Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

How do you convince people god exists?

1…2425272930…35

Comments

  • #782
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,030 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Mellor wrote: »
    The personality of god is made up my man. If they are wrong, it has no bearing on the existence of a god.

    We might prove every religion on the planet to be false and yet there still be a god, yes.
    But without any evidence it's pointless speculation.
    Sure. But it's humans collective arrogance to thing we are important to a deity over all other species and places in the universe.

    Absolutely. The idea that a universe more vast than we can comprehend was created just for us is beyond conceited.
    You can not play a sport, but you can't play a not-sport.

    However, you can believe the is no-God.

    Atheism is non-belief in any of the gods which have been postulated. That's it.

    Going further and saying that it is a fact that no gods exist is something else. This has been labelled Gnostic Atheism.

    Richard Dawkins says he cannot state for certain that no gods exist, but he regards the existence of any gods as exceedingly improbable :) hence Agnostic Atheism. Which is where the vast majority of atheists seem to sit, with a greater or lesser value applied to the 'improbability' variable.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #783
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Akesh wrote: »
    You can rule out pink unicorns all you want but that doesn't mean that at some point they didn't exist. Your beliefs aren't facts and that what you have done.

    You're wrong when you suggest we do have answers. The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact, it's a scientific theory. Obviously the argument of creationism has logical problems e.g. what created the 'creator', but until we know what happened, we can only speculate.

    What is extraordinary is trying to claim you have answers to questions that you don't understand. You ruling out something doesn't make it a fact.

    This is a good opportunity, perhaps, to look again at the meaning and usage of scientific terms.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

    In short, in science, theories explain facts.


  • #784
    Sam Quentin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,236 ✭✭✭Sam Quentin


    Still waters wrote: »
    What evidence ?
    The evidence is evident from the minute you were born. I wont even say from the minute you wake up.. it's much more amazing than that. The evidence is there for you from the minute you are born...
    Accept it, and live with it. Amen


    What evidence:: the fact that you can even think and speak..... Is a minute miniscule tiny bit of evidence for you. Can you not see that!?


  • #785
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,597 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    We might prove every religion on the planet to be false and yet there still be a god, yes. but without any evidence it's pointless speculation.

    Agree.
    So using "religion is incorrect" as proof there is no god is also pointless.
    Most of the eviedence/arguements so far in the thread are pretty useless.

    Atheism is non-belief in any of the gods which have been postulated. That's it.

    Going further and saying that it is a fact that no gods exist is something else. This has been labelled Gnostic Atheism.
    I'm aware of the precise meaning of Atheism. If asked, in everyday terms I'd label myself an atheist.

    Just because atheism overall the the lack of belief. That doesn't prove that no subset of atheism is a system of belief. Even in this thread, many people have stated there is no god. That's is Gnostic Atheism, as you pointed out. They many not the the majority in number, possibly the vocal majority. Some are possible ignorant or indifferent to the distinction.

    So I just don't see the point in getting sucked into an argument when a religious person refer to an atheist beliefs. It's kinda an irrelevant point overall, at least on the level of debate we see here.
    Sam Quentin wrote: »
    What evidence:: the fact that you can even think and speak..... Is a minute miniscule tiny bit of evidence for you. Can you not see that!?
    Chickens can think too.
    There are 25,000,000,000 chickens in the world, far more than the number of humans.

    Is there a Chicken God that created chickens in his image? But there is only one God! Therefore God is likely to be a chicken.


  • #786
    Akesh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭Akesh


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Sure it is possible that a deistic entity created the universe. We have precisely zero evidence that said entity ever interfered at any moment since, and since the possibility of such an entity cannot be proven or disproven, and it is outside of our universe and does not interfere with it, I regard it as an interesting but ultimately completely irrelevant question.

    I'm not sure what relevance this point has? I'm not making a claim here one way or the other.
    Atheists may or may not assert that there is/are no god/gods. But what they all have in common is that they do not believe in any gods
    .

    Again, not sure of the relevance. Nobody has questioned that.

    Not this fallacy again. Atheism is a belief system in the same sense that not playing tennis is a sport.

    It is a belief. It's not a fallacy. By your logic, not believing tennis exists is not a belief...
    In the absence of any evidence, asserting that they exist or existed is ridiculous.

    This is where you continue to argue based on your perception of what I believe and a failure to read what I have said. I'm not suggesting that a god exists or existed. I'm saying that you cannot state one has never existed.
    karlitob wrote: »
    This is just silly now.

    How can not believing in something make me a believer.

    It's very simple. You believe that a god has never existed. You cannot prove something did not exist. These are beliefs, not facts.
    I presume you believe in some form of magic man in the sky. How much contempt you must have in your own faith that you can equate your leap of faith with my absence of faith?

    No I do not, however, I'm open to the possibility of being proven wrong but I'm 99.99% sure that there has never been a god or creator.
    As another poster said here - this reasoning is the same as saying not playing tennis is the same as playing sport.

    That statement doesn't actually make any sense.
    I know you believers love to be told what to think but you can stop telling me what I do and don’t believe in.

    Don't make assumptions because people don't agree with you.

    You’re going back on your points regarding theories. I know we can test the theory of gravity. You had made reference to theories which don’t have any answers or questions that can’t be answered. I stated that we do have answers, and learning more all the time. The difference between religion and science is that science doesn’t state from self declared moral authority of what is right or wrong. It provides evidence and changes depending on the evidence. Science doesn’t stop learning. Religion says it already knows the answers.

    I can possibly state that there is no such thing as pink unicorns as a fact.

    Science doesn't always work that way, e.g. social sciences. But I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. The big bang is not a theory of origin. I'm not arguing against Science at all and you're deliberately mischaracterising my argument so I will leave it there.

    Mellor wrote: »
    Gravity is also a theory.
    I don’t think there’s any question over the existence of gravity. Being a theory doesn’t mean there is any doubt.



    Most scientific theorys are based on test results. Including the big bang.

    Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Gravity is a testable theory. The big bang only explains certain aspects of what we see but it's not a theory of origin and has no relevance to religion/atheism.
    pauldla wrote: »
    This is a good opportunity, perhaps, to look again at the meaning and usage of scientific terms.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

    In short, in science, theories explain facts.

    I'm not sure why atheists continually wave the big bang theory around as some of weapon against religion. I think you completely misunderstand what the big bang theory is and it doesn't explain the origin of the universe.

    Theories also attempt to explain facts but that doesn't mean that they do. There are a number of problems with the big bang theory but that is completely irrelevant to the atheism/religion argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,030 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Sam Quentin wrote: »
    What evidence:: the fact that you can even think and speak..... Is a minute miniscule tiny bit of evidence for you. Can you not see that!?

    But humans are not the only creatures on this planet (never mind other ones - for now) who can think and speak in their own way. It's evidence of evolution leading to the development of more complex creatures from simpler ones, that's it.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #788
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,030 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Akesh wrote: »
    This is where you continue to argue based on your perception of what I believe and a failure to read what I have said. I'm not suggesting that a god exists or existed. I'm saying that you cannot state one has never existed.

    Pretty ironic given what you say above that you'd put words in the mouths of others, then.

    BTW you are going nowhere with this "never existed" thing. If a god existed in the past but doesn't now, it's not much of a god, so it is reasonable to assume that any postulated god exists either eternally or not at all.

    Science doesn't always work that way, e.g. social sciences.

    Social sciences are not science.
    But I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. The big bang is not a theory of origin.

    It's a theory which describes the development of our universe from the earliest possible time. It doesn't make any claim as to anything outside of that which may or may not exist.
    I'm not sure why atheists continually wave the big bang theory around as some of weapon against religion.

    It rules out the possibility that our universe was created by a theistic entity who intervenes in that universe. It's a lethal weapon as far as theism is concerned. It does not rule out the possibility of a deistic creator, but I don't really care either way about that, it's unknowable and makes no difference.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #789
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,597 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Akesh wrote: »
    Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Gravity is a testable theory. The big bang only explains certain aspects of what we see but it's not a theory of origin and has no relevance to religion/atheism.
    It’s pretty simple, I’m not sure what part you don’t get.

    You claimed the Big Bang was not a fact, as it was a theory. Presumably that was an attempt to disprove or exclude its relevance.

    I pointed out gravity was a theory to highlight that being a theory doesn’t exclude something from being a fact.


  • #790
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    AllForIt wrote: »
    By virtue of the fact they exhibit it in the first place I suppose. And by other ppl exhibiting that same behaviour as well. If one person and only one person was noted for behaving in a specific way that no one else ever did, that would be unusual and unique. But I can't think of any human behaviour that is is practised by only one person and noone else, ever.

    Okay. But we throw certain categories of people into prison because they exhibit behaviours. These are natural, according to you ( exhibiting = natural). Therefore natural isn't sufficient reason to tolerate a behaviour. Which was your position. Mere naturalness makes it okay.


  • #791
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,030 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Behaviours which are harmful to other people. Duh.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Akesh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭Akesh


    Mellor wrote: »
    It’s pretty simple, I’m not sure what part you don’t get.

    You claimed the Big Bang was not a fact, as it was a theory. Presumably that was an attempt to disprove or exclude its relevance.

    I pointed out gravity was a theory to highlight that being a theory doesn’t exclude something from being a fact.

    You're still wrong. It is not a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean something is factual. We still don't know how gravity works. I'm not sure why you're digging a hole for yourself here.

    Nice strawman argument though.


  • #793
    Akesh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭Akesh


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Pretty ironic given what you say above that you'd put words in the mouths of others, then.

    BTW you are going nowhere with this "never existed" thing. If a god existed in the past but doesn't now, it's not much of a god, so it is reasonable to assume that any postulated god exists either eternally or not at all.

    That is not an argument. I never said a God existed in the past and doesn't now.
    Social sciences are not science.

    I agree but many consider it a science.
    It's a theory which describes the development of our universe from the earliest possible time. It doesn't make any claim as to anything outside of that which may or may not exist.

    No, it's not. It's a theory of our observable universe form the earliest known period. They key words being known and observable.
    It rules out the possibility that our universe was created by a theistic entity who intervenes in that universe. It's a lethal weapon as far as theism is concerned. It does not rule out the possibility of a deistic creator, but I don't really care either way about that, it's unknowable and makes no difference.

    No, it does not. Please stop with this indoctrinated atheist nonsense. I suppose you know what dark energy is so making a statement like that?!! :pac:


  • #794
    Mellor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,597 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Akesh wrote: »
    You're still wrong. It is not a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean something is factual.
    Please point of where I said a theory means something is factual? If you actually read what I said, it was that being a theory doesn’t exclude it from being factual. I didn’t think there was anything complicated in that. So either you’re comprehension is lacking, or you are misrepresenting because you can’t counter it.
    Nice strawman argument though.
    absolute irony.


  • #795
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,030 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Akesh wrote: »
    That is not an argument. I never said a God existed in the past and doesn't now.

    No but you started a frankly very silly line of argument about somethiing not existing now and having no evidence of it ever having existed as opening up a possibility it could have existed in the past. So what. And in relation to a supposed god, it's ridiculous. How can a god exist, and then cease to exist?
    No, it's not. It's a theory of our observable universe form the earliest known period. They key words being known and observable.

    Given that two months ago on this thread you described the Big Bang theory as akin to creationism, I find it impossible to take you seriously on this subject.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113804366&postcount=490
    No, it does not. Please stop with this indoctrinated atheist nonsense.

    :pac:
    I suppose you know what dark energy is so making a statement like that?!! :pac:

    Whatever it is, it isn't god that's for sure.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #796
    Plode
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39 ✭Plode


    Mellor wrote: »
    We are an incredibly self centered species, with a massive sense of self importance. That applies to Theists and Atheists alike btw. If a creator created the whole universe, then we are one of the harmful parts.

    That's Original Sin, right there.


  • #797
    Plode
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39 ✭Plode


    PHG wrote: »
    Spooky like what?

    I assume you have read all 12 gospels too, not just Matthew, Mark, Lake and John?

    All the New Testament, much of the Old.


  • #798
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    karlitob wrote: »
    Everything based on science.

    No it's not. The beauty of a vista, pleasing architectural lines, the fact my son loves me. There is no proof of these things. Indeed, someone might find ugly what I find beautiful.

    Anyway, the issue is "you have no proof" says nothing. So what if I have no proof of something? That doesn't mean I can't know something is the case.



    The burden is on you to provide the evidence (extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence)

    It is an extraordinary claim to suppose that my lacking a proof means I can't know something to be the case. Make no mistake: I've no intent to demonstrate my claim God exists. Rather, I counter the view that I can't know God exists.

    A person who has religious convictions about the scope of science ("everything is based on science") can believe a proof is necessary in order to know something. But they can't prove their belief.


    Is it possible that I know God exists - even whilst not being able to prove it to you?


  • #799
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    Is it possible that I know God exists - even whilst not being able to prove it to you?[/quote]

    Good question, I would say of course it is possible for you to know.

    Although to add to that I would ask you, if I don’t know God exists and you (or indeed anyone) is not able to prove it to me, why would I believe it?


  • #800
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Good question, I would say of course it is possible for you to know.

    A hobby horse answer. As in: rare as around here.

    Although to add to that I would ask you, if I don’t know God exists and you (or indeed anyone) is not able to prove it to me, why would I believe it?


    You wouldn't. Or, in my view at least, shouldn't.


  • #801
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    A hobby horse answer. As in: rare as around here.





    You wouldn't. Or, in my view at least, shouldn't.

    I agree entirely, So once my views are not forced on you and affect your way of living and your views are not forced on me and affect my way of living we’ll be grand.. sounds easy doesn’t it........

    I do like the debate sometimes but it’s so circular it’s ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    bobbyy gee
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,300 ✭✭✭bobbyy gee


    In the old days they used to torture them
    https://historycollection.com/snap-crackle-pop-torture-methods-of-the-spanish-inquisition/


  • #803
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,030 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It is an extraordinary claim to suppose that my lacking a proof means I can't know something to be the case.

    If we cannot agree on the axioms of discussion then there is no basis for discussion, which renders your posts entirely pointless unfortunately.
    A person who has religious convictions about the scope of science ("everything is based on science") can believe a proof is necessary in order to know something.

    Yet again we're back to the tired old "atheists are really religious" fallacy.

    You can cling to that belief, if it makes you feel better, but it's clearly false.

    Accepting the tenets of logic and science is the basis of rational thought. It is in no way a religion or akin to a religion.
    Is it possible that I know God exists - even whilst not being able to prove it to you?

    It is possible for you to fully believe that you know, but the human brain is remarkably good at deceiving itself. It's why we had to develop the protocols of logic, science and reason to filter out facts from "intuition", "feelings", "gut", and "I know something but can't prove or demonstrate it."

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #804
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭nthclare


    Being an agnostic pagan, I don't believe in the Abrahamic God.

    But I believe in the fact that some religious messages have good intentions and do help people who are stressed out or down in the dumps.

    That's probably the advantage that religion has over Atheism, Atheism = there's no God Religion is bull****. Atheism has no other advantages it's Just there's no God.
    That's it. Full stop

    Religion = there's hope and if you're feeling down, say a few prayers and maybe you'll feel better soon.
    Prayer and meditation help's a lot of people,it may be a placebo but feck it, it sometimes helps.

    There's thousands of God's and some of the stories are quite creative and Epic

    So The advantage of religion is it's more interesting than NOTHING.

    Atheism is just "There's no God" thats it.

    Paganism is very interesting and I enjoy reading about mysyics and they way they can embrace the dark night of the soul etc
    Even if it's all untrue,it's interesting.

    What's so interesting about "There's no God" ?


  • #805
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rock77 wrote: »
    I do like the debate sometimes but it’s so circular it’s ridiculous.

    Is it? Scroll back and see which user's messages he "mysteriously" didn't reply to.

    Discussion gets ridiculous when one party makes a habit of getting out of it.


  • #806
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    nthclare wrote: »
    But I believe in the fact that some religious messages have good intentions and do help people who are stressed out or down in the dumps.

    Would it upset you to know that the EXACT same sentence is used when people sell homeopathy? Faith healing? Spirit contacts? Fortune tellings?

    Feck you could even MUG someone and use that sentence :) You could have good intentions towards the person you are mugging who seemed "down in the dumps" or otherwise someone who might benefit from your.... shall we say... beneficent attentions?


  • #807
    Vincent50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11 ✭Vincent50


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    How do you in history?


    And how do you do it now?

    With all the evidence etc.

    Why do we even have a term Atheist, after all we don't have terms for people who don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy (well apart from adult) so why should a person who does not believe in something that does not exist have to have a label?


  • #808
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Is it? Scroll back and see which user's messages he "mysteriously" didn't reply to.

    Discussion gets ridiculous when one party makes a habit of getting out of it.

    Sorry I didn’t really mean the debate here or with posters here. I meant the debates I have with friends or family (or my wife after a few drinks!)

    One party kind of has to get out of it to be honest because they believe in something they can’t prove exists.

    Now if their belief in this thing they can’t prove exists doesn’t impact on others in a negative way then there would be no issue.


  • #809
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,550 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Sorry I didn’t really mean the debate here or with posters here. I meant the debates I have with friends or family (or my wife after a few drinks!)

    One party kind of has to get out of it to be honest because they believe in something they can’t prove exists.

    Now if their belief in this thing they can’t prove exists doesn’t impact on others in a negative way then there would be no issue.

    Its a very arbitrary thing 'if it doesn't affect people in a negative way'. War affects people in a negative way, yet its legal. One mans negative is anothers positive. Clerics abused kids / clerics set up hospitals and schools.

    What you mean is: so long as I think it a negative way.


  • #810
    jaxxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,225 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    Judaism: circumcision of the young boys

    Certain branches of Islam: circumcision of young girls

    In any reasonable minded person's mind, both are forms of genital mutilation. Should you choose to then do so as an adult, fine. But forcing it on a young child all in the name of blind faith?

    But keep on believing in your so-called "god".


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    jaxxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,225 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    Here's my own twist on an old quote by a scholar some 2000 years back:

    Religion is a drug for the common, a tool for the powerful and a cancer for the world.


Advertisement