How do you convince people god exists?

Pherekydes wrote: »

No. Stop misrepresenting my position. Lack of faith is not faith. Lack of belief is not belief.

I do not believe god exists. I am not convinced that she exists.

You are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

“You don’t have enough faith,” Jesus told them. “I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it would move. Nothing would be impossible.” — Matthew 17:20

Come on now. Have you not moved any mountains recently with your faith in the absence of a god - any god. Or does your ungodly (or is it non-godly) faith not allow mustard seed mountain moving?

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The size of the IF isn't established by it's failure to jump through an arbitrary hoop.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. It is key. Either such things have happened or they have not. If you can not establish any such thing has EVER happened, then it is not admissible as anything other than navel gazing fantasy.

I have no issue with the claim you made. If a god reveals itself to a person that person's position on the existence of that god is going to be affected. If something happens that the person merely parses as a god revealing itself however, the effect is likely to be the same.

So unless we can show in any way whatsoever a god actually has done this, then pointing out the "IF" in your statement is anything but arbitrary. We have zero way to show that it was the former, not the latter, that has occurred. And worse, we have many many examples of the latter happening to our species and zero examples of the former.

This is an issue for your position on the existence of god, not mine.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

You are doing your usual vague dodge stuff here. You are complaining about my philosophies and positions without actually saying which view or position you are discussing. So you are flinging spears against which there is no defence given no one, probably not even yourself, knows what you are flinging them at.

If you have an issue with a specific claim or position I have espoused then have the decency to be clear about which one it is when you are attacking it, so I know what I am responding to. The text from you above says precisely nothing, about anything. It is like the Dawkins discussion which you have seemingly now left. You were attacking positions YOU claimed he held while adamantly refusing to offer any actual specifics so we could see what it was you (thought you) were attacking.

It is a very disingenuous, dishonest, and bad faith way to communicate and I really wish you would stop doing it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

"We" as in anyone who has identified a harm is in play and feels motivated to remove it. This can, and hopefully should, include the believer themselves. If they themselves believe something and this belief manifests in their world, or the world around them, as a genuine harm.... then the "we" of which I speak can and I hope would include that believer too.

As I said personal faith should remain personal, both in terms of the person who believes it and the people who do not, until such time as a genuine harm arises. The problem many/most/all atheists seem to have, especially in activist organisations like Atheist Ireland.... is not with the beliefs themselves but in how they manifest in our world and how they are used.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My approach - and it won't be the first time you will have heard me say it - is to stalemate.

That would certainly explain the motivation behind the "disingenuous, dishonest, and bad faith way to communicate" I referred to above so it is nice of you to openly admit this. You basically admit you have no interest in open honest conversation. That your entire approach to conversation is to stale mate it. That says everything about you, and nothing about anyone else thankfully. Stalemating a conversation is.... to me at least.... indistinguishable from soap boxing however which is, as you know, against the forum charter here. So I will try to progress the conversation rather than stale mate it, so I at least do not fall foul of the mods.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You skip past that with your axe to grind

I have no such axe that I am aware of. So you are straw manning again, likely just to stalemate. My only interest is in discourse, honesty, and truth. The former two being the best ways I know of to attain the latter one. All I want to know is what is true about the universe, our world, and our existence in it. I seek tools that are most likely to assist me in that endeavour, and I reject tools that are least likely to assist.

Merely making things up, declaring them to be true by default, declaring that everyone else knows they are true by default, and then setting myself against the "sceptic" of my asserted truths..... is not an approach I can accept. It is YOUR approach demonstrably. But it is not an approach I have ever seen discern any actual truth about reality and so it is not a tool I seek to adopt.

The only one who has an axe to grind therefore is you. It is right there in your username. You have an axe to grind in being "Anti" anyone who is sceptical of YOUR asserted and declared by fiat truths.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does it mean God doesn't exist? No it does not.

Wonderful therefore that I, and pretty much no one else on this thread, appears to be claiming god does not exist then. Just that we have seen ZERO (least of all from you) argument, evidence, data or reasoning that suggests it does.

The only people, as you can see from a user nearly directly above me, claiming god does not exist is the occasional theists who wanders in to claim it vicariously on our behalf by putting words in our mouth and claiming to know what we think/believe better than we know it ourselves.

Does it mean any thing at all. No it does not.

Getting back to the original post.

There's ways of convincing people that they might believe you that God exists.

Take someone who's vulnerable and they're at rock bottom, such as an addict, alcoholic or just in plain old trouble and locked up in jail.

They're introduced to Religion , told if they do certain rituals and believe in a diety their lives will prosper on an enhanced level, nothing to do with a better materialistic lifestyle but more towards peace of mind and self acceptance.

Now they may end up leading a more trouble free lifestyle and let go of their past and build bridges and gain a meaningful standing in society.

Does someone need a God to better themselves, of course they don't there's a lot of different ways of getting help and learn how to help themselves and redeem their character.

I'm sure a lot of Atheists here know more about religion and Christianity than myself and some Christians that post here.
And ye are probably blue in the face from debating about the existence of God.
That's ok too.

There's probably a lot of money to be made in America by being a superstar pastor and spouting lies to the masse's, many of us could do it.
All it takes is courage and confidence, but none of ye would lie to people obviously.

Organised religion is basically an organisation, there's always a leader and the majority of the time anyone who leads are more than likely control freaks and have alterior motives.

So there's certain people who can be convinced that something that doesn't exist exists.

Don't mind your Russell's teapot or spaghetti monster analogies, that's not going to work with a lot of Theists.

The only way to salvation from the God head is self realization that there's no bearded man in the sky listening in or watching you constantly.

Pherekydes

SouthWesterly wrote: »

You believe God doesn't exist.

I do NOT believe that she does exist.

nozzferrahhtoo

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Examine the teachings of Jesus Christ and obey them, then you've a different story and effect in the world.

I think that is an awful idea. To examine one human being and live exactly like them or "obey" them. We are enlightened and educated humans and get to do more than that. We get to look back at ALL the characters from our history, and their ideas, and construct a world view based on the best of them. INCLUDING the Nazarene.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Btw, Jesus brought it further by saying hate was the same as murder. Lust, as adultery.

That is one of the reasons I would not emulate him entirely. I agree with some of his ideas. I disagree with others. I would STRONGLY disagree with the above for example. The claims above parse as complete nonsense to me.

Worse, he appeared to espouse a position against thought crime. Likening thoughts internally of things like lust and desire, to actual adultery. That is thought crime.

No way, no how, no thanks. As the German song for children says "Die Gedanken sind frei". I can think and feel whatever the hell I like. My thoughts and feelings are not crimes. Nor are they immoral. It is what I DO with my thoughts and emotions and desires that define me as a moral being.

What Christianity appears to be doing is creating an imaginary disease and a cure for that disease at the same time. A nice marketing ploy. If you convince people their perfectly natural thoughts and desires are some how thought crime, and then sell following the path of this Jesus guy as salvation from that..... that's a marketing move. Nothing more.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Your lack of faith is as much faith like it or not. No atheist has ever been able to proved to me that God doesn't exist, despite my asking.

Often you will find that this is because you are asking them to prove a position they neither hold, nor have espoused.

I am not sure why we periodically get theists coming into this forum to tell us what we think. We want to hear what YOU think, that is how conversation works. But when you walk in and tell us what we think.... and then disagree with someone when they tell you what they actually think..... then you are not conversing. You are straw manning, misrepresenting, and engaging in bad faith. Is that you emulating Jesus somehow? If so, you can keep it.

My position is not that I claim a god does not exist. My position is that I have never seen a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasons to suggest one DOES exist so I A) Do not believe there is one and

proceed in life under the rubric that one does not exist.

None of that is me claiming / believing there is no god. It is me operating without a belief in god. You would do well to learn the difference.

Or you could continue to pretend to know what people think, better than they themselves do. Unsure how far / what that will get you however.

Pherekydes wrote: »

I do NOT believe that she does exist.

So you don't believe that God doesn't exist.
That leaves 2 options.
1. You don't know, whether God exists or no... Agnostic
2. You believe God exists but refuse to acknowledge that existence.

But if I was really to the letter, since you refer to God as "she", you're referring to a different entity that the one I refer to. Therefore you've not answered my original point.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

So you don't believe that God doesn't exist.
That leaves 2 options.
1. You don't know, whether God exists or no... Agnostic
2. You believe God exists but refuse to acknowledge that existence.
.

So you don't believe that Pink Unicorns exist.
That leaves 2 options.
1. You don't know, whether Pink Unicorns exists or no... Agnostic
2. You believe Pink Unicorns exists but refuse to acknowledge that existence.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

So you don't believe that God doesn't exist.
That leaves 2 options.
1. You don't know, whether God exists or no... Agnostic
2. You believe God exists but refuse to acknowledge that existence.

Sorry, but that is flawed logic. If I say that "I don't believe God exists" what that means is that I have no reason to believe that god exists, there being no substantive or strong evidence to support such an assertion, but in the highly unlikely case that such evidence presents itself I will change my position. Note that you can substitute any piece of mythology, pseudoscience or random unevidenced fantasy for God in this argument and it remains the same.

The difference between saying "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" is more than just semantic. The former is not a statement of belief, the latter is. For following well worn chart illustrates this, where my position above is one of moderate atheism

atheist%2Bscale.png

Bannasidhe

SouthWesterly wrote: »

So you don't believe that God doesn't exist.
That leaves 2 options.
1. You don't know, whether God exists or no... Agnostic
2. You believe God exists but refuse to acknowledge that existence.

But if I was really to the letter, since you refer to God as "she", you're referring to a different entity that the one I refer to. Therefore you've not answered my original point.

What exactly are you trying to achieve with this frankly schoolyard tactic of word twisting and semantics crushing?

Do you think this is some amazing Gotcha moment and people here will think gosh, I never thought of it like that - my lack of belief is a belief therefore I believe and if I believe I must believe in the existence of God?

It isn't.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think this is some amazing Gotcha moment and people here will think gosh, I never thought of it like that - my lack of belief is a belief therefore I believe and if I believe I must believe in the existence of God?

As somebody once said, if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly are you trying to achieve with this frankly schoolyard tactic of word twisting and semantics crushing?

Do you think this is some amazing Gotcha moment and people here will think gosh, I never thought of it like that - my lack of belief is a belief therefore I believe and if I believe I must believe in the existence of God?

It isn't.

It's very reminiscent of the posters who try to prove that atheism is really just another religion, or that atheists are just believers in denial or going through a very extended teenage rebellious phase... :rolleyes: or will convert if they find themselves in a foxhole, or on their deathbed :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Needless to say, all of this has been heard here before hundreds of times, and is still as entirely unconvincing as it ever was... but theists do say "God loves a trier"...!

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's very reminiscent of the posters who try to prove that atheism is really just another religion, or that atheists are just believers in denial or going through a very extended teenage rebellious phase... :rolleyes: or will convert if they find themselves in a foxhole, or on their deathbed :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Needless to say, all of this has been heard here before hundreds of times, and is still as entirely unconvincing as it ever was... but theists do say "God loves a trier"...!

Ah come on now, it wasn't so long ago when Atheism Ireland were trying to get together on a Sunday and have a secular gathering.

In a day of the Sabbath too.

Atheism seems to get mixed up in education, politics, sexuality debates, scientific evidence of whether there's a diety or dietys etc

Maybe someday science will catch up with how people claim there's more to life than this realm.
Until then it's in limbo.

We've been programmed to think that there's more to life than this plane of existence.

Ye are welcome to plagiarise scientists or send on links to provide evidence that there's nothing but the here and now.

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

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, but that is flawed logic. If I say that "I don't believe God exists" what that means is that I have no reason to believe that god exists, there being no substantive or strong evidence to support such an assertion, but in the highly unlikely case that such evidence presents itself I will change my position. Note that you can substitute any piece of mythology, pseudoscience or random unevidenced fantasy for God in this argument and it remains the same.

The difference between saying "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" is more than just semantic. The former is not a statement of belief, the latter is. For following well worn chart illustrates this, where my position above is one of moderate atheism

I have to say, I'm very impressed that you have the tenets of your belief system so well mapped out.
Where do you fall into this?

There enough evidence to support intelligent design for those who are happy to believe that evidence. Those who don't believe we evolved from a primordial soup. Ive yet to see the evidence to support it. It's all hypothesis and supposition. Indeed much supports the nonsense of evolution but thats another thread.
Evolution/ atheism is as much a religion as creationism / theism and requires s certain amount of faith.

Bannasidhe

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I have to say, I'm very impressed that you have the tenets of your belief system so well mapped out.
Where do you fall into this?

There enough evidence to support intelligent design for those who are happy to believe that evidence. Those who don't believe we evolved from a primordial soup. Ive yet to see the evidence to support it. It's all hypothesis and supposition. Indeed much supports the nonsense of evolution but thats another thread.
Evolution/ atheism is as much a religion as creationism / theism and requires s certain amount of faith.

I have to say you seem to have a lot invested in convincing yourself that lack of belief = belief and lack of faith = faith.
Why is that?

Hotblack Desiato

nthclare wrote: »

We've been programmed to think that there's more to life than this plane of existence.

Agent detection is the inclination for animals, including humans, to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one.

nthclare wrote: »

Ah come on now, it wasn't so long ago when Atheism Ireland were trying to get together on a Sunday and have a secular gathering.

In a day of the Sabbath too.

Atheism seems to get mixed up in education, politics, sexuality debates, scientific evidence of whether there's a diety or dietys etc

Maybe someday science will catch up with how people claim there's more to life than this realm.
Until then it's in limbo.

We've been programmed to think that there's more to life than this plane of existence.

Ye are welcome to plagiarise scientists or send on links to provide evidence that there's nothing but the here and now.

Atheist Ireland are an organisation that promote atheism and secularism in Ireland. The vast majority of atheists in this country however are not members of Atheist Ireland, nor do Atheist Ireland have any kind of mandate to speak for all atheists in this country beyond their direct membership.

Given that most atheists in the country aren't members of Atheist Ireland it is wrong to point to this organisation as indicative of how atheists do or do not behave.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I have to say, I'm very impressed that you have the tenets of your belief system so well mapped out.
Where do you fall into this?

Which tenets are you talking about here? That atheists don't believe in a god or gods is not a tenet, it is no more nor less than the dictionary definition of the word atheist. That there are degrees of atheism and theism is also obvious and hardly construes a tenet of belief. If you ask someone if they believe in god, you'll gets as many saying 'kind of', 'sometimes' and 'not really' as yes or no.

There enough evidence to support intelligent design for those who are happy to believe that evidence. Those who don't believe we evolved from a primordial soup. Ive yet to see the evidence to support it. It's all hypothesis and supposition. Indeed much supports the nonsense of evolution but thats another thread.
Evolution/ atheism is as much a religion as creationism / theism and requires s certain amount of faith.

Been done to death on this forum already over many years, I suggest having a gander at the origin of specious nonsense thread is you'd like to review the numerous arguments and counter arguments. Alternatively, nip over to Wikipedia and see what they say about Intelligent Design. Without wanting to spoil it for you too much, suffice to say that unlike the theory of evolution, ID is pseudo-scientific bunk.

smacl wrote: »

Which tenets are you talking about here? That atheists don't believe in a god or gods is not a tenet, it is no more nor less than the dictionary definition of the word atheist. That there are degrees of atheism and theism is also obvious and hardly construes a tenet of belief. If you ask someone if they believe in god, you'll gets as many saying 'kind of', 'sometimes' and 'not really' as yes or no.

Been done to death on this forum already over many years, I suggest having a gander at the origin of specious nonsense thread is you'd like to review the numerous arguments and counter arguments. Alternatively, nip over to Wikipedia and see what they say about Intelligent Design. Without wanting to spoil it for you too much, suffice to say that unlike the theory of evolution, ID is pseudo-scientific bunk.

A tenet according to Cambridge is

the principles on which a belief or theory is based:

You don't believe in God, fine. You have a reason for that I assume, a belief upon which that's based.

To say you have none of the above is baloney.

Someone asked why the theists wander in here. The same could be asked why the atheists wander into the Christianity forum.
Apart from it not being one of the projected fora on boards and they are free to wander in, it seems to be just to tell the Christians how wrong they are.

nozzferrahhtoo

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Someone asked why the theists wander in here. The same could be asked why the atheists wander into the Christianity forum.

Assuming for a small moment you are talking about me (apologies if you are not, but since you decided to simply ignore my post to you it is hard to tell), you have made a disingenuous misrepresentation of what I asked. I did not ask "Why do theists wander in here" I asked "Why do theists wander in here and do X".

There is a huge difference between asking why theists wander in to do a particular thing..... and asking why they wander in AT ALL.

I did the former. For good reason.

You are pretending I did the latter. And I never would because theists are VERY welcome here in my view.

By your fruits you shall know them indeed. If this is how Christians act, you can keep your religion thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Assuming for a small moment you are talking about me (apologies if you are not, but since you decided to simply ignore my post to you it is hard to tell), you have made a disingenuous misrepresentation of what I asked. I did not ask "Why do theists wander in here" I asked "Why do theists wander in here and do X".

There is a huge difference between asking why theists wander in to do a particular thing..... and asking why they wander in AT ALL.

I did the former. For good reason.

You are pretending I did the latter. And I never would because theists are VERY welcome here in my view.

By your fruits you shall know them indeed. If this is how Christians act, you can keep your religion thanks.

Couldn't remember who posted it and hadn't time to scroll back looking.

As for wandering in. Ive been doing so since fairly early in the thread. Honestly , it's the same old rhetoric rehashed. I'm not sure if it has a purpose without the Christians wandering in.

No one here can disprove God and always put it back on the believer to prove Him.

I have my experience of Him. You don't and therefore He's not real to you or any other atheist. Lack of experience is not proof of non existence, it's just lack of experience.

Same can be said for pink unicorns, though I'm not sure anyone here has experienced them so not sure what the fascination is with them.

As for not replying to your post. There are other posts I didn't reply to either. Ive limited time so you're not special in not being responded to.

SouthWesterly wrote: »

A tenet according to Cambridge is

the principles on which a belief or theory is based:

You don't believe in God, fine. You have a reason for that I assume, a belief upon which that's based.

To say you have none of the above is baloney.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, the healing powers of crystals or Jedi mind force either. In fact there's a massive volume of superstitious, supernatural and nonsensical stuff that some people believe in that I don't and I'm guessing you don't either. This isn't a 'tenet of atheism', were such a thing to exist, it is a consequence of not believing wildly absurd assertions that are entirely unsupported by any sound evidence.

At the same time I have many strongly held philosophical, political and personal leanings, but these have nothing to do with atheism. For example, as a secularist I believe in freedom of and from religious expression. I also believe we should promote and expand human rights both locally and internationally. Politically, according to a questionnaire on boards some years back, I'm a left leaning liberal. None of these are 'tenets of atheism' as they are not commonly held by all atheists. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a god or gods. As already stated to you by numerous posters here, a lack of a belief is not a tenet.

smacl wrote: »

The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a god or gods. As already stated to you by numerous posters here, a lack of a belief is not a tenet.

Some people believe in Reiki. I accept there is a force behind it which I don't want to get involved with.

As for tooth fairies. We all know it's the Easter Bunny who takes the teeth. Too many sweets.
To say you don't have a tenet of belief is as fictional as the Jedi. You have a basis upon which you believe God doesn't exist.
Whether you accept that basis is a tenet or nots up to you but according to the dictionary it is or are you saying you have no basis for your belief in His non existence?

Refusing to accept He exists without any basis for doing so is if course a different discussion.

smacl wrote: »

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, the healing powers of crystals or Jedi mind force either. In fact there's a massive volume of superstitious, supernatural and nonsensical stuff that some people believe in that I don't and I'm guessing you don't either. This isn't a 'tenet of atheism', were such a thing to exist, it is a consequence of not believing wildly absurd assertions that are entirely unsupported by any sound evidence.

At the same time I have many strongly held philosophical, political and personal leanings, but these have nothing to do with atheism. For example, as a secularist I believe in freedom of and from religious expression. I also believe we should promote and expand human rights both locally and internationally. Politically, according to a questionnaire on boards some years back, I'm a left leaning liberal. None of these are 'tenets of atheism' as they are not commonly held by all atheists. The only thing all atheists have in common is that they don't believe in a god or gods. As already stated to you by numerous posters here, a lack of a belief is not a tenet.

I hear you and I think similarly.
But I love the idea of moving on to another existence, because I love life, different experiences and cultures.

Love the land,ocean and cosmos and I like the fantasy of different realms and dimensions and the sidhe Fairy Folk etc

I suppose God's to me are archetypes rather than real and I see how they've evolved in people's psyche and consciences...

It's very interesting, even the DC and Marvel characters are like god's in their own right.

Who's to say God's weren't superheroes of the old ?

Some had a sad ending others had a more heroic ending...

I can see how religion and mythology is so interesting, and to this day it's still popular.

nthclare wrote: »

Ah come on now, it wasn't so long ago when Atheism Ireland were trying to get together on a Sunday and have a secular gathering.

In a day of the Sabbath too.

Atheism seems to get mixed up in education, politics, sexuality debates, scientific evidence of whether there's a diety or dietys etc

Maybe someday science will catch up with how people claim there's more to life than this realm.
Until then it's in limbo.

We've been programmed to think that there's more to life than this plane of existence.

Ye are welcome to plagiarise scientists or send on links to provide evidence that there's nothing but the here and now.

Why do you find atheism so hard to understand. YOU are an atheist - you don’t believe in the existence of other gods. You’ve yet to acknowledge this point. It shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp that atheist just don’t believe in the existence of one more god than you.

karlitob wrote: »

Why do you find atheism so hard to understand. YOU are an atheist - you don’t believe in the existence of other gods. You’ve yet to acknowledge this point. It shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp that atheist just don’t believe in the existence of one more god than you.

I'm an agnostic, and no I'm not a God.

karlitob wrote: »

Why do you find atheism so hard to understand. YOU are an atheist - you don’t believe in the existence of other gods. You’ve yet to acknowledge this point. It shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp that atheist just don’t believe in the existence of one more god than you.

So you think you're a god!
If you're a god then you worship yourself.

As I said earlier, atheism is a religion.

nthclare wrote: »

I'm an agnostic, and no I'm not a God.

So you’re agnostic about
- Haile Selassie, the Emperor of Ethiopia between 1930 and 1974, as the Second Coming of Christ (Rastafarianism)
- wanka tankan
- Zeus
- xenu
- Odin
- Bacchus

monkeysnapper

A lady at work was trying to convince me god exist one day in canteen.... I asked her did she believe in aliens.... she got quite offended and said that was nonsense.....

I told her I didnt know if either exsist as I've had no personal experience with either but at least people have footage of some things that cant be explained.