner. I you want to address a scientific claim I have made that you think is false.... then do..... if you want to show something you think I believe on faith alone.... then do.... but an empty one liner like the one from you above is just throwing all your spaghetti at the wall in the hope something sticks. And that makes you look bad, not me.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nice of you to ignore/dodge my last post to you again.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

I deliberately say atheistic Communism because a rejection of the belief in God in an essential aspect of Communism. It is a core tenet.

The "core tenet" of religions, including state religions, is to reject and even attack and attempt to stamp out other religions. Communism in and of itself was not the issue here. The State Religion that built up around it is. Just like it is in North Korea where their state religion, much like Christianity, is built up around a personality cult based on a kid and his allegedly immortal and all knowing father.

There is nothing in atheism, humanism, or secularism that demands the destruction or even derision of other world views. You can not however say the same of many religions. Especially not Christianity when suspicion and derision of other gods is built right into the "Big 10" commandments upon which the religion originates.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

Nietzsche talks about how once you get rid of the belief in God, your morality loses all underpinning.

Except that is not true. All it loses is an underpinning in fantasy. It loses the pretence that it has, or requires, some objective underpinning external to us.

But I do not consider that a "loss", because it was fantasy nonsense in the first place. How can one "lose" what one never actually had?

The reality is that "morality" is nothing more than rules WE create to best serve the shared project of inter-personal relationships on a grand scale.

It requires no more underpinning than that.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

A Christian is not free to do this.

And that is harmful and toxic. A morality invented based on an imaginary being 1000s of years ago is not the same morality we require today. Times change. Technology changes. Society changes. People change. The world has changed. The fact you are not free to update and evolve your morality into a new one to match the times is a BAD thing, despite you sitting there presenting it as if it is a good one.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

He would not repent of His gift to humanity - our free wills.

Free will is not a given. In philosophy the subject is quite contentious with many people suspecting/suggesting we do not actually have it, and it is an illusion.

So before you start waving "free will" around as if it is evidence for a god (not that it automatically is, even if we did have it) perhaps you could move to evidence the claim we HAVE any in the first place?

8kczg9v0swrydm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And since you are back, any chance you could respond to my posts here and here?

All and sundry (and especially you, Mark Hamill:D),

Apologies, I am flat out working with something, it feels like from 6am to 9pm. I get to go on this about once a week at this stage. Hope that at least the rest of you are having a good summer.

Let's see.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I would love to see this reasoning.

Throughout history, some of the greatest philosophical minds came up with arguments for the existence of God based on reason alone. This means without recourse to the Bible or Tradition. Pagan thinkers like Aristotle and Plato believed in one God (although Plato believed He had a helper, called a demiurge). Edward Feser has a good summary of how Aristotle reasoned his way to this in one of his books.

Moving on, Aquinas had his 5 Ways of proving God from reason alone. Anselm of Canterbury produced an argument. Heck, even Descartes had two such arguments in the Meditations on First Philosophy (the famous 'I think therefore I am' book). Although, to be frank, Descartes' arguments were not great. Ah, the moderns.:D

The fact of the matter is that these great thinkers of history make people like Richard Dawkins look like a little puppy yapping away at their heels. Read them for yourselves. The quality of thought, the sharpness of argument, the precision of expression, the novelty of ideas... it is breathtaking with these men. No wonder that philosophy departments around the world will continue to teach Aristotle and Aquinas until the end of time, while people like Dawkins (sorry Rich) will be largely consigned to the dustbins of history.

But let's go with a fresh one I have been mulling over lately. Somewhat grim, I will base it on the phenomenon of 'demonic possession'. All these movies got me thinking.

a) It is a fact that thousands of people around the world experienced what in common parlance is called 'demonic possession'. What it entails is loss of control over the body, speaking foreign languages that a person did not learn, superhuman strength and bizarre and disturbing behavior. At this stage I am not saying demons are behind it, just that it is a fact that many people have experienced this situation with the above symptoms. They corroborate each other's story. Most people who have experienced this have had previous dealings with the occult eg ouijaboards, mediums etc.

b) It is a fact that many people have experienced relief from these symptoms not through medical intervention, but through spiritual means, in particular through the Catholic practice of Exorcism. Here, a priest of the Catholic Church commands demons to depart the afflicted, in the name of Jesus Christ. He has authority from his bishop to do this.

So at point x people experience certain gruesome symptoms. At point y an Exorcism is performed. At point z the person is healed. That is all for this point.

c) This condition is not a new phenomenon, nor did it die out. The ancient Greeks (who were not Christian) spoke of daimonion in their writings. Nowadays, we have a craze of demonic possession films. Ergo, it is a fact that 'demonic possession' is an established phenomenon with which humanity had to deal with since time immemorial and continues to deal with today.

d) As I mentioned before, cases of 'demonic possession' are associated with engaging in occult practices. Humanity had always associated this activity with sinister, spiritual forces (satan, demons, bad mojo, whatever). People who went through the ordeal, claiming to have been 'possessed', will admit to meddling with the occult. Any interviews with exorcists I have found always warn of the occult. We therefore have corroborating evidence. Ergo, we have solid grounds for giving assent to the proposition that the phenomenon of 'demonic possession' is, in fact, caused by demons.

e) If there exist tangible, spiritual representatives of evil, there must also exist the opposite, the good. Why would the supernatural only have an evil side where there is so much good in the world? Furthermore, what accounts for the fact that many sufferers of demonic possession, caused by demons (as per above), have experienced a relief of their symptoms after an Exorcism, where other remedies have failed? Moreover, if evil spirits exist, does the Christian God not best fit the description of their total opposite; a God continuously calling people to love, charity, mercy and peace?

There it is folks. This is just me airing my thoughts so please be patient if my ideas are not the clearest.:D

nozzferrahhtoo

Still dodging posts from me I see. How nice of you.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

Throughout history, some of the greatest philosophical minds came up with arguments

If you want to adumbrate the present the arguments, that is what Mark was asking you for. You have not done this. Instead you have chosen to laud praise on the quality of the minds that came up with the arguments you like.

Around here this is called the "Fallacy of appeal to authority". Basically this means that instead of presenting an argument, you appeal to the authority or quality of the people who make the arguments instead.

The appeal to authority fallacy holds ZERO weight on this forum.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

a) It is a fact that thousands of people around the world experienced what in common parlance is called 'demonic possession'.

It is a fact that things that have been historically ascribed to the Possession by demon have systematically been explained by science. And this process is not complete but is ongoing. There was a time something like Epilepsy was explained away in such ways. Just like crop failure was once explained away by angry gods or witchcraft.

So what you are doing here is jumping from your previous fallacy of appeal to authority, onto appeal to the fallacy of ignorance. This particular fallacy is where you point at something you can not explain..... in this case sudden strange behaviour by individual human beings.......... and then based on nothing but your ignorance for the ACTUAL explanation for that phenomenon.... you simply invent an explanation based on the supernatural or paranormal.

The appeal to ignorance fallacy is probably one of the only ones that holds significantly LESS weight around this particular forum than the appeal to authority one.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

What it entails is loss of control over the body, speaking foreign languages that a person did not learn, superhuman strength and bizarre and disturbing behavior. At this stage I am not saying demons are behind it, just that it is a fact that many people have experienced this situation with the above symptoms. They corroborate each other's story. Most people who have experienced this have had previous dealings with the occult eg ouijaboards, mediums etc.

There are quite a lot of claims in this paragraph that could do with some actual evidence and citation to back them up. For example you very explicitly claim that "most such people had previous dealsing with the occult. Substantiate that claim please. Show me the figures. Show me the studies that contain numbers on how many people suffered from such sudden changes in behaviour and how those numbers were compiled and how it was establish how many of them..... let alone "most"..... had occult dealings.

Because based on your post alone you appear to have simply made it up.

Further how do you know people were speaking languages they did not learn? Again how did you establish this? For example I have had that claim made explcilty made to me in the past by people who claim to have directly experienced someone speaking another language. Specifically it was greek and latin in these cases. I asked them how many of THEM speak Greek and Latin. None of them did. At all. So when I asked them how they knew the "possessed" person was speaking those language.... they were completely and instantly stumped.

What had ACTUALLY happened was one of them had arbitrarily decided that it sounded like the nonsense the person was speaking reminded them of what they IMAGINED greek/latin to sound like. So they had simply decided that must be what it was.

Further we used to have a user posting around here who claimed that reincarnation was a real thing. I once asked him for his single BEST example of it as evidence. He came back with his "best example" of a young girl who suddenly started speaking a long dead language that he claimed she was A) Speaking Fluently and

could not possibly have learned as it was long dead.

5 Minutes research into his "best example" turned up two interesting pieces of information he had ignored however. A) People who have studied this long dead language said she was in fact NOT fluent at all but was speaking at the level of a toddler with learning difficulties. And

Her father was in fact one of the people studying this long dead civilisation and language. Suddenly not a shock or mystery how she might have learned it huh? The user in question, coincidentally perhaps, shortly later stopped posting here on boards. I have my guess why. But sure it is only a guess.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

b) It is a fact that many people have experienced relief from these symptoms not through medical intervention, but through spiritual means, in particular through the Catholic practice of Exorcism.

It is also a fact that despite it being only water, people have experienced relief using homeopathy. Which kind of.... pardon the pun.... dilutes the veracity and power of your claim here.

There are many reasons but three very strong reasons why things like homeopathy, exorcism and other snake oil equivalents bring relief to such people.

The first is what we call "Regression to the Mean". This sounds fancy but it is just a technical way of saying that many people, sometimes most people, were just going to get better anyway. So the "snake oil" of choice was merely incidental/coincidental to the recovery. Had they done nothing, the recovery was going to be the same anyway.

The second is what we call "Placebo". This simply means that the "Snake oil" of choice appeals to the sick person in such a way that is facilitates their own recovery. And fuels their ability to facilitate their own recovery. And if the placebo is contextual, it will be more powerful. So if a person believes themselves to be possessed by a supernatural force, then a placebo presented as a supernatural cure is going to be more effective.

The third is nothing more than human care and attention. One of the powers of homeopathy for example is practitioners of it take much more time and care to listen to their patient, empathise with them, be with them, and simply be a human face for them than the average Family GP would do. And this simple human connection can be a huge factor in patient recovery.

So if you want to sell the idea around here that exorcism is actually doing anything more than any of this, you would have your work cut out for you. You would need to present, or even run yourself, a comprehensive study that "controls for" the factors I list above. For example performing 100 exorcisms the correct way, while performing another 100 incorrectly with an actor who is not in any way an actual priest, and see if the recovery figures differ.

I am yet to see any such studies run.

All of this does not even mention the fact of just how ridiculous a notion demonic possession is. These people are trying to tell me that demons are going to all the effort to take over a persons mind.... just so they can foam at the mouth, resurrect dead languages, and maybe say "Fuk" a lot? That seems a remarkably odd set of priorities for a demon of hell to be pursuing.

Similar for your alleged god. To invent such a massive universe, with billions of galaxies, each with billions of planets.... then to pick one of those countless billions of planets to populate with countless 1000s of life forms.... all so that he can pop down and admonish one of them not to gather sticks on the sabbath? It is a truely bizzare set of priorities for an all powerful deity. The priorities are in fact.... quelle suprise..... all too human it would seem.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

Any interviews with exorcists I have found always warn of the occult.

Well yeah, like duh. It's their wheel house. It's their income source. It is their narrative. OF COURSE they are going to warn of the occult. It is what they DO for a living. It's hardly like they are going to be going around warning of the dangers of Vitamin D deficiency like. Strangely enough people who go around selling Snake Oil cures go around warning of the dangers of "Toxins" too. It is how they drum up business for their manipulation nonsense and charlatanism in the first place.

They invest the disease AND the cure at the same time, and you are using their invention of the disease as evidence for the veracity of the cure. Circular reasoning much?

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

We therefore have corroborating evidence. Ergo, we have solid grounds for giving assent to the proposition that the phenomenon of 'demonic possession' is, in fact, caused by demons.

Not one word you have written above this sentence is evidence for the content of the sentence, no. Wanna try harder/again?

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

There it is folks. This is just me airing my thoughts so please be patient if my ideas are not the clearest.:D

Oh they are remarkably and perfectly clear. That is not the issue. The main issue is that clear as they are, they are unsubstantiated nonsense.

Mark Hamill

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that these great thinkers of history make people like Richard Dawkins look like a little puppy yapping away at their heels. Read them for yourselves.

Don't like arguing with dead people. You made the claim that the existence of God could be proven by reason alone, so lets stick to reasoning you are willing to provide yourself.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

a) It is a fact that thousands of people around the world experienced what in common parlance is called 'demonic possession'. What it entails is loss of control over the body, speaking foreign languages that a person did not learn, superhuman strength and bizarre and disturbing behavior. At this stage I am not saying demons are behind it, just that it is a fact that many people have experienced this situation with the above symptoms. They corroborate each other's story. Most people who have experienced this have had previous dealings with the occult eg ouijaboards, mediums etc.

And you fail at the first hurdle. It is not a fact, not in any meaning of the word. There is no evidence for the existence of demons, demonic possession, the ouijaboard is a toy based on the Ideomotor Phenomenon and mediums are all charlatans who use things like cold reading to con people out of money.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

b) It is a fact that many people have experienced relief from these symptoms not through medical intervention, but through spiritual means, in particular through the Catholic practice of Exorcism.

I'm sure you have a source for this fact.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

c) This condition is not a new phenomenon, nor did it die out. The ancient Greeks (who were not Christian) spoke of daimonion in their writings. Nowadays, we have a craze of demonic possession films. Ergo, it is a fact that 'demonic possession' is an established phenomenon with which humanity had to deal with since time immemorial and continues to deal with today.

Likewise for dragons, which were written about historically, biblically and ine many modern movies. Therefore dragons are real?

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

People who went through the ordeal, claiming to have been 'possessed', will admit to meddling with the occult.

And I'm sure you have sources for this claim too.

Ty Straight Villa wrote: »

e) If there exist tangible, spiritual representatives of evil, there must also exist the opposite, the good. Why would the supernatural only have an evil side where there is so much good in the world? Furthermore, what accounts for the fact that many sufferers of demonic possession, caused by demons (as per above), have experienced a relief of their symptoms after an Exorcism, where other remedies have failed? Moreover, if evil spirits exist, does the Christian God not best fit the description of their total opposite; a God continuously calling people to love, charity, mercy and peace?

There is exorcism in many contradictory religions, like christianity and Islam and Hinduism. And they all claim equal effectiveness in their rituals against demonic possession. As I said already :
Isn't it funny how most all religions say this and yet all expect people to arbitrarily come to the conclusion that their specific religion is the right one. Even funnier is that people who do this, tend to come to the conclusion that the religion they were raised in is the right one. Almost as if it's not really a case of chirstian god given faith, and more a case of childhood indoctrination.

They can't all be right, be they can all be wrong.

You responded to my second post, but missed the first one here.

zimmermania

You can convince people of the existence of god by providing some evidence,good luck with that.

A_Lost_Man

When a fart comes, pray to god to stop the fart, if fart stops then god exists, if could not stop then god is not there only fart

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Evidence" which is not empirical is not evidence.

Could you prove that?

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a big IF though given you have no example of a single case where we can verify that happened.

The size of the IF isn't established by it's failure to jump through an arbitrary hoop. This hoop: "empirical (we) verification" hasn't the authority to comment. That authority exists only in your mind, a product of whatever philosophy went into constructing it.

Anyway, the issue was logic. IF / THEN. And if God then belief logical...

You haven't a darn thing that can comment objectively on the likelyhood, probability or otherwise of that IF being the case or not. It can comment of course, vociferously and eloquently at times or like Dawkins at other times. But it's talking out it's arse in the end: it has nothing to actually provide solid purchase on the question.

Other than by measure against it's own bootstrap rules and assumptions. It is a belief system at your root. And that belief system, does what belief systems very frequently do: they protect their own god.

Only people who claim it to have happened. And if THEY believe in a god that is fine with me. The moment they expect anyone else to believe in a god however they should realise just how uninteresting, useless, and misleading their self revelation is.

I would say the same about your philosophies. By all means believe what you want. But don't be too surprised if not everyone bows at the same empirically unverifiable altar that you do.

You do know that it is only your claim about your philosophies that holds you afloat? They aren't to be proven.

And philosophies and religions have a tendency to shape society. And so it's not quite a matter of live at let live. Is it.

Contrary to the straw man all too many theists I have met want to sell, most atheists in my experience (in fact just about all but a few exceptions I can think of) do not actually care if any given individual believes there is a god or not. Personal faith is just that.... personal. And it should stay that way and not be attacked or derided by the likes of me or anyone else, until such time as perhaps their personal faith does them harm at which point perhaps we can step in and attempt to remove it.

We? We the folk who have the truth or some such?

That is one of the reasons I LONG ago stopped demanding "proof" for god. It was a childish request that I grew out of. If someone wants me to think there is a god, or act in some way based on that assumption, I have a VERY specific sentence I employ that makes my demand both more general and more specific at the same time. You have been the recipient of this sentence many times I think, but I am happy to repeat it given you have not answered it yet:

Do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that lends any credence whatsoever to the claim that the creation and/or ongoing maintenance of our universe or it's contents are the results of the machinations of a non-human intelligent intentional agent?

Quite a number of theists have been the recipient of that question from me so far in my life. Not one of them, just like yourself, has an answer to it that is not either circular reason, or based on one of the known fallacies.

Much easier I guess to take the approach of being anti-scepticism. Just declare the position you want to hold to be somehow default..... or that people already "know it is true" as you did in one thread..... and deride the very position of being sceptical of it. You see, you might not know this, but very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.

My approach - and it won't be the first time you will have heard me say it - is to stalemate. That is all. God will be proven by one person and one person only and that is God.

Someone says illogical to believe? I say its perfectly logical. If God..

You skip past that with your axe to grind and get your philosophy out to measure the size of the IF. But who has issued the calibration certificate for this particular measuring device called Empirical Verification? Well it seems no one has..

Oh dear.

Does the lack of calibration certificate for this measuring device mean God exists? No it does not. Does it mean God doesn't exist? No it does not. Does it mean any thing at all. No it does not.

The issue of God or not God is not to be decided upon finally by man. Man has no way to know if his measuring methods are accurate. Not you. Not me.

-

CS Lewis advised that when you don't know what the evidence proves, ask where the evidence points to. So here is a point.

Your longstanding demand for evidence/argument/proof/data of God is all on your terms. God, if he is to be permitted entry to your house, must meet and satisfy your demands.

Somewhere inside you you would have to accept that this is arse over tit. Whatever about the UGH you get from the idea of religion or the UGH you might get from the idea of a mind-reading-God. Whatever your model of God with his raping and pillaging and all the rest of your model. For all that, it is not fitting that the creator bow to the created. Which is what you demand. That he demonstrate himself to you on your terms. Not his.

Each and every sin is a derivative of the very first sin. The original sin. The original sin was about deposing God from the throne. Because man wanted to direct his own life. That is what Adam was up to. That is what you are still up to. That is what every sin is about: me having what I want no matter that it costs another. Me on the throne.

It's just a pointer: you sin all day long just like me. So you'll have ample chance to observe you on the throne in action! Whether or not it comes to form a proof for you is up to you and Him

nthclare

antiskeptic wrote: »

The size of the IF isn't established by it's failure to jump through an arbitrary hoop. This hoop: "empirical (we) verification" hasn't the authority to comment. That authority exists only in your mind, a product of whatever philosophy went into constructing it.

Anyway, the issue was logic. IF / THEN. And if God then belief logical...

You haven't a darn thing that can comment objectively on the likelyhood, probability or otherwise of that IF being the case or not. It can comment of course, vociferously and eloquently at times or like Dawkins at other times. But it's talking out it's arse in the end: it has nothing to actually provide solid purchase on the question.

Other than by measure against it's own bootstrap rules and assumptions. It is a belief system at your root. And that belief system, does what belief systems very frequently do: they protect their own god.

I would say the same about your philosophies. By all means believe what you want. But don't be too surprised if not everyone bows at the same empirically unverifiable altar that you do.

You do know that it is only your claim about your philosophies that holds you afloat? They aren't to be proven.

And philosophies and religions have a tendency to shape society. And so it's not quite a matter of live at let live. Is it.

We? We the folk who have the truth or some such?

My approach - and it won't be the first time you will have heard me say it - is to stalemate. That is all. God will be proven by one person and one person only and that is God.

Someone says illogical to believe? I say its perfectly logical. If God..

You skip past that with your axe to grind and get your philosophy out to measure the size of the IF. But who has issued the calibration certificate for this particular measuring device called Empirical Verification? Well it seems no one has..

Oh dear.

Does the lack of calibration certificate for this measuring device mean God exists? No it does not. Does it mean God doesn't exist? No it does not. Does it mean any thing at all. No it does not.

The issue of God or not God is not to be decided upon finally by man. Man has no way to know if his measuring methods are accurate. Not you. Not me.

-

CS Lewis advised that when you don't know what the evidence proves, ask where the evidence points to. So here is a point.

Your longstanding demand for evidence/argument/proof/data of God is all on your terms. God, if he is to be permitted entry to your house, must meet and satisfy your demands.

Somewhere inside you you would have to accept that this is arse over tit. Whatever about the UGH you get from the idea of religion or the UGH you might get from the idea of a mind-reading-God. Whatever your model of God with his raping and pillaging and all the rest of your model. For all that, it is not fitting that the creator bow to the created. Which is what you demand. That he demonstrate himself to you on your terms. Not his.

Each and every sin is a derivative of the very first sin. The original sin. The original sin was about deposing God from the throne. Because man wanted to direct his own life. That is what Adam was up to. That is what you are still up to. That is what every sin is about: me having what I want no matter that it costs another. Me on the throne.

It's just a pointer: you sin all day long just like me. So you'll have ample chance to observe you on the throne in action! Whether or not it comes to form a proof for you is up to you and Him

How do you know it's a him ?

Are you suggesting that the Abrahamic God is the alpha and omega ?

With all the different religions, cultures, different philosophical arguements etc

What makes you think that mythical sand demon from the middle east us the one and only God ?

karlitob

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I think real belief is very personal.

Like belief in fairies or unicorns? Or like the belief of some Americans that they can’t get Covid-19?

All beliefs are personal (‘real’ and I presume from your statement there is ‘imaginary’ belief also) as belief is subjective. It’s like saying all ‘Real’ smell is ‘very personal’.

karlitob

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I think a lot of people take comfort in the belief that when we die it's not the end and we just move on somewhere else to meet loved ones who have moved on previously. If that gives someone a sense of wellbeing then good luck to them I reckon.

As long as it doesn’t stop my child from going to a school that I pay tax for. Or my legislators having to pray to your god before they can represent me in a republic. Or that my local school doesn’t discriminate Hiring my fellow citizen who happens to be gay.

Besides that - off you go believing in the river Styx, I mean elysium - or whatever mad place that doesn’t exist.

karlitob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Logically?

If God exists and makes himself known to someone then logically they should believe in God.

The usual issue revolves around the nature of admissible evidence. If you believe in a philosophy which says that the only evidence on which you ought base conclusions need be empirical, then logically you will wonder about people who base their conclusions on other evidence.

This philosophy (about the exclusivity and primacy of empirical evidence) cannot, of course be evidenced empirically.

Making the belief that follows from it somewhat hollow and circular in its reasoning.

Rather than wonder why people believe in God, you should wonder about why you believe as you do, if you believe empirical evidence supreme and exclusive as a way of drawing conclusions.

Very often attack (of another's way) is seen as the best form of defence for ones own problematic way.

Surely you can evidence a burning bush empirically? Or a flood that wipes out all humanity and all animals (except a few). Or the parting of seas? Or virgin births. Or resurrections. Or assumptions to the heavens.

I believe as I do because of evidence and reason. I change my mind with new evidence and insights.

What I don’t do is believe in the suspension of the laws of the universe and then be told that I have a problem when someone can’t explain their beliefs in extraordinary events with extraordinary evidence.

This is classic moving the goalpost stuff. Since you argue on reason, logic and evidence then you say it’s a different reasoning that brings you to the point of belief. Yet for some reason one can’t explain how they don’t believe in the other 3000 religions that exist in the world, or religions that have gone before (Rome, Greece, Odin, Zeus etx) or how people happen to believe in the religion of their parents and the geographical place they were born.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Evidence" which is not empirical is not evidence.

Depends very much what you mean by evidence, as if you look at any definition of the word evidence it also includes notions such as bearing witness to an event or testimony. While this is based on observation, and hence empirical in one meaning of the word, it is not verifiable, so non-empirical based on other meanings.

From our good friends at Merriam-Webster

Definition of evidence (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: an outward sign : INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness
especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
in evidence
1: to be seen : CONSPICUOUS
trim lawns … are everywhere in evidence
— Amer. Guide Series: N.C.
2: as evidence

Definition of empirical
1: originating in or based on observation or experience
empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
empirical laws
4: of or relating to empiricism

I personally take the view that there are relatively few absolutes in this life and we're better of looking at probabilities. So for example I think the probability of Christian mythology holding true is infinitesimal, insofar that none of it's supernatural claims are verifiable and we have empirical evidence that refute many claims, e.g. Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, etc... We also have the fact that organised religion is a powerful mechanism for controlling society which leads to deeply vested interests in maintaining the mythology. For these and other reasons I find the notion of a Christian God watching over us to be utter horse manure and am of the opinion that an ever increasing number of people with any amount of choice in the matter are arriving at the same conclusion.

nthclare

karlitob wrote: »

Surely you can evidence a burning bush empirically? Or a flood that wipes out all humanity and all animals (except a few). Or the parting of seas? Or virgin births. Or resurrections. Or assumptions to the heavens.

I believe as I do because of evidence and reason. I change my mind with new evidence and insights.

What I don’t do is believe in the suspension of the laws of the universe and then be told that I have a problem when someone can’t explain their beliefs in extraordinary events with extraordinary evidence.

This is classic moving the goalpost stuff. Since you argue on reason, logic and evidence then you say it’s a different reasoning that brings you to the point of belief. Yet for some reason one can’t explain how they don’t believe in the other 3000 religions that exist in the world, or religions that have gone before (Rome, Greece, Odin, Zeus etx) or how people happen to believe in the religion of their parents and the geographical place they were born.

That's where I get confused, because we're only in the 2nd thousandth year plus of Christianity and who knows how many thousands of years other religions and cultures believed in some other story.

I was watching the movie "The Witch" the other evening and it pretty much revealed or portrayed how messed up Christianity really was and still is to a degree.

Perpetual guilt and living in sin.
Total control over people's thoughts actions and decisions.

There's a similar situation starting to snowball now without the God head and that's the PC culture and perpetually offended people who are shouting and roaring for people's lives to be ruined over silly joke's and harmless comedy which was in the past.
You've no control over the past or the future, but only the here and now.

And all this guilt and thought policing goes right back to the good old Abrahamic God indoctrination.

Witch Hunts and curtain twitchers are prevalent in our society, and it all goes back to the good old guilt and shame of the western God...

No doubt I'll have someone here, try to trip me up but that's my observation...

karlitob

nthclare wrote: »

That's where I get confused, because we're only in the 2nd thousandth year plus of Christianity and who knows how many thousands of years other religions and cultures believed in some other story.

I was watching the movie "The Witch" the other evening and it pretty much revealed or portrayed how messed up Christianity really was and still is to a degree.

Perpetual guilt and living in sin.
Total control over people's thoughts actions and decisions.

There's a similar situation starting to snowball now without the God head and that's the PC culture and perpetually offended people who are shouting and roaring for people's lives to be ruined over silly joke's and harmless comedy which was in the past.
You've no control over the past or the future, but only the here and now.

And all this guilt and thought policing goes right back to the good old Abrahamic God indoctrination.

Witch Hunts and curtain twitchers are prevalent in our society, and it all goes back to the good old guilt and shame of the western God...

No doubt I'll have someone here, try to trip me up but that's my observation...

I think you’ve a good point here. I wonder is it in human nature to hold up an ideal and moralise when people don’t meet it - be that priests or social justice warriors (who are another type of priest).

I reckon shame is the most powerful emotion - stands to reason why it’s used so much.

nthclare

karlitob wrote: »

I think you’ve a good point here. I wonder is it in human nature to hold up an ideal and moralise when people don’t meet it - be that priests or social justice warriors (who are another type of priest).

I reckon shame is the most powerful emotion - stands to reason why it’s used so much.

Absolutely and shaming people seems to be a human trait, it's like a wheel, Atheists shaming the religious and the religious shaming the Atheists etc

I'm not very popular in this forum because I'll stick it to them and the moderators don't like anyone who's asking any awkward questions or suggesting anything that upsets a people who are a bit sensitive.

But shame is a big thing at the moment, I've seen it here in the Atheism and Agnoticism forum the hazzards of belief.
And people taking the piss out of people's beliefs and maybe the hazzards of believing in something and it all going tits up.

A lot of Social Justice warriors are out there shaming a lot of people.

And a lot of Social Justice Warriors are Atheists so there's a commonology there.

You'll also notice that a lot of Atheists are left leaning too.

karlitob

nthclare wrote: »

Absolutely and shaming people seems to be a human trait, it's like a wheel, Atheists shaming the religious and the religious shaming the Atheists etc

I'm not very popular in this forum because I'll stick it to them and the moderators don't like anyone who's asking any awkward questions or suggesting anything that upsets a people who are a bit sensitive.

But shame is a big thing at the moment, I've seen it here in the Atheism and Agnoticism forum the hazzards of belief.
And people taking the piss out of people's beliefs and maybe the hazzards of believing in something and it all going tits up.

A lot of Social Justice warriors are out there shaming a lot of people.

And a lot of Social Justice Warriors are Atheists so there's a commonology there.

You'll also notice that a lot of Atheists are left leaning too.

And this is where I get defensive. I can see why you might think that considering the news that we ingest - but even if you believe in a god, you don’t believe in 3000 other gods. You’re as atheist as me. There are lots of atheists in all walks of life for a very long time in history.

There’s a difference between shame and ridicule. Freedom of speech allows ridicule and indeed encourages it. It is ridiculous, and therefore open to ridicule, that a woman conceived without having sex and birthed a divine god. That’s as ridiculous as Mohammad assumpting into heaven on a winged chariot. Or the Greeks gods living on a mountain above all of humanity.

nthclare

karlitob wrote: »

And this is where I get defensive. I can see why you might think that considering the news that we ingest - but even if you believe in a god, you don’t believe in 3000 other gods. You’re as atheist as me. There are lots of atheists in all walks of life for a very long time in history.

There’s a difference between shame and ridicule. Freedom of speech allows ridicule and indeed encourages it. It is ridiculous, and therefore open to ridicule, that a woman conceived without having sex and birthed a divine god. That’s as ridiculous as Mohammad assumpting into heaven on a winged chariot. Or the Greeks gods living on a mountain above all of humanity.

That's why being a moderate agnostic feels more relaxing to me.
I'm probably a heathen or pagan myself and have been at loggerheads on this forum and in the Christianity forum because of my so called trolling and uninteresting debating style.

I think people should be able to question thing's, and call it out as it is.

And being a moderate agnostic doesn't mean I'm better than any Atheist or Christian, I can be a dick or asshole the odd time and am aware of it.
We've all got defects of character and shortcomings, but I find there's a lot of people out there who think one dimensionally, basically like zombie's going through the motions.

That's what I love about art and philosophy and mythology it allows me to look at something in all different directions...

Calling someone delusional or a bad person because they believe or don't believe in something is what causes division and resentment.

Building bridges and understanding is how cohesion can be valued.

donspeekinglesh

nthclare wrote: »

Absolutely and shaming people seems to be a human trait, it's like a wheel, Atheists shaming the religious and the religious shaming the Atheists etc

I'm not very popular in this forum because I'll stick it to them and the moderators don't like anyone who's asking any awkward questions or suggesting anything that upsets a people who are a bit sensitive.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

But shame is a big thing at the moment, I've seen it here in the Atheism and Agnoticism forum the hazzards of belief.
And people taking the piss out of people's beliefs and maybe the hazzards of believing in something and it all going tits up.

nthclare wrote: »

What makes you think that mythical sand demon from the middle east us the one and only God ?

Pot, kettle? I would suggest that referring to the Christian God as a sand demon is precisely taking the piss out of the Christian belief system. In my opinion anyone coming onto an atheist and agnostic forum doing a hard sell on their religion should fully expect a fair bit of flak and rightly so. At the same time, comparing this to the actions of organised religion is a false dichotomy in the extreme. Freedom of religious expression is still a pretty novel concept in this country and most people have to accept that they'll have religion foisted on their kids via state funded education whether they like it or not.