Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

How do you convince people god exists?

1293031323335»

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭ smacl


    a) In this case, the blind man represents people who suppose that knowledge can only be obtained through empirical means. Any atheist here who includes empiricism in his world view is, for the purposes of the illustration, the blind person.

    Perhaps you could point out any such atheist to us here, as I rather doubt you'll find one. As an illustration of this, I would imagine every atheist and theist here would accept that Pythagoras' theorem represents valid human knowledge. Yet this theorem is built on a pure abstract notion of points on a plane, neither of which exist. While the theorem can be tested to a certain degree of accuracy using physical measurement, it can only be proven using abstract mathematics. It is common knowledge not obtained through empirical means and does not demand any faith to understand.

    Your argument combines a rather flimsy straw man with an obvious false equivalence. While you've repeated it ad nauseum, it has gained zero traction with anyone here while being solidly and repeatedly rebuffed by many posters.

    Mod warning: Continuing to trot this same argument will be considered soap-boxing and will be dealt with accordingly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Perhaps you could point out any such atheist to us here, as I rather doubt you'll find one. As an illustration of this, I would imagine every atheist and theist here would accept that Pythagoras' theorem represents valid human knowledge. Yet this theorem is built on a pure abstract notion of points on a plane, neither of which exist. While the theorem can be tested to a certain degree of accuracy using physical measurement, it can only be proven using abstract mathematics. It is common knowledge not obtained through empirical means and does not demand any faith to understand.

    It doesn't matter what you add to the list, the point remains the same. As soon as you set a line in the sand regarding what constitutes knowledge/evidence/truth/fact you are making a faith statement: "what I find I (or the royal we / folk with like mind) can approach is what is approachable"
    Your argument combines a rather flimsy straw man with an obvious false equivalence.

    I would have thought by now you have a) gotten b) begun to deal with the issue. I could list every -ism known to man and you could make that objection.

    While you've repeated it ad nauseum, it has gained zero traction with anyone here while being solidly and repeatedly rebuffed by many posters.

    The lack of traction here can say as much about you as me ..don't you know. What are you saying: it's a neutral jury here.

    Step up to the argument as made up top. Quit hiding behind the fact that I don't list each and every -ism that anyone here might adhere to for their definition of knowledge and how one might apprehend it.... each and every time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,426 ✭✭✭ karlitob


    a) In this case, the blind man represents people who suppose that knowledge can only be obtained through empirical means. Any atheist here who includes empiricism in his world view is, for the purposes of the illustration, the blind person. "We" would be that group of people who have access to information that the blind man, by virtue of his blindness, has not. These would be theists who know God exists.

    b) The issue is not what the "we's" know. The issue is what the blind man knows. And in this case, he is limited to what he can perceive with his 5 senses.

    c) Combined: we can conclude that if some people know God exists (and that knowing need not be empirically derived) then the fact that empiricist atheists can't see the evidence of God is really a reflection on empiricist atheists inability to perceive, not on people who know God exists.


    What we have on this forum, I propose, is blind people hopping up and down asking for evidence of something they simply can't see. And when it isn't forthcoming, they suppose the problem lies with another and not with them.


    -

    Overarching point: generally, empiricist atheists suppose that they occupy the higher ground. That somehow or other, their philosophy about what constitutes evidence / sight / etc. is actually objectively true. Or if not objectively true, then the biggest kid on the block

    Their position is actually a faith based position though: they can't show that their belief about evidence and the primacy of their philosophy about evidence and perception of same, is true. They can only believe it to be the case.

    Which is amusing: faith based empiricists looking down their nose at faith based theists!


    To be fair, the repetitiveness of these points is getting fairly annoying.

    Stop saying that my atheist position is a faith or faith based. I’ve told you this is incorrect a number of times.


    If you think you know something that the rest of us don’t - and can’t provide any evidence, except that you know. Then fine. I hope something like that doesn’t happen to you in the real world and effect you in any negative way - you know, being found guilt for a crime you didn’t commit because the accuser ‘just knows’ you did it. Unfortunately, believers like you have affected my life and many others, affected lives of people now and in the past, just because of your belief in some magical gender neutral person in the sky.


  • Registered Users Posts: 341 ✭✭ Dionysius2


    Well lots of people know things that are not true at all and that's because they equate belief with truth.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭ smacl


    The lack of traction here can say as much about you as me ..don't you know. What are you saying: it's a neutral jury here.

    Mod warning: I would remind you that you are on an atheist forum where belief, faith, knowledge and evidence have commonly well understood meanings that you would appear not to share. Your line of reasoning has been soundly rebuffed and rejected by many posters here with no small amount of patience. At this point your continued repetitions are drawing complaints for soap-boxing that the mod team consider justified. Any further repetitions of these arguments will draw immediate sanctions. I would also note that you're just coming off a ban for this type of behaviour. If you wish to discuss this further, we have a feedback thread for that purpose, do not discuss in-thread here. Thanks for your attention.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,497 ✭✭✭ antiskeptic


    karlitob wrote: »
    To be fair, the repetitiveness of these points is getting fairly annoying.

    Stop saying that my atheist position is a faith or faith based. I’ve told you this is incorrect a number of times.

    The position that evidence is limited to what you yourself can perceive is a faith based position. I'm not criticising your faith - what else could you do?

    We just need to be clear it is faith based.

    Unfortunately, believers like you have affected my life and many others, affected lives of people now and in the past, just because of your belief in some magical gender neutral person in the sky.

    Everyone's belief has an impact on others. From belief comes shaping of society. You might believe it's okay to kill the unborn. You believe the unborn to be comparatively unimportant. That affects me, in the same way that people who are born being killed affects me.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,357 Mod ✭✭✭✭ smacl


    The position that evidence is limited to what you yourself can perceive is a faith based position. I'm not criticising your faith - what else could you do?

    We just need to be clear it is faith based.




    Everyone's belief has an impact on others. From belief comes shaping of society. You might believe it's okay to kill the unborn. You believe the unborn to be comparatively unimportant. That affects me, in the same way that people who are born being killed affects me.

    Mod: Antiskeptic is taking a short holiday from this forum having decided to pursue a line of argument after explicitly being told not to. Please do not respond to his post above. Thanks for your attention.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Bannasidhe


    The position that evidence is limited to what you yourself can perceive is a faith based position. I'm not criticising your faith - what else could you do?

    We just need to be clear it is faith based.




    Everyone's belief has an impact on others. From belief comes shaping of society. You might believe it's okay to kill the unborn. You believe the unborn to be comparatively unimportant. That affects me, in the same way that people who are born being killed affects me.

    MOD

    Again with the whole 'Faith' tangent. You have been told time and time again that lack of belief in a deity is not a 'faith'. You have been warned not to ascribe beliefs to other posters. You were instructed to stop soapboxing.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Bannasidhe


    The position that evidence is limited to what you yourself can perceive is a faith based position. I'm not criticising your faith - what else could you do?

    We just need to be clear it is faith based.




    Everyone's belief has an impact on others. From belief comes shaping of society. You might believe it's okay to kill the unborn. You believe the unborn to be comparatively unimportant. That affects me, in the same way that people who are born being killed affects me.
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    MOD

    Again with the whole 'Faith' tangent. You have been told time and time again that lack of belief in a deity is not a 'faith'. You have been warned not to ascribe beliefs to other posters. You were instructed to stop soapboxing.

    MOD

    I have requested the reversal of yellow card I issued only because smacl simultaneously issued a ban - which is a more fitting response.
    Going forward it will be bans of increasing lengths should mod instructions to stop soap boxing and begin discussing be flaunted.
    Telling other posters what they believe will also be considered soapboxing.
    Next time it will be a week.


  • Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭ jelem


    If your "religion\faith" has negative impact on me, then you and your
    faith\religion are wrong.
    a portion of humans need a comfort blanket as fail to "grow up".
    a portion of humans use faith\religion to gain\hold power for their
    own authority and wealth.
    like "moral" it is a human construct and take all humans off earth and there
    be no faith\religion or moral\s.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement